Tanda Putera: Deconstructing Prejudice
I really doubt the capacity of Ms Shuhaimi to “look at all angles” if after looking at the records produced in my book she still insists that the communists were responsible for May 13.
Dr Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser
I am in full agreement with the director of the forthcoming film ‘Tanda Putera’, Shuhaimi Baba that we should withhold any critique of the film until we have seen it. I have so far merely warned Malaysians about the record of the Barisan National in resurrecting the spectre of ‘May 13’ at every general election since 1969. Others have protested against some of the images posted on the Facebook for the film. But judging from Shuhaimi’s interview in an online media (FMT, 6.9.2012), I am not too sanguine about her impartiality and capacity to discern fact from prejudice in a mature manner:
“When I first read Dr Kua (Kia Soong’s) book, I thought what came out first and shining through was his prejudices against Malays and his resentment against the office of the prime minister then. His accusations – alluding to who was responsible for May 13- that is, Tun Razak, was not only atrocious but irresponsible. But then he knows that, I am sure, since he’s more intelligent than most men, and he does it for effect and propaganda and to rile up Chinese sentiments. It was too easy for him. As a writer, he preferred to be biased and did not shed any light on the riots but even considered the communists had nothing to do with it.
His obvious biasness – not questioning why in Tunku’s own book, and later in an authorised biography of Tunku as late as 1990 – Tunku did not cast aspersions on Tun Razak. There were reports and books written by people who were not present during May 13. Some were based on third party reports. Yet in one publication, no mention was made that the writer was not in the country, the author did not point out he was not present but his comments and observations on May 13 were like a first-person report. Complete with prejudices against the Malays and the Malaysian government. How is it that this author can be quoted as a reliable source? He had deliberately too omitted details of what were the insulting behaviours towards the Malays before May 13.
I find the NOC (National Operations Council) report on May 13, 1969, may not be as complete, but it was more useful and reliable because they were verified with statistics and signed support reports and documents. The NOC report was also verified by a committee appointed by Tun Ismail. The head of the committee was a person of high integrity. So that’s where I am coming from when I say I looked at all angles…”
Prejudices against Malays?
First, I would like to thank her for reading my book although I am very disappointed that she has drawn very odd conclusions from it. I have read such accusations of my supposed “prejudices against Malays” among the mindless blogheads in cyberspace but I would expect better of an artist who seeks a reputation for integrity.
For a start, she fails to provide any evidence for my supposed “prejudices against the Malays and (my) resentment against the office of the prime minister”. Many respected Malay intellectuals have critiqued my book and made no mention of it being “prejudiced against Malays”. I may be guilty of using class analysis in my writings but you will not find a more committed anti-racist crusader than me in this country…
The late Rustam Sani (bless his soul!) wrote in his blog on 13 May 2007 after attending the launch of my book:
“May 13: A Sunday morning well-spent at the book launch. There was absolutely no doubt in my mind that Dr Kua had penned a very important book – indeed, to my mind, he has made “publishing history” of sorts. I came out of the book launch feeling only half-satisfied with the discussion that took place and half-pessimistic about the future. It did not, however, diminish my appreciation of Dr Kua’s book as an important contribution to my understanding of Malaysia’s contemporary history, and for such interesting and thoughtful presentations by the guest speakers.”
Among the guest speakers was highly respected Malay intellectual, Professor Syed Husin Ali who disputed my “coup detat” thesis but he did not think that my book displayed “prejudices against the Malays”.
Azmi Sharom, writing in The Star on 31 May 2007, had this to say about the book:
“As with Kua’s earlier works, it is written in a passionate style that drives the narrative forward with a sense of urgency, so much so that reading it was a pleasure. I think that this is an important book. It raises issues and questions that challenge the official story of the riots and it adds new information that is vital if we as a nation are ever to truly understand that horrible period of our history.”
Again, he did not get the impression that I was “prejudiced against the Malays”. Likewise, my socialist comrade Dr Mohd Nasir Hashim has not mentioned to me that he finds my account “prejudiced against Malays” because he also subscribes to class analysis of society and history.
I am therefore dubious about the amount and the quality of research done by Ms Shuhaimi on May 13 and whether she seriously read my book. She says that “no mention was made that the writer was not in the country, the author did not point out he was not present but his comments and observations on May 13 were like a first-person report.”
The Full Story of May 13 is Yet Untold
First, my book uses declassified documents which I researched first-hand in London and made available in The British Public Records Office, Kew Gardens. That’s a lot of valuable legwork that is potentially helpful research for Ms Shuhaimi’s film. The suggestion that I was trying to portray this as a first-hand account is puzzling, as the title itself clearly states the fact that such first-hand accounts are extracts from the declassified documents themselves. Ms Shuhaimi is certainly the first person to make such an observation.
The reason my book created such a sensation was because many Malaysians do not find the official versions credible. Contrary to what Ms Shuhaimi says, the official statistics on the casualties during May 13 are the least credible of all. I may not have been there but my brother in law was a professor at the University Hospital at the time and my brother was a medical student at Malayan University too. They saw the number of bodies that were tarred to conceal their ethnicity and they certainly exceeded the official figures. The documents in my book testify as much to this fact.
I provided a class analysis based on the available evidence provided by the records at the time. A fuller story will only emerge with a Truth & Reconciliation Commission when families of the victims, the police, the army, hospital doctors and staff come forward to tell us their stories. A serious artist should welcome as many stories from the people as possible and not be beholden to the official version.
The Tunku’s Views on Tun Razak
Ms Shuhaimi accuses me of bias and claims that the Tunku didn’t cast aspersions on Tun Razak. Again, this reflects on the quality of her research and her capacity to weigh historical documents. Obviously Ms Shuhaimi does not consider the documents produced in my book to be worth consideration or to be objective. She falls back on the Tunku’s early writings and apparently, “the Tunku’s authorised biography”.
For the information of Ms Shuhaimi, K. Das was the Tunku’s official biographer and they had carried out a series of interviews which can be read in my 2002 title: “K. Das & the Tunku Tapes”. Yes, a copy of the tapes was given to me by K.Das’ family. Can any records beat these audio recordings done in the twilight of the Tunku’s life when he could finally speak his mind? Will Ms Shuhaimi challenge me to produce the Tunku tapes to verify if the Tunku actually said these words to K. Das?
“You know Harun was one of those – Harun, Mahathir, Ghazali Shafie – who were all working with Razak to oust me, to take over my place…” (Kua Kia Soong, 2002: 112)
For the further information of Ms Shuhaimi, I am not the first person to see May 13 as a coup detat against the Tunku. A Malay (yes, Malay!) intellectual, Subky Latiff had already put forward this thesis in an academic journal, Southeast Asian Affairs, Singapore in 1977. Although I was not at the seminar when Subky Latiff presented his paper, I am sure there were no gasps of “how atrocious and irresponsible!” among the academics gathered there.
Why the deference to Authority?
We can understand deference to authority in a feudal society. But why do we need to be deferential to the people we elect? Ms Shuhaimi refers to the Prime Ministers as if they are deities to worship. In fact, whenever a general election approaches, that is the time when the politicians including prime ministers eat humble pie and plead for our support. What are prime ministers but the leaders of the respective parties who happen to win a majority in the general election? If we take the trouble to research into Malayan/ Malaysian history, we will invariably find that the leaders of political parties often use foul underhand means to maintain their political positions. This goes not only for the incumbent but also for the opposition parties.
My recent “Patriots & Pretenders” gives an account of the way the British colonial power connived to ensure the victory of the Alliance in the pre-Independence manoeuvres. Take UMNO as an example. If political chicanery had not come into play, Dato Onn Jaafar leading the Independence of Malaya Party could have become Prime Minister at Independence.
If the British colonial power had not backed the Alliance, the PMCJA-PUTERA coalition could have given the Alliance a good run for their money and we could have had a socialist prime minister who would not want such feudal deference from the people! The proclamation of The Emergency in 1948 through to 1960 was to ensure the British colonial power passed political power onto their local custodians at Independence and not to the PMCJA-PUTERA coalition.
Then again, if it had not been for Dr Mahathir’s “tengkolok trick” in 1990, Tengku Razaleigh might have become Malaysia’s prime minister. Likewise, the arrest of Anwar Ibrahim in 1998 altered the history of UMNO and assured Dr Mahathir’s hold on power into the 21st century.
Yes, like any democrat I have a healthy disrespect for authority in an oppressive regime and I would have imagined an artist with ideals and integrity would share such aspirations for truth, justice, freedom, democracy and human rights.
Were the Communists Responsible for May 13?
I really doubt the capacity of Ms Shuhaimi to “look at all angles” if after looking at the records produced in my book she still insists that the communists were responsible for May 13. In my book I have shown that in the Tunku’s broadcast at 2230 on 17 May 1969, he had qualified his earlier assertion that the disturbances were caused by communists, putting the blame instead on assorted “bad elements”.
Is this Ms Shuhaimi’s own prejudices or does she have stronger evidence to show that the communists were indeed responsible for May 13? The regime used the communist bogey at the time because it was necessary for it to justify imposing a state of emergency and to carry out the agenda of the new Umnoputras.
To conclude, I fervently hope that Ms Shuhaimi will seriously study my views like any honest artist and ponder the deconstruction of prejudice. Perhaps, this is an opportunity for Ms Shuhaimi as an artist to be more circumspect – be more of a calligrapher with a deft brush rather than follow the mindless mob that tars and feathers any detractors…
