Just Another Essay-Puteri Gunung Ledang (2/5)

PART 2-Puteri Gunung Ledang: goddess and demon

The first part of this essay established the story most associated with Puteri Gunung Ledang, of the proposal of the Sultan of Melaka and eventual rejection. It may seem that the Sultan’s proposal is too ambitious, insane even, but it may not be as such. The marriage between mortal and immortal is quite common in legend and literature, such as the numerous romantic affairs of Greek gods with mortal women. In classical mythology, the goddess Aphrodite fell in love with the mortal youth Adonis, the god Cupid with Psyche, while in the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, men from a lower’ race, such as humans, would fall in love and marry a ‘higher’ or nobler race such as the Eldar, or elves. These unions include Beren and Luthien (the Silmarillion) and of Aragorn II and Arwen Undomiel (the Lord of the Rings).

In this light, it would not be surprising to see the proposal of the Sultan of Malacca to Puteri Gunung Ledang as a kind of symbolic marriage ritual between ruler and indigenous goddess, later abandoned by the Sultan due to the taxing demands it placed upon the ruler and kingdom, or abandoning a complex ritual for a relatively simpler creed.

Mulaika Hijjas in ‘The Legend You Thought You Knew’, interestingly forwarded this theory, by comparing the Malacca-Gunung Ledang proposed union with that of Java, namely the ritual of symbolic union or alliance between the kings of Mataram and Yogyakarta with the Ratu, or Nyai Roro Kidul, Queen of the South Seas:

“Ultimately, both Puteri Gunung Ledang and Ratu Kidul may originally have been indigenous chthonic deities who became associated with the Hindu goddesses Durga and Kali and /or the Tantric Buddhist Tara.”

This view of Puteri Gunung Ledang being a remnant of an ancient goddess was also forwarded by earlier scholars, such as R.J. Wilkinson in Malay Beliefs (1906):

“The old Menangkabau religion appears in some measure to have been a worship of every localized divinities, the Gods of particular mountains and rivers, deities, in fact, like the Fairy Princess of Mt. Ophir near Malacca. This last Goddess is represented as having dwelt in a lovely garden on the summit of the great mountain, as having been guarded by a tiger, and as being in possession of the power of changing her appearance…”

Also, Wessing in The Soul of Ambiguity: the Tiger in Southeast Asia (1974) suggested an origin of Puteri Gunung Ledang as an Indianized nature divinity, due to her association with the forest, mountain, and feared beasts such as the tiger:

“According to Provencher (1984: 142ff), this princess, Puteri Gunung Ledang, may have been the consort of a Hindu god who has the animistic ability to change to change into a tiger when she is threatened. Either she herself in tigrine form or her tiger familiar act as a spirit helper to a well known shaman.”

With the advent of Islam in the region, however, the role of Puteri Gunung Ledang as goddess has been reduced, first to a respected spirit or enchanted fairy, but ultimately transformed to a demonic entity, consorting with were-tigers, sorcerers and ghosts.

By the time of the story in Sejarah Melayu, the Puteri Gunung Ledang was already ‘demoted’, a respectable figure, but ultimately whose demands of propitiation could be ignored by the king.

Even the Portuguese chronicler Tome Pires, while writing the Suma Oriental around 1512-1515, noted this view of Puteri Gunung Ledang:

“(While passing by Nias island) They say that opposite of Priaman there is an island where there are only women and they have no men, and that they are got with child by others who go there to trade and who go away again at once and that others are made pregnant by the wind. This opinion is held by the people of these parts in the same way on the enchanted queen in the hill of Malacca calledGulom Leydam. The people believe in this, as others believe in the Amazons and the Sybil in Rome.”

And eventually, she was a kind of proto-hitchhiker, in her old woman disguise, whose stories are still heard even at the end of the 19th century, as recorded by R.O. Winstedt (1951):

“A were-tiger guards even the Fairy Princess of Mt. Ophir, who reclines in a cave, a beautiful girl on a couch of dead men’s bones. Some relate how every morning she appears as a girl, every noon as a woman, and every night as an old bedlam. One legend tells how in the guise of a hag carrying a cat, and a long bag of saffron, she will ask boatmen on the Gemencheh river (in Negeri Sembilan) for a lift: if it is refused, the boat runs aground; as soon as she is taken abroad, it glides off. When she leaves the boat, she gives each man a piece of saffron that turns to gold in his hand.”

This demotion of status of the Puteri did not stop at benevolent spirit. In time, due to the influence of monotheism, such as Islam and Christianity, the old goddess was relegated to an increasing demonology (not unique to the east and in religious texts. In the epic poem, Paradise Lost, by John Milton, the old gods of Greece and the Middle East were re-casted as fallen angels and demons that followed charismatic Lucifer).

In the early 17th century, Godinho de Eredia in his Declaracam (1613), the Puteri Gunung Ledang was considered a malevolent figure, a demonic threat to the Christians of Malacca. In Eredia’s words:

“The monte de Gunoledam resembles Mount Athlante on the Sybilline caves…thos this mountain (according to the story of the Malaios) retired the Queen Putry, companion of Permicuri, founder of Malaca: here the enchanted Putry remains for ever immortal and here she lives to this day by the magic arts.”

“She makes her home in a cavernous cave on the summit of the mountain, and here she lies on a raised couch decorated with dead men’s bones: she takes the form of a beautiful young girl, adorned with silk and gold.”

“…Farther away from this grove are the forests occupied by tigers who guard the Queen Putry…this story must be a fairy-tale; but the natives regard it as true…”

Fairy-tale she might be, but not to the Portuguese, who were harassed by the wild-men, or Banua (orang Benua), who he claimed to have learned the dark arts from the devil and the Putry, and in turn taught these arts to sorcerers and a special kind of demon-witch, called the ponteana. And these sorcerers would change into arymos and began harassing the Malaccan villagers. This would occur until 1560, when Dorm Jorge de San Lucia, first Bishop of Malacca, excommunicated the wild-men and sorcerers, and they ceased their attacks on the Christians.

By the 19th century, British colonial officers serving in Malaya would record an alternative view of Puteri Gunung Ledang, but as a ghost princess in Bukit Jugra, such as recorded by WW Skeat in Malay Magic (1900):

“One of these sacred spots (mountains) is said to have been situated upon the “Mt. Ophir” of Malacca, which is about 4000 feet high, and on which a certain legendary princess known as Tuan Putri Gunong Ledang is said to have dwelt, until she transferred her ghostly court to Jugra Hill, upon the coast of Selangor.”

“It was on Jugra Hill, according to tradition, that the Princess of Malacca fasted to obtain eternal youth.”

And in this identity, she was most associated with the feared were-tigers, and ghostly entities:

“By far the most celebrated of these ghost tigers, however, were the guardians of the shrine at the foot of Jugra Hill, which were formerly the pets of the Princess of Malacca (Tuan Putri Gunong Ledang). Local reports says that this princess left her country when it was taken by the Portuguese, and established herself on Jugra Hill, a solitary hill on the southern portion of the Selangor coast, which is marked on old charts as the “False Parcelar” hill…”

And Skeat recorded the story vouched by a Mr. G.C. Bellamy, formerly of the Selangor Civil Service, of his place that was full of hantu, and while discussing with the Malays was interrupted by cried of thelangswayer, and the bajang:

‘But the Putri of Gunong Ledang holds the premier position amongst the fabulous denizens of the jungle on the hill…’

‘(In Jugra Hill) the lady remained for some time, and during her stay constructed a bathing-place for herself. Even to this day she pays periodical visits to Jugra Hill, and although she herself in invisible to mortal eye, her faithful attendant, in the shape of a handsome tiger (rimau kramat), is often to be met with as he prowls about the place at night…’

Her reputation transformation, from goddess to demon to fairy spirit also reflected in the way locals view her, especially in rituals such as mantras. These mantras originated from indigenous traditions, given a Hindu name, and turn to Hindu gods, and later Islamic figures as subjects of their petitions in their mantras, such as the Prophet Muhammad, the four Caliphs, the Nabi Joseph, Elijah, Khidir the Green, and the Archangels. Puteri Gunung Ledang was also invoked in these mantras.

Haron Daud’s wonderfully comprehensive work of 1071 pages, “Ulit Mayang: Kumpulan Mantera Melayu” (DBP, 2004), recorded at least two mantras about the Puteri Gunung Ledang. The first mantra is a pemanis mantra, one used to increase one’s beauty. Well, the first is not exactly about the Princess per se:

Merak Puteri Gunung Ledang, (Peacock of the Princess of Gunung Ledang)

Bertapa di Gunung Ledang (Who meditates in Gunung Ledang)

Naik seri muka aku (Increase the radiance of my complexion)

Berkat seri muka padaku (Bless my complexion with radiance)

Akulah yang manis (I who am of sweetness)

Berkat doa Lailahaillallah. (Blessings of the prayer Lailahaillallah)”

(Mantra by Mak Joyah, Jitra, Kedah)

The second mantra is no less interesting. It is an agricultural mantra:

Tuan Puteri Gunung Ledang

Kau jangan kacau padi aku ini (Disturb not my paddy)

Setakat ini sahaja kau makan padi aku (This is your share of my paddy)

Sekarang ini kalau kau makan pula (If you consume more than your fill)

Nabi Muhammad pun murka (the wrath of the Prophet is upon you)

Kalau makan lagi (If you consume more than your fill)

Nabi Muhammad murka pada kau (The wrath of the Prophet is upon you)

(Mantra by Dollah Awang, Machang, Kelantan)

The second mantra would also suggest another possible origin of Puteri Gunung Ledang, as an ancient rice goddess propitiated less she destroys the crops, but now demoted to a malevolent spirit subservient to the name of the Prophet.

(End of Part 2)

*Part 3: Puteri Gunung Ledang as human

*Part 4: Puteri Gunung Ledang in books and films

*Part 5: Bibliography

Just Another Essay-Puteri Gunung Ledang (1/5)

*Just felt like writing this essay. This is not an original work, as it is mostly based on the wonderful article by Mulaika Hijjas ('The Legend You Thought You Knew: text and screen representations of Puteri Gunung Ledang'), and an entry on 'The Fairy Princess of Mount Ophir' by Sabrizain.*

Last month, Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Dr. Khoo Kay Kim started a debate on BFM radio, questioning the existence of Laksamana Hang Tuah, and questioning whether one whose existence can't be proven should be put in a History book. Well, to be honest, he didn't start that debate. It's been going on for quite some time. Still, people disagreed. Scholars forwarded the idea that he existed, and other commenters argue that his existence doesn't matter, because he is an uplifting character (Dr Farish Noor), and we should market him like Sherlock Holmes (Wong Chin Huat) . The second group kinda missed the entire point of the debate, which is whether we should include a character whose existence is still disputed in History textbooks. And be taught as fact.

But I am not going into that now. That is for another essay. I am more interested in another character, which is almost universally considered a mythical figure. She is the Puteri (Princess) of Gunung Ledang. She, among other mythic figures in the Malay world, was given diverse identities throughout the ages. She was a queen. And a goddess. And a demon. And a man-killer. And the conscience of a people. In other words, she is what people wanted her to be.

1. Gunung Ledang

Let's first look at Gunung Ledang itself, the sacred abode of the Puteri. Gunung Ledang, located in Ledang district, Johor, near to Asahan, Melaka, is a lonely mountain 1,276 metre tall. It was, and still is, an attraction for tourists and naturalists that wanted to see the wonder of the mountain. Alfred Russell Wallace, the famous naturalist, went to the Malay Archipelago, he stopped at Gunung Ledang to study the flora and fauna of the mountain, and noted leeches, tigers and rhinoceroses (though no elephant), ferns and birds, pitcher plants that held warm water, the Coniferae of the genus Dacrydium, the fern Dipteris Horsfieldii, and the Matonia pectinata, ‘tallest and most elegant’. (The Malay Archipelago, originally published 1869).

Gunung Ledang was also, at one point, identified as Mount Ophir, the place in the Bible that produced gold for King Solomon:

“And Huram sent him by the hands of his servants ships, and servants that had knowledge of the sea; and they went with the servants of Solomon to Ophir, and took thence four hundred and fifty talents of gold, and brought them to king Solomon”.-2 Chronicles 8: 18 (KJV)

This identification might have happened due to the old identification of the Malay Peninsula as theChersonesus Aurea, or the Golden Chersonese, thus the producer of an abundance of gold. Even the Portuguese epic poem, Os Lusiades (The Lusaids) by Luis vas Camoes (1572), identified this part of the world as Ophir:

“From this (‘tis said) the Waves impetuous course,

Breaking a passage through from Main to main,

SAMATRA’s noble Isle of old did force,

Which then a Neck of Land therewith did chain,

That this was Chersonese till that divorce,

And from the wealthy mines, that there remains,

The Epithite of GOLDEN had annext:

Some think it was the OPHYR in the text.”

-Os Lusiades, Canto X, verso 124 (translated by Sir Richard Fanshawe)

However, the early Portuguese records, such as the Suma Oriental (Summa of the East) of Tome Pires (1515) and the Declaracam de Malaca e da India Meridional com Cathay (Descriptions of Malaca, Meridional India and Cathay) of Godinho de Eredia did not refer to the mountain as Ophir. Instead they used its native name (Gulom Leydam in the Suma Oriental, the Monte de Gunoledam in theDeclaracam). Later travellers, such as the Victorian Isabella Bird, mentions this link in the introduction of her book, The Golden Chersonese (1883), “The controversy respecting the identity of its Mount Ophir with the Ophir of Solomon has been ‘treshed out’ with out much result, and the supposed allusion to the Malacca Straits by Pliny is too vague to be interesting...”

2. THE Story

The story most associated with the Puteri Gunung Ledang character is, of course, the proposal of the Sultan of Malacca to the Puteri. The identification of the Sultan that proposer to the Puteri is still a problem, especially when the problem is caused by varied versions of the Sejarah Melayu, which records the story. The Sejarah Melayu, or Malay Annals, is not one unified codex, and it has no ONE authoritative version. Most versions we have today based their editions on the oldest extant copy, which is the Raffles 18 MS, which Raffles obtained from Raja Bungsu. There would be additions, added or rearranged chapters, and name changes that would later contribute to the multiple versions we have today (Prof Muhammad Yusoff Hashim puts the number of editions to at least 29). Famous editions of the book include translations by Leyden, Shellabear, Winstedt, Brown, A Samad Ahmad, and Muhammad Haji Salleh.

In one of the earliest published editions in the English language, of Dr John Leyden (1821), the proposer Sultan was Sultan Mahmud Syah, last (or penultimate, depending on how you define ‘Malacca’) Sultan of Malacca, one with a reputation as a cruel and wanton despot. This identification is supported by the Shellabear and A Samad Ahmad editions. However, in the versions edited by R.O. Winstedt, C.C. Brown, and later Malaysian scholars such as Muhammad Haji Salleh and Cheah Boon Kheng, the identification was with Sultan Mansur Syah, and the story placed in the middle part of the text rather than the end. Regardless, the story does seem to speak volumes of the Sultan’s ambition to marry someone like the Puteri (English text by Leyden-Chapter VIII (2), in parentheses by Brown-Chapter XII, italicised Malay texts by Muhammad Haji Salleh):

“It is related that the wife of Sultan Mahmud (Mansur)…returned into God’s mercy, and the kingdom was extremely afflicted…”

But not for long, as he was already seeking another candidate:

“The king replies, ‘I don’t want to marry a raja’s daughter…I want to ask the Putri of Gunong Ledang.” (‘We desire’, said Sultan Mansur Syah, ‘to ask for the hand of the Princess of Gunung Ledang…’).

The Sultan sent the Laksamana, Tun Mamad and Tun Setia to Gunung Ledang, but both the Laksamana and Tun Setia were unable to continue their journey once they arrived at the foot of the mountain. Tun Mamad climbed the mountain, and finally stumbled into a garden, where he met an old woman, named Dang Raya Rani, guardian (pengetuha) of Puteri Gunung Ledang. After conveying his mission statement, she disappeared, and later:

“Then came to him an old woman, hunched-backed, and bent threefold…”(‘Presently there appeared an old woman, bent double with age’) (perempuan tuha, bongkok lipat tiga belakangnya…)

Diceritakan oleh orang yang empunya ceritera ini orang tuha yang berkata-kata itulah Puteri Gunung Ledang menampakkan dirinya. (‘…According to the account we have received the old woman who spoke with Tun Mamad was the Puteri Gunong Ledang herself in disguise.’)

And this old woman presented seven conditions for the Sultan, which, judging from the list, is quite a roundabout way of saying ‘no’.

1. Jambatan emas, jambatan perak satu, dari Melaka datang ke Gunung Ledang. Flight of stairs of gold, and another of silver, from Malaca to Gunong Ledang (let him make for me a bridge of gold and a bridge of silver from Malaka to Gunong Ledang).
2. Hati nyamuk tujuh dulang. A moth’s heart seven platter’s broad (seven trays of mosquitos’ hearts))
3. Hati kuman tujuh dulang. A gnat’s heart seven platters broad (seven trays of mites’ heart)
4. Air pinang muda setempayan. A vat of juice of the young betel-nut (a vat of young areca-nut water)
5. Air mata setempayan. A vat of human tears (a vat of tears)
6. Darah raja semangkuk. One phial of the raja’s blood (A cup of the raja’s blood)
7. Darah anak rajanya semangkuk. One phial of Raja Ahmed’s blood (A cup of his son’s blood).

Needless to say, the Sultan got the message, not because he thought they were absurd and might be burdensome for the people of Malacca that might have to pay more taxes to support the construction of a bridge from Malacca to Gunung Ledang made of gold and silver (a quick note: Gunung Ledang is 50 miles (80 kilometres) east of Malacca), but:

“Semuanya dapat kita adakan, tetapi akan mengeluarkan darah anak kita itulah yang tiada kita adukan, karena tiada sampai hati.”

“All these requests may be complied with, but the taking of blood is an unpleasant business, and I have no inclination for it al all.”

(‘All that she demands we can provide, save only the blood of our son; that we cannot provide, for our heart would not suffer us to take it.’)

So there you have it, the famous story of the Puteri Gunung Ledang, whose demands make spoilt brats on My Super Sweet Sixteen seem like reasonable teenagers (wait, my mistake. She’s not THAT bad…). However, this is but one of many aspects of the Puteri, much of it would be discussed in later notes.

(End of Part One)

*Part 2: Puteri Gunung Ledang, goddess and demon

*Part 3: Puteri Gunung Ledang as human

*Part 4: Puteri Gunung Ledang in books and films

*Part 5: Bibliography

Writing A Literature Review

I knew this dreaded day had come,

Well, dread to me, (might not be to some),

Postponed before, but now I have to do,

The writing of the Lit Review

----------

Since my proposal had been admitted,

I thought I would be done with it, but

My supervisor, who might've said it with glee,

Would so emphatically disagree.

----------

My supervisor said to me,

'You are not done with it, you see,

There's the objective, and scope, and Lit Review,

And good ol' methodology too.'

----------

'Let's focus on the Lit Review,

Just to see if you actually have a clue,

Now look and read about one or two...

You know what? About twenty books would do.'

----------

So in the Main Library I roam,

And poured over many a book and tome,

With the optimism of someone who's never viewed

A Clockwork Orange (that film was totally screwed)

----------

But the books in our Main Library,

Are woefully behind the times, quite sadly,

I then realised, letting out a groan,

That I had to do inter-library loan.

----------

This loan thing is so leceh to me,

Though I know it is necessary,

So I did what I had to do,

And hopefully I'll be done with this Lit Review.

----------

But this writing was easier said than done,

As I see the red marks all over Draft Number One,

'You don't understand the meaning, or gist,

You must give proper "analysis."'

----------

And off to the How-To books I site,

To find out how to properly write,

And prepared Drafts Two, Three, Four, and Five,

And Six, and ...Ten (wait, where was I?)

----------

But finally it's worth the weeks much-spent,

My supervisor finally relents,

'I'm tired of proof-reading, I'll accept this work here,

'Still have to review this part after two years.'

----------

So now, I, though still can't quite believe,

I'm actually quite relieved,

But please don't spoil this short-lived fun,

By reminding me it's only Chapter One.

----------

End.

p/s well, technically, it's not Chapter One. It's just the Proposal Chapter. Chapter One is on the Background of Research Topic.

pp/s My Masters supervisor is really a nice guy, unlike the one referred to in the poem. Really.

Abolishing PPSMI-Our Government’s Magnificent Mistake (I just had to post this: NST kinda mangled my letter lol)

It seems the decision is final. The Government has decided to abolish the teaching of Mathematics and Science in English (PPSMI), ignoring the protests of the Parent Action Group for Education (PAGE), and even ignored the idea of providing options for those who wishes to learn the two subjects in English. Needless to say, many people are unsatisfied with the ‘explanation’ and ‘rationale’ of the government, which seem neither properly explained nor even rational, myself included. I know this letter might be ignored by the policy-makers, but I think it’s quite right for one who disagrees to point out why they do so, without being stifled under the pretence of ‘accepting the abolition with an open heart’ (refer to comment by the Kedah GPMS, NST 1 Nov 2011, page 6).

First, the decision of the government to abolish PPSMI was done after ‘considering all views’, according to our current Deputy Prime Minister. He never really told us if all views were fairly represented, or even those who voiced out their views are even qualified to do so. PAGE has good reason to voice their support for the policy, as they are parents concerned with the future of their children’s education, and are valid interested parties. Undoubtedly, there are also parents who are against PPSMI due to concerns for their children, but what business has Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, A Samad Said, Gerakan Mansuhkan PPSMI (GMP) and the Malaysia Linguistic Association (PLM) to make comments on this issue? Anybody is entitled to their opinion, but it seems quite stupid of the government to agree to the opinions of these groups, who are not even involved in the teaching of Maths and Science, and who, other than the pretentious title of ‘defenders of national language’ (refer to argument below), have nothing to contribute to this debate. This is true in the case of DBP, whose lack of production or even translation of proper scientific works for the past 30 years caused this dearth of Malay-language scientific reference books in the market and pushed Dr Mahathir to propose PPSMI in the first place.

And the decision to replace PPSMI with another policy is done without proper thought. What exactly does Upholding the Malay Language and Strengthening the Command of English (MBMMBI) mean? How does it differ from what we have today? Mastering language requires proper exposure to the language in conversational use, yes? Under PPSMI, students are more exposed to English, as they use and utilise the language in three classes (Maths, Science (and its branches Physics, Additional Mathematics, Biology and Chemistry), and English), while other subjects are taught in BM. So it seems PPSMI would achieve MBMMBI’s goals better than that policy itself, which means nothing more than ‘teaching Malay and English’, like we have always done.

Second, the opposition to PPSMI is argued by A Samad Said, DBP and other language groups as being a matter of ‘defending national language’, or BM. What a shameless thing for these people to do, standing behind the façade of ‘national’ language pride’. It would have been much easier to call it as a political move to score brownie points. Because it is political: simple as that. For one, these people, for all their talk about how the national language is suitable to teach all Malaysians, fail to censure politicians that support them for sending their children to study in private or International schools that teach in English, while labelling supporters of the policy from among the middle and lower class as ‘pengkhianat bangsa’. A different standard for the rich, it would seem…Second, their argument of defending BM as the national language for education means nothing as they voice no opposition to Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools, where BM is only used in teaching-well, BM, I suppose. Are they not worried about the scant use of national language there, especially when more Malay parents are sending their children to Chinese vernacular schools? Or is their silence regarding vernacular schools linked to the strength of the Chinese educationist movements and supporters? Regardless, their ‘defence’ of the national language rings hollow.

Third, the government’s arguments for abolishing PPSMI seem to have been based on flawed and false arguments. First, the argument that Dr Mahathir intended for PPSMI to be used to master the English language. What a blatant lie! Which government policy or speech did they cite to prove this argument? Dr Mahathir never intended PPSMI to be a tool to teach English. He only argued that mastery of Science and Maths are necessary for the development of a nation, and most advanced scientific and medical discoveries and works are available in English (unlike Dewan Bahasa, the Americans and English publishing companies voraciously translate works by leading German and Japanese scientists into English as well, making it available to a wider audience). Second, the argument that rural students could not cope with PPSMI as their parents and surroundings could not speak in English is baseless and patronising, to be honest. Is the government suggesting we teach English in BM as well? Obviously parents who can’t speak English at home can’t help their children in that language. That is what teachers are for. To teach the students, and help them understand the subjects. There have been some arguments that it is difficult to teach the students Maths and Science in a language they don’t understand, but seriously, how difficult is it to teach “one plus one equals two?” The way the opponents of PPSMI argue, you’d think they are teaching rocket science to Primary One students in the English of the King James Bible, which is not the case. They teach simple formulae to students in simple language when they are in primary school before proceeding to more difficult and complex formulae according to their levels.

Why was PPSMI introduced in the first place? It was because Dr Mahathir’s administration understood that it is important for a society to master Science in all its branches and Mathematics in order to become developed, and English is the language in which these advanced works are written in. One of the better ways to do so is to expose the young to Maths and Science in English early on, with an understanding of the complex scientific and mathematical jargon: an element which English, with its focus on grammar and literature, could not possibly address.

I do, however, concede to the government one strong argument against the PPSMI option. PAGE’s efforts for are noble, but I fear it’s not going anywhere. The government is right. It is quite difficult to provide the option of PPSMI in schools, as it would cause the swelling of teaching staff in schools merely to teach two subjects, and would force the cumbersome task of setting up different classes for the teaching of the two subjects in English for the students that opt to do so. PAGE should instead change their goal: they should propose the introduction of an English-stream school system for all subjects, including the subjects that form the Social Sciences and Humanities in university such as History, Geography, Islamic Studies, Moral Studies, and Economics. This proposal would provide PAGE with a more solid ground, as the language chauvinists that use ‘pengkhianat bangsa’ one too many times have no reason to oppose this proposal without opposing vernacular schools in principle as well, which they fail to do before due to politics. The English-stream school system is one option that would have my support.

History is written by the Victors? (An English translation of an older note)

"History is written by the Victors." We do not know who exactly said these words first. It might be Napoleon, or Winston Churchill, the latter an amateur historian in his own right. And this statement has been used by some groups, such as the anti-nationalists, the postmodernists or even politicians to reject "official" historical narrative, accusing them of being controlled, manipulated, wilful hiding of evidence by a Big Brother-like ruling establishment with full hegemony over the telling of history.

But this statement, like many of the statements made by the left-wing ideologues, has the annoying problem of not being adequately qualified with a proper definition, and it would have been laughed off by any respectable historian or history students who take their craft seriously. Let us try to answer the problems:

1. Is this statement even true? If yes, why? Or more importantly, so what? How does saying this statement dogmatically prove that history is false or untrue? Does the status of victory disqualifies the victors from telling or writing history at all? Why? What is the justification of this approach then?

2. With this statement, does this mean all history studied is merely evil government propaganda who wishes to control the past and defend their bias, and we historians must 'cleanse' and 'purify' history?

3. Let's consider 2 to be right, would this not mean that historians have already submit to their own bias when they decide to challenge "official" history? And if this happens, does this not open the 'clean' and 'pure' historians to charges of bias, thus disqualifying their writings like the "official" works they sought to denounce?

4. Let's take the postmodernist approach to history. History is merely perspective (as history is subjective and depends on the views of the 'victor'), and history itself is only wordplay and philosophy, with no importance attached to evidence, upholding the superiority of interpretation of evidence, or even more frighteningly, interpretation without the need for evidence itself.

5.If 4 is true, then history itself is untrue, and it could not be differentiated from fiction. But this could not be true, for we know the past is real, events did happen, and history could only be written with records and documents from the past, not pulled out of thin air and shaped to our will, according to the postmodernist view.

6. But I digress. Let us return to the main statement of history belonging to the victors. What does it mean to be a 'victor'? Who won what? What decides a group as a 'victor'? Victory on the battlefield? Victory in political struggle? Victory when one's view is accepted by the majority and becomes 'official' history, and thus becoming the 'history of the victors'? The term 'victor' itself is undefined, thus causing this confusion among the people.

7. If 'victor's history' meant one's view is finally accepted by the majority, then what use it is for us to question them, as if the victors are all evil and biased? for the struggle to challenge "official" history begins with the writing of 'alternative' history that one hopes will be accepted by the public.

8. However, when this happens i.e. when alternative history is accepted by the majority and the old official history is rejected, the logical outcome is alternative history would no longer become alternative, but official, thus becoming the "history of the victors" they despised so much. This is a flowchart to illustrate that fact:

Official history-->written by the victors-->biased and impure-->we must purify history-->introduction of alternative history-->accepted by many-->becomes official history-->written by the victors now-->biased and impure-->repeat.

9. If the people who threw around this meaningless statement actually studied their historiography (study of the writings of history), they would know such a statement is wrong and empty. If only military victors control history, then there would be no "The Peloponnesian War" by Thucydides, who wrote about the war from the perspective of Athens, who LOST the war with Sparta. If only political victors wrote history, then the United States would be viewed as a great and holy power who defeated the evil Axis empires in World War II, and their "official" historians would be prevented from writing about the discrimination faced by the Blacks in the military, and the unlawful detention of Japanese-Americans in detention camps in Manzanar due to racial prejudice.

10. The truth is much simpler. Historians, regardless of political, religious, ideological views of background, when they study history, they will eventually submit to the superiority of evidence. We are not lawyers, or sociologists, or a guy with a camera who manipulate evidence based on pre-conceived theories. Our theories are shaped AFTER all evidence have been observed and studied, and subject to peer review and even later revision when new evidence arises. In the end, there is no "victor's history". There is only "evidence-based history."