The Rapid Rejection of Post-UMNO Datuk Onn

 

The Rapid Rejection of Post-UMNO Datuk Onn
M. Bakri Musa
www.bakrimusa.com

 

Datuk Onn was a brilliant strategist and farsighted leader. Indeed he was so far ahead that he left his simple village followers behind.

 

     In 1951, just five years after he established and led UMNO, he quit the presidency of his young struggling party and left in a huff. The issue was over admitting non-Malays into UMNO. On the surface this would seem to be a liberal move to engage non-Malays in the political process and to make the party race-blind. Indeed many contemporary commentators are effusive in their praise of the man for his supposed foresight in thinking beyond communal lines and racial identity.

 

     I have a different take; I see his move as the earliest expression of Ketuanan Melayu (Malay Hegemony). Onn saw his move as a means to establish Malay control on the political process by co-opting non-Malays, in particular the Chinese, into his Malay party. The reason was obvious. A year or two earlier the Chinese community under the leadership of the staunchly anti-communist Tan Cheng Lock had formed the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA). To Onn, it would be much easier to “control” the Chinese politically if they were to be co-opted within UMNO than if they were to have their own separate party. Onn feared that the newly-formed MCA would not only be a formidable power but also be on par with UMNO in the anticipated negotiations for independence.

     As a preemptive political strategy, that initiative was stunningly brilliant. Obviously such a strategy could not be stated publicly lest it would lose its power. No Chinese would willingly allow themselves or their community to be trapped that way. Consequently Onn was unable to publicly enunciate his reasons to the rank and file members for this presumed “liberalization” of UMNO’s membership. The average UMNO members, being simple honest village folks, could not readily comprehend Onn’s subtle and brilliant strategy.

 

     Of note is that all in the senior leadership of UMNO then, in particular Razak Hussein who would two decades later lead the party, were in total agreement with and supported Onn.  They however, quickly capitulated when they read the mood of the membership. I do not know whether that was an expression of leadership wisdom or political expediency.

  
     Being the aristocrat that he was, Onn felt no compulsion to explain his thinking to the membership; he felt that they should just trust him implicitly. After all, it was his brilliant idea to form UMNO in the first place, and he was the one who single-handedly led the fight against the Malayan Union. So they (UMNO members) should simply trust his judgment on the wisdom of admitting non-Malays to the party. So when the membership rejected his initiative, Onn walked out of the party in a huff.

     Datuk Onn had a very high opinion of himself that went with his aloof and aristocratic bearing. His persona bordered on the arrogance. He was undoubtedly expecting in the grand old Malay tradition of merajuk (sulking) that when he walked off the stage, UMNO members and leaders would come to him begging him to stay. Unfortunately for Onn, they saw no need for that as they had another far-sighted, even more brilliant, and much younger leader to boot waiting in the wings. That person was Razak Hussein, head of the party’s Youth Wing.

     As for Onn, I remember as a youngster listening to his campaign speeches in my village. What I recall most was his undisguised look of disdain as he addressed the villagers. It was as if he was wasting his time explaining sophisticated political ideas to these simpletons. The voters of course saw that; his candidacy and his new multiracial party were soundly rejected in the first general elections of 1955. It turned out that not only were Malays not buying his argument, so were non-Malays.

     Datuk Onn did not win his first parliamentary seat until 1959 when he led his avowedly Malay nationalistic Party Negara. The irony was that the party explicitly restricted its membership to Malays!

     Datuk Onn was right in sensing the potential strength of the newly-formed MCA, in particular its leader Tan Cheng Lock. Apart from the personal rivalry between Onn and Tan, there would now be a potentially more explosive political one. While both were committed Anglophiles, Tan would be a formidable adversary for he was staunchly anti-Communist and had proven his pro-British core during the Japanese Occupation. For another, he was also fabulously wealthy. That counted considerably in politics, then and now.

 

     As leader, Onn showed great foresight as well as free-mindedness. Had he been the typical civil servant with the mindset of Kami menurut perentah (I follow instructions) he would have followed in his sultan’s lead by supporting the Malayan Union Treaty, and be amply rewarded in the process. Had he done that, there would be no limit to the honors heaped upon him by the sultans and the British. Instead he heeded the voices of the rakyat and paid close attention to the key phrases of the treaty. That decided for him, and he ignored his sultan. Malays owe Datuk Onn a huge debt of gratitude for without him, Malayan Union would have prevailed.

 

     The UMNO masses in turn showed great political wisdom and maturity in not letting Onn blackmail them by joining him in abandoning the young fledgling party. Malays, specifically UMNO members, were indeed grateful to Onn for scuttling the Malayan Union, but that gratitude had its limits. When Onn breached that by quitting UMNO, the members rightly rejected him.

     Today Malays, in particular UMNO members, unabashedly express their gratitude to leaders whose accomplishments pale in comparison to that of Datuk Onn’s. We continue doing so long after they have betrayed our trust in them through their repeated acts of greed, corruption and incompetence.

     There is yet another point worth noting. When Onn left UMNO, its leaders beginning with Tunku Abdul Rahman (who succeeded Onn) and Datuk Razak Hussein right down to the lowly branch committee member as well as ordinary members, did not demonize Onn. They respected his decision to leave and left it at that.

     The UMNO of today is a far different party. When former Prime Minister Mahathir retired after leading the party for over two decades, those small characters he left behind took every opportunity to snipe at him. Malay culture has not changed; only UMNO.

Adapted from the author’s latest book, Liberating The Malay Mind, ZI Publications Sdn Bhd, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia , 2013.
Next: Tun Razak Hussein

Zaid Ibrahim's Pristine Jihad and Purest Dakwah

Zaid Ibrahim’s Pristine Jihad and Purest Dakwah
M. Bakri Musa
www.bakrimusa.com

 

[Foreword to Zaid Ibrahim's latest book, Assalamualaikum. Observations on the Islamization of Malaysia, published by ZI Publications and launched on November 20, 2015 by former Prime Minister Tun Mahathir.] 

 

     Muslims believe the Koran to be a guide from God; “for all mankind, at all times, and till the end of time.” That is a matter of faith.

     The essence of the Koran is Al-amr bi 'l-ma’ruf wa 'n-nahy ani 'l-munkar. That message is repeated many times in our Holy Book. The approximate translation is, “Command good and forbid evil;” or in my Malay, “Biasakan yang baik, jauhi yang jahat.” Succinct and elegant in both languages as it is in the original classical Arabic!

     This central message is often missed in the thick tomes of religious scholars, erudite sermons of bedecked ulamas, and frenzied jingoisms of zealous jihadists. Meanwhile in Malaysia, Islam is reduced to a government bureaucracy manned by control-freaks intent on dictating our lives. Yes, they are all men.

 

     Their mission has little to do with that golden rule. Theirs is an exercise of raw unbridled power, all in the name of Allah of course. Not-too-bright and self-serving politicians are only too willing to ride this Islamic tiger. Once ridden however, it is mighty difficult to dismount, as the Afghanis and Pakistanis are finding out.

 

     Malaysia’s saving grace is its significant non-Muslim minority, an effective buffer and formidable bulwark against the intrusive reach of these political Islamists. Another is that we are blessed with our share of Hang Jebats, courageous souls committed to justice and offended by these opportunistic Hang Tuahs of Islam.

 

     Zaid Ibrahim is one such individual. He demonstrated his Jebatism many years ago by quitting his senior cabinet position, a rare occurrence in Malaysia. His reputation soared following that.

 

     He brings this tenacious trait to his latest book, Assalamualiakum (Peace Be Upon You) where he assails these government-issued ulamas for their zealous preoccupation with the superficialities of our faith while ignoring our blatant “un-Islamic” core, as with our corrupt leaders and the injustices they perpetrated, as well as their flagrant and frequent abuses of power.

 

     Such perversions of the faith are now the norms in much of the Islamic world. Malaysians, especially Malays, need to be reminded of this grim and depressing reality. Zaid’s collection of essays does this; they are tough, sophisticated, and most of all brutally frank.

 

     Many have also done this but what makes Zaid unique is that he marshals the logic, rationality and persuasiveness of an accomplished lawyer that he was in his writing. Many Malays, unsure of their grounding in Islam, obsequiously defer to these civil servant-ulamas. Not Zaid. He proves that you do not need a madrasah background, flowing robes, or exquisite tajweed to expose these pretenders in our faith.

 

     Zaid shies away from long quotations of the Koran and hadith, de rigueur in current Islamic discourses. His only paean to Arabism is the title. As he noted in his preface, he could have substituted the warm and welcoming Malay equivalent, Salam sejahtera. Noting that sejahtera is of Sanskrit and thus Hindu origin, he demurred. The zealots might misinterpret his gesture.

     To Zaid, such concepts as justice, privacy, the rule of law, and representative government, long dismissed by Islamists as Western constructs and thus ipso facto un-Islamic, have deep roots in Islamic tradition and are very much in consonant with the central message of the Koran.

 

     I agree. Consider privacy. Legend has it that Caliph Omar once spied an unmarried couple engaged in what Malaysians call khalwat (“close proximity”). He barged in to confront the couple, threatening them with the severest penalty – stoning to death, at least for the woman. Unperturbed, the male partner instead chastised Omar, admitting that yes, he had indeed sinned against God, but Omar on the other hand had wronged him and his partner by violating their privacy. The wise Caliph relented.

 

     Three points here. One, the primacy of personal privacy in Islam; two, citizens should not hesitate confronting even the highest authorities should they stray out of line; and three, the pivotal difference between wronging God versus wronging your fellow humans. Tell that to those voyeuristic Islamists who are wont to snoop into hotel rooms!

 

     As for our leaders’ frequent abuse of power and disregard for the rule of law, consider the last line of Caliph Abu Bakar’s immortal inaugural speech. “Obey me so long as I obey Allah and His Messenger. And if I do not, then I have no right to your obedience.” Tell that to those overbearing leaders, religious as well as secular.

 

     Islam is more than a religion; it is a complete and total way of life. As such discourses in Islam should not be the exclusive preserve of only ulamas and religious scholars. All have something, and Zaid has much, to contribute.

 

     As a practicing lawyer Zaid was concerned with justice at the personal level. As a public figure he fights for justice at the societal level. Without justice a society cannot be Islamic regardless of its label. It is that simple.

 

     Zaid exposes pervasive injustices in the Islamic world perpetrated by religious leaders as well as secular ones wrapped in religious garbs. Little wonder that Ayatollah Khomeini drove more out of Islam than even Stalin could! Deprived of justice, peace eludes much of the Muslim world.

 

     Malaysia may not be led by ulamas (except for Kelantan), but as Zaid wrote, it is in “an increasingly steep descent into a more regressive form of Islamic administration . . . not by the desire to promote Islamic values . . . but to exert political control.”

 

     As for ulamas leading the state, Zaid’s Kelantan is “Exhibit A” on why they should not. It has appalling poverty as well as the highest rates of AIDS, incest, drug abuse, and abandoned babies. It also has the highest number of surfers of pornographic sites!

 

     Zaid renders a great service to Muslims by reminding us of the sterling essence of our great faith. For non-Muslims, Assalamualikum is a lucid exposition of the Islamic foundation of such concepts as justice, privacy, the rule of law, and other humanistic aspirations hitherto wrongly assumed to be exclusively modern and Western.

 

     Stated in a different way, with Assalamualaikum Zaid Ibrahim performs a pristine form of jihad and the purest of dakwah.

 

M. Bakri Musa
bakrimusa@gmail.com
www.bakrimusa.com
Morgan Hill, California
Syawal 1436/July 2015

 

The Halus Way Datuk Onn Aborted The Malayan Union

The Halus (Subtle) Way Datuk Onn Aborted the Malayan Union
M. Bakri Musa
www.bakrimusa.com

 

In an earlier commentary I gave high marks to our leaders for their enlightened ways and sophisticated strategies in the pursuit of our independence. Malaysia could have easily gone in a very different direction following the Japanese defeat. It could have just as quickly been turned into a permanent British Dominion.

 

     The man responsible for sparing the country that terrible fate was Datuk Onn Jaafar. He was a former senior civil servant, a significant and rare achievement for a native. Had he been a Hang Tuah, ever loyal to his sultan and the British, there would be no limit to the height of his personal achievement within the colonial civil service. He could have been the first native Governor-General of the Dominion of Malaya.

      Instead, in the tradition of Jebat, Onn saw the grave injustice perpetrated upon Malays by the colonialists in cahoots with our sultans. They had sold out our country, repeating what their brother Sultan of Johor did with Singapore 127 years earlier.

      The pathetic aspect to the Malayan Union Treaty, like the earlier ceding of Singapore to the British, was how easy it was to make those Malay sultans capitulate. Sir Harold MacMichael, the British point man, needed only a few months to secure the agreement. There was not even a whimper of protest from the sultans.

 

     Some, like the Johor Sultan, enthusiastically signed the treaty within a day or two, and were proud of that fact! The few who had flashes of courage quickly backed down under threat of being replaced or prosecuted for presumed collaboration with the Japanese during the war.

 

     It turned out that those Malay sultans – Allah’s representatives on earth – also menurut arahan (follow direction), as per the mantra of the civil service, not from Allah but from Sir Harold.

 

     Thanks to Datuk Onn, the Union treaty was rescinded. He took on the mighty British and prevailed, with no help from his sultans. Onn did it without being biadap (treasonous) to the sultans or resorting to armed insurrections.

      It is ironic that Onn would be instrumental in this endeavor. Earlier the Sultan of Johor had banished Onn for daring to criticize him. If Onn had been consumed with settling old scores and at the same time endear himself to the British, he would have let the treaty be, and those Malay sultans would today be reduced to the status of the Sultan of Sulu.

 

     Onn’s accomplishment was even more remarkable considering that by the time he mounted the challenge, Malayan Union was already a fait accompli. The sultans had already signed the treaty, ceding all their authorities to the British. Essentially Malayan Union made what was hitherto “indirect” British rule into a direct one, with no pretense to the contrary.

 

     The open but peaceful opposition to the Malayan Union (and also indirectly, the Malay sultans) was truly a transformational cultural phenomenon. It was a genuine mass movement made even more remarkable considering the speed with which it was planned, organized and executed. Consider that up until a few months before the event there was not a single national Malay organization; there were plenty of little ones each with its own parochial agenda. Onn changed all that with UMNO.

 

     The other remarkable aspect was that up until that time it was the accepted wisdom that Malays were an apathetic lot, not in the least interested in politics; hence the British overreaching attempt at railroading the treaty. Onn changed that too. Today, Malays are obsessed with politics to the detriment of everything else. Who says we cannot change Malays? Onn did it successfully, and in a matter of years, not decades or generations.

 

     Before Datuk Onn, the Malay nationalist movement was slow to develop because of our separate political identities in the various states. Some of the “Federated” states felt that they were better off with British “protection.” The “un-Federated” states meanwhile felt very proud of their “independence,” even though that was more illusory than real.

 

     Even among the “un-Federated” states there were significant variations. Johor’s sultan was an unabashed Anglophile; his Kelantan counterpart was notorious for his insularity. Their subjects in turn followed the patterns set by their sultans.

 

     Even as late as the 1950s and 60s Malays still lacked a sense of common national identity, with Kelantan Malays considering themselves separate from those in Johore. Even government jobs and quarters were restricted to “anak Johore” (the children of Johore) or “anak Selangor.”

 

     Thanks to Onn, the formation of UMNO was the first time Malays began to have a sense of national consciousness, at least politically. It would be a few more decades before that sentiment would truly be felt by the masses, and then spread beyond politics.

 

     One undisputed but not widely acknowledged fact to the successful opposition against the Malayan Union was that Malay sultans were of no help. They were in fact very much part of the problem with their earlier capitulation through British flattery. The pathetic part was that the sultans’ price for their agreement was so ridiculously cheap: a modest stipend and the knightship of some ancient English order. Regardless whether it was the sultans’ collective stupidity or British perfidy, the result was the same.

 

     The surprise was that there was minimal republican or anti-sultan sentiment expressed during all those mass protests against the Malayan Union despite the obvious sellouts by the rulers. On the contrary, the Malay masses reacted in exactly the reverse and counter-intuitive fashion; they expressed their unreserved affection and loyalty to their sultans.

 

     This display was no more dramatically demonstrated than on that one day in Kota Baru, Kelantan, where all the sultans were gathered for the formal installation of the first British Governor-General. The rakyats packed the palace grounds such that the sultans could not leave to attend the ceremony.

 

     On the surface it was a show of massive public loyalty; on the subtle side, it was nothing more than the mass kidnapping of the sultans by their subjects. The Malay masses had in effect “CB'ed" (confined to barracks) their sultans.

 

     I doubt whether those sultans received the subtle message that day. That would require some degree of subtlety, intelligence and sophistication for which they had not demonstrated thus far. The British on the other hand heard the message loud and clear, and the Malayan Union treaty was rescinded.

 

     Had it not been for the rakyats intervening, Malay sultans today would have been all titles and tanjak (ceremonial headgear symbolizing the sultan’s power) but little else.

 

     So when former Prime Minister Mahathir lamented that he could not change Malays, and by implication we cannot be changed, I bring forth this dramatic example of our remarkable transformation in response to the Malayan Union threat.

 

     An enterprising soul, Fahmi Reza, has collected all the file pictures and cartoons of the anti-Malayan Union protests into his award-winning documentary, “Sepuloh Tahum Sebulum Merdeka” ("Ten Years Before Merdeka"). It is truly inspiring to see those Malays, young and old, male and female, in sarongs and in suits marching calmly and peacefully in the streets. Their only uniting feature was the defiance and resolve that shone bright on their faces.

 

     Fahmi Reza has done a remarkable public service in producing this documentary. To his credit, he has also made it freely available on the ‘Net.

 

     Much has been written about the aborted Malayan Union, both from the perspective of the natives as well as the colonials. I have yet however, to see anyone portray those mass rallies against the treaty as expressions of our rebellion against the sultans. That was a measure of Onn's subtlety and sophistication.

 

    Onn was attuned to the halus ways of our culture and used that to bring out the best in us. He united us towards a shared and noble objective -  to kill off the existential threat posed by the Malayan Union Treaty.

 

     In contrast, today Malaysia is cursed with a leader who revels in the crass aspects of Malay culture, in particular our propensity to berlagak (conspicuous consumption).  Najib's jetting around in his luxurious jets and his wife's Bollywood gaudy tastes are expressions of this ugly and destructive trait. His underlings only too willingly ape him with gusto; monkey see,monkey do. Onn united the rakyats; Najib polarizes Malays, as well as Malaysians.  

 

     Onn's legacy is a free Malaysia; Najib's will be a Malaysia that is corrupt, divided, and mired in debt.

Adapted from the author’s latest book, Liberating The Malay Mind, ZI Publications Sdn Bhd, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia , 2013.

 

Behold The Liberated Minds of Our Hang Jebats and Hang Nadims

Behold The Liberated Minds of Our Hang Jebats and Hang Nadirs!

M. Bakri Musa

www.bakrimusa.com

Why do you stay in prison when the door is wide open?
Jalal ad Din Rumi (1207-73)

The path we chose in pursuing independence represented the best elements of our culture. We followed the right leaders and they in turn adopted the right strategy, one of co-operation and negotiation. That was our nature, to be bertolak ansur (give and take); posturing and confrontation were just not our style.

     Our leaders’ timing too was perfect as Britain had grown weary of her colonies. We were also lucky in that we were dealing with the British. Had it been the Chinese, well, consider the fate of the Tibetans and Uighurs. Had it been the Russians, look at Ukraine and Chechnya.

     Today revisionist historians belittle the valiant efforts of our fathers of independence. Let me set these latter-day interpreters of events straight. Had we opted for Burhanuddin Al Helmy or Chin Peng, the nation’s history and the fate of our people would be far different today.

     In times of crises or profound changes, we have to be extra cautious in whom we choose to lead us, or stated differently, in whom we should follow. It is during such times that we have to exercise our critical faculties and be extra vigilant in choosing our leaders. Malaysia is in such a state today. We have a leader in Najib Razak who is severely-challenged with respect to honesty, integrity, and competency. Profligacy he has in abundance.

     Those enlightened leaders who guided us peacefully to independence should inspire us. As for our earlier heroes who shepherded us to Islam, there is little written about them as our culture had just transited into the written word. In lieu of that I have highlighted the heroes from our legends. One is Hang Tuah, a figure high in the palace hierarchy; the other, an ordinary citizen, Hang Nadim. They may or may not be based on historical characters but they nonetheless serve a useful purpose to remind us of the power of a free mind.

     In Sulalatus Salatin (Malay Annals) there is the story of Temasek (old Singapore) being regularly plagued by schools of flying fish. Hundreds fell victim to this scourge, impaled by the fish’s sharp snouts. All efforts at combating this piscine intrusion proved unsuccessful. Then a young boy suggested to the sultan to plant a row of bananas along the shoreline. That way, Hang Nadim told the sultan, when the flying fish darted onshore, their snouts would be impaled on the plants’ soft stems.

     The scheme worked wonderfully well, and the pleased sultan decided to honor the clever young man. The sultan’s advisors however, had second thoughts. If that youth could dream up such a brilliant scheme at a very young age, they convinced the sultan, what else would he think of later as an adult? Sensing a future threat, the sultan had Hang Nadim beheaded. Imagine!

     That young man certainly had a free mind. He could, to borrow a cliché, think outside the box. He was also not at all shy in telling his sultan on what to do. In a deeply feudal society as Malay society was then (still is), that took great courage.

     That boy however, paid dearly for his courage and free-mindedness. Tragic as that was for him and his family, the far greater tragedy was borne by society. Executing the young man not only deprived that society of its bright star but also sent a clear message that it did not pay–in fact downright dangerous–to be innovative and original. Such a society could never aspire to greatness. That was a steep price to pay, just to protect the exalted positions of the sultan’s selfish and shortsighted advisors.

     If you kill off your bright talents, a generation or two later you will have a society of dumbbells. When the Mongols invaded the Muslim heartland, the first thing they did was to kill off the intellectuals and luminaries. That was the most effective and efficacious way to decapitate that society and culture.

     Hang Nadim’s treatment reminded me of the ancient Mayan practice of sacrificing their beautiful virgins to their Gods. A few generations later, all the newborns in that society were ugly, as the beautiful potential mothers had been killed.

     The legend of Hang Nadim reflects more on society than on him. Every society is blessed with its share of Hang Nadims. What it does with the blessings would in large measure determine its fate.

     Consider the European aristocracies’ practice of taking in gifted citizens under its patronage. The Romanov Dynasty nurtured the best Russian artists, composers and writers. Granted, the arts were often used as political instruments and artists were continually divided between devotion to their craft and to their royal patrons, but at least those creative citizens received royal support and recognition.

      Imagine if the sultan had taken Hang Nadim under his patronage. He would blossom, exploring other bright ideas and expanding on his banana plantation scheme. There could be a flourishing fresh-fruit industry as well as a fish-processing plant. The fish waste would be excellent fertilizer for the rice fields. Imagine, three industries spawned and the attendant jobs for the sultan’s subjects, quite apart from ensuring their safety, just from one bright idea!

     If the sultan had gone beyond and married the young man to one of the princesses, that would ensure future members of the royal family would have something between their ears,  We would then be more likely to get sultans who could choose smarter advisers and make wiser decisions.

      The far greater reward would not be on the young man or the future average intelligence of the royal family but on society. Other bright young men and women would now be inspired to pursue their own creative and innovative ideas in the hope of getting similar royal recognition. Pretty soon the royal court would be full of these bright kids and the sultan would have the best advice. Both he and his kingdom would prosper.

     Today many lament Najib's dysfunctional leadership. Conveniently forgotten is that the mistake on Najib was made a generation earlier. Who was responsible in UMNO and in the country to have let this flawed character rise up so high?

     Bukhari al-Jauhari’s seminal Taj-us Salatin (Crown Jewel of Sultans) outlined the rules governing the relationship between the ruled and their rulers. Both are answerable to a higher authority. Consequently the ruler is to govern in a just manner in accordance to divine dictates. Bukhari went beyond; it is the duty of rulers to have just, pious, honest, and knowledgeable advisors in carrying out the functions of governance.

     The king must “selalu rindukan sahabat akan orang yang bererpengetahuan ... ” (constantly yearn for the friendship of those most knowledgeable).

     Rulers cannot simply lament the poor advice they get or the inadequacies of their advisors, as Raja Nazrin of Perak tried recently in an address to a university community. Rulers must take responsibility; they cannot simply blame their advisors. They must go beyond and diligently seek counsel from those who are competent and honest. Failure to do so would be a dereliction of royal duties, at which point citizens would no longer owe any loyalty to the ruler.

     Two points about Taj-us Salatin; first, it was written in early 17th Century when Malay society was steeped in its feudal ways. It took great courage and a free mind to write such a treatise. Unfortunately we do not know much about this heroic writer, except through his works.

     The second is that the volume predated Hobbes’ Leviathan, another opus on the same subject, by over half a century. So far reaching were Bukhari’s ideas that earlier colonials concluded that Taj-us Salatin could not possibly be an original but mere translation, possibly from some Middle Eastern sources, as no native could possibly possess the intellectual wherewithal to undertake such serious philosophical work. To claim it as otherwise would defy the colonials’ narrative of the “dumb lazy” natives. The colonials scoured the Middle East looking for the original. They are still looking. Those colonial minds had been closed long before they landed on Malay soil.

     Shifting from political philosophy to classical literature, in Hikayat Hang Tuah we have the two protagonists. One, Hang Tuah, is the hero and eponymous legend. Even the name is auspicious–Tuah, the blessed one. In contrast, his nemesis Hang Jebat rhymes with yang jahat, the sinister one.

     The legend begins with the pair in childhood, together with another three, bonding as brothers. Later they became hulubalangs (knights) for the sultan, in the manner of King Arthur’s Knights of the Round Table, minus the equality implied by the round table. Hang Tuah, being numero uno, took his loyalty to the sultan to extremes, even lying on his behalf to deceive a young princess. Soon however, palace intrigue took over and Tuah was charged with treason and sentenced to death.

      The sultan replaced Tuah with Jebat. On discovering the grave injustice perpetrated on his dear friend, Jebat relentlessly pursued the guilty parties. Threatened by Jebat’s aggressive crusade, the sultan summoned his chief minister for help. He suggested the sultan recall Hang Tuah whom the minister had secretly protected. Tuah, ever loyal to his sultan despite the earlier death sentence, returned.

     The climax had the two childhood buddies battling it out in a duel, with Tuah killing Jebat.

     The conventional wisdom has Tuah the hero (as suggested by the title), ready to defend the sultan, right or wrong. The free-minded contemporary thinker Kassim Ahmad, partial to the antihero sentiments of his youth, concluded otherwise. Far from being the hero, Tuah is the archetypical palace sycophant willing to kill his dear friend in order to regain the sultan’s favor, even that of an unjust sultan. Jebat is the genuine hero who sacrificed his life to right a gross injustice. Tuah is loyal to the person of the sultan, Jebat to the principle of justice.

     Today Malaysia is again blighted with a leader who exceeds the Melaka sultan of yore in his many deficiencies. Like that sultan, Najib extols sycophancy over competency among his ministers. And again like Melaka of yore, we are cursed with a glut of Hang Tuahs ever willing to humor Najib. What we desperately need are our Hang Jebats and Hang Nadims.

Adapted from the author’s latest book, Liberating The Malay Mind, ZI Publications Sdn Bhd, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia , 2013.

Pondering OPur Fate - Imagining Otherwise

Imagining Otherwise

M. Bakri Musa

It is human nature that when things go well we pay little attention to them; we take them in stride as if they are meant to be, the natural consequence. When we assume such an attitude, we miss some significant learning opportunities. We can learn so much more from our success than we could ever from our failures. For that to happen however, we first have to recognize our successes. This can sometimes be no easy task.

                One way would be to undertake a mental exercise, to imagine if things had taken a different path. What if Malays had not embraced Islam but fought and rejected it? Likewise, what would be our fate had we enthusiastically embraced the Europeans and adopted their ways? As for our pursuit of independence, imagine had we bowed to the wishes our sultans and their British “advisers” and accepted our fate to be under permanent British domination, as the Malayan Union Treaty would have it? Lastly, assume we had let those rabble rousers be our leaders fighting for our independence, and they took to fighting the British literally and seriously.

                In all of these instances there are ready examples of societies and cultures that had indeed chosen precisely those paths that I just outlined, and we can readily see the consequences today of their collective decisions then.

                Our brethren on the island of Bali were not enthusiastic about Islam; they decided to stick to their ancient animist and Hindu beliefs. That would be the fate of the greater Malay society had we not embraced Islam. I have tremendous respect for the Balinese; their pacifist ways appeal to me. However, I would not have the same qualms about my lovely island with its pristine beaches turned into a cheap replica of Waikiki or Australia’s Gold Coast, and my people reduced to performing exotic dances for tourists.

                On a more practical level, had we not embraced Islam our culture would still be trapped in the oral tradition and we would not have any written literature. We would definitely be the poorer for that.

                At the next juncture, imagine had we fully embraced the colonials. Again, there are ready examples; the Filipinos embraced the Spaniards, becoming devout Catholics in the process. Malays today would never wish to trade places with our Filipino brothers. That is not to say there is anything wrong with them, just that we do not wish to be like them. The Filipinos may have embraced the Spanish ways but the Spaniards have not reciprocated. I doubt whether Filipinos get preferential treatment to work in Spain or in any of the former Spanish colonies. Indeed except for their shared faith, there is little else that the Filipinos have in common with the Spaniards.

                At least the Filipinos were lucky; they could have easily suffered the fate of the Mayans; their civilization was completely destroyed with the arrival of the Spaniards.

                More recently, imagine if Datuk Onn had not galvanized us to oppose the Malayan Union. We have ready examples of that too. Australia and New Zealand are both British dominions; look at their native populations, the Aborigines and Maoris respectively.

                Closer to home are Christmas and Keeling Islands. Both are only a few hundred miles south of Sumatra but through the quirks of colonial history, they belong to Australia, many thousand miles away to the south. Both islands have substantial Malay populations, including a few former sultans and their families. See how well the Australians treat them and how those Malays fare.

                In our resistance against the Malayan Union Treaty we held fast to our values. We did not derhaka (rebel) against our sultans although we had plenty of reasons for doing so as they had literally sold our country to the British. Instead we co-opted the finest values of our culture – our loyalty to our sultans – to rescind that treaty.

                As for the path towards independence, imagine had we thrown our lot with Chin Peng and followed the violent path he pursued. We would still today be mourning fresh victims of our “war of independence” and freedom would still elude us.

                The arrival of Islam and European intrusions were both external events imposed upon us. We did not initiate them; we merely responded. Yet our culture had equipped us well in both circumstances. The path we chose for independence was of our own making; we acquitted ourselves exceptionally well there.

                Any change especially when initiated by events beyond our control can potentially be threatening to the existing order. With Islam, our leaders and rakyats as well as our culture reacted positively and creatively, and we were the better for it. With colonization, we reacted negatively as rightly we should to any evil. However, having recognized its vastly superior power we were divided in our subsequent responses. 

While our leaders made the necessary accommodations and in the end fully absorbed the values of the colonials, they impressed upon their followers to resist or at the very least not participate. It is this hypocrisy on the part of our leaders and the divergence in their responses as compared to the rakyats that made our collective experience with colonialism so much more negative than it ought to have been. As a result our society unnecessarily suffered the ugly consequences.

                With the pursuit of independence, we relied on our traditional cultural values to guide us and in so doing we acquitted ourselves very well.

                The central lesson, as demonstrated by our response to Islam and in the pursuit of independence, is that there must be commonality of goals and aspirations between leaders and followers. This commonality can only be achieved through genuine two-way communications, from up to down and down towards up. That is the key strategy we should adopt as we go forward in dealing with today’s challenges.

                Another key element, again demonstrated in our own approach towards independence, is that we must choose our leaders wisely with the hope that they in turn would choose the right strategy and pick the right team as well as the right timing.

                Our reactions to those events of the past did not occur by themselves; there were equally pivotal personalities that guided us. They were remarkably free-minded, ready to accept the challenges facing them and lead the rest of the community. Their examples should inspire us.

Adapted from the author’s latest book, Liberating The Malay Mind, ZI Publications Sdn Bhd, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia , 2013.