Thursday, 9 May 2013

Negaraku



Negaraku

by Farish A Noor (Notes) on Thursday, May 9, 2013 at 12:43am
By Farish A Noor

When I was a kid growing up in Malaysia, I, like millions of other kids at school, was compelled to sing the national anthem Negaraku. The words were learned by rote, memorized and repeated in a repetitive fashion during the morning assembly as the national flag was raised. Being brought up a Johanian at St Johns Institution, this ritual was drilled into us on a weekly basis; and later on when I became a prefect I also had to learn the other rites and rituals of mutuality and association: Brushing and polishing my shoes til they were so shiny that one could see one's face reflected; brushing and cutting one's hair tight and above the ears, the incessant marching and drilling that rendered our lives routine and regimented- very much like cadets in an army camp.

Though we detested these rituals then, they were nonetheless the means through which citizenship and belonging were instilled in us. But like those novels that you read when you were young, and never fully understood til you returned to them years later, the meaning of the national anthem never dawned upon me until many years later, when I found myself living abroad in Europe for 21 years.

I have, since the age of 18, lived the life of a minority. In England, France, Holland, Germany and now in Singapore, I have always been counted as one among the minority groups. I was either of a minority ethnic background or religion, or both. And during those years of constant movement my itinerant life has meant that the only things that reminded me of Malaysia were those that held some tactile, tangible memory in my mind: My old school St Johns, and my mother. These are the only things that keep me attached to Malaysia, two umbilical chords - one concrete and one physical, though now severed and yet symbolically real. I carried with me, during all those years of study and work, a living memory of Malaysia that remains with me until today.

My memory of school - St Johns in the 1970s and 1980s - was one that offered a glimpse of another Malaysia that may have come to pass, a Malaysia where all of us, Johanians, were of different ethnic and religious backgrounds and yet were bound together by a common sense of Malaysian-ness, and until today whenever my school chums and I meet (we are all balding now, with pot bellies being dutifully cultivated along with bad knees, weak eyesight and failing nerves) we recall the days when ours was a school that was a microcosm of Malaysia. Not that our nostalgia for the past is blinding, or that we would deny that there was, even then, the traces of sectarianism that was budding in our midst. But one cannot help but look back to that past and ask how and why the nation we grew up in has changed so much in so short a space of time.

My memories of childhood include the recurring memory of the evenings on the swing in our garden in the house in Ampang, where I would look at the sea of stars in the sky at night (in those days you could actually see stars in the sky at night as KL was not so lighted), and listening to her talking about the past; about the Japanese invasion, about the colonial era when she had to sing 'God Save The King', and the story of how she cried when she sang Negaraku for the first time in 1957.

That a song could elicit tears was a novel idea for me, for it was the same song being drummed into us at school at St Johns on a daily basis. But two decades on as I braved the hostile winters of London, Paris, Leiden and Berlin that memory returned to me again and again. Like a novel that one returns to years after reading it the first time, upon a second reading new meanings are suddenly laid bare. Could it be that I was, after all, a patriot?

The question pricked at the heart of my secular-liberal conscience for my education, tempered by a decade of student activism and unionism, had taught me that nationalism was always a potentially dangerous thing. And having spent the past two decades studying political violence and religious extremism, I would have to concur. I have seen enough instances of hyper-nationalism to make my blood freeze and my skin crawl. I have had the dubious honour of meeting and interviewing hyper-nationalists, religious extremists, terrorist fanatics and frankly I have grown weary and wary of those who confess their beliefs in too emotional and simplistic a manner. I fear hyper-nationalism as it always requires an enemy to define itself, to frame itself in positive terms. And until today I fear demagogues and ideologues who proclaim that their nation is the best, better than others.

In the course of my travels I have met many of such characters (dare I say it, more than any of you, dear readers) and I am repulsed by even the slightest hint of communitarianism and exclusive politics. But once I was struck by my own emotional reaction when I watched a crowd of hyper-nationalists from a neighbouring country burn the Malaysian flag before my eyes. It was an odd moment, when a feeling of great emotion overwhelmed me. There is no word to signify the feeling I felt, though the emotion was raw and complex; a mixture of profound anger and disgust, comingled by a deep abiding sadness, as if a part of me had been burned too.

The same feeling visits me time and again when, in the course of my work as a wandering academic, I meet other academic colleagues and scholars who occasionally let slip the odd jibe like "Well, what do you expect? Thats Malaysian politics for you!" The sniggers and laughter that follow sting my conscience deep inside, for I am torn between having to accept the superficial truth value of what they say, and my steadfast refusal to let it remain so. In my heart of hearts, I can only say to myself: "No, that is not how Malaysian politics should be, and we are better than that, and we can be better than that." I retreat to the hollow comfort of nostalgia and embrace the memory that Malaysia once had one of the best civil services in the world, the best university in Southeast Asia, the most professional armed forces. I cling on to the memory that this country was once led by men and women of integrity- and as a historian I can recount many stories of exemplary dedication, moral courage, honestly and integrity. I have been told stories of how the leaders of our country once refused luxury expenses, paid their own hotel bills even when on diplomatic missions, kept an eye on their personal accounts. My late Uncle Tan Sri Azizan was one of those who volunteered to be taken as a hostage on a hijacked airliner, so that innocent lives of other passengers could be saved. Malaysia was built on that, on the silent labour of an army of quiet patriots. And they were men who did not think that Malaysia was superior to other countries, who did not need to invent enemies to have a sense of self-worth.

Malaysia has just passed a threshold at its 13th General Elections and the mood in the country is electric. I do not know what may or will happen next. But what is clear is that differences in our nation have become divisions, and these divisions need to be healed if the nation is to move on. Both sides are accusing each other of betrayal, both sides are claiming the mantle of victimhood and both sides are lamenting our loss of innocence.

I simply wish to remind all of us, Malaysians of the same national family, that we are all citizens of the same nation - negaraku. Our nation has to come to terms with the fact that we are a complex family, with many different viewpoints. Unity and homogeneity are not the same thing, and in our desire to see a united nation let us accept the fact that we have to also accept our differences. This simple recognition of the inherent plurality and diversity is a fundamental fact of life, and cannot be overcome by a flattening of Malaysian society into a singular, homogenous Malaysian subjectivity. Nor can it ever succeed for no nation has prospered under such conditions. Our greatest asset, in my opinion, is precisely that diversity that prepares us for the complex world beyond our shores, making us global citizens even without the benefit of traveling.

Tonight I watched a video of tens of thousands of Malaysians singing Negaraku. Once again, I returned to the anthem of my youth, and found a new meaning to it. It taught me that despite our differences, we all love this country that is our home. When Malaysians sang Negaraku together tonight, it was not because they felt that theirs was a superior country. It was not sung in the spirit of jingoism or bellicosity. It was sung out of a simple, sincere love for a nation that we call home, for we have no other. I have lived abroad for 27 years of my life, but tonight from the confines of my study in my academic's flat in NTU, I was brought home for a while. I was brought back to that Malaysia that was born in the midst of a Cold War, in the midst of uncertainly and existential angst, and a Malaysia that was saved only because Malaysians loved it so. Yes, we differ; and we defend the right to differ. Yes, we are diverse and we cannot help being so. Malaysia is big enough for 30 million hearts to share. For we are, above all, Malaysians and whatever our ideological, ethnic and religious differences may be, there can be only one home for all of us: Negaraku.

End.

Till death do you apart

Amour  (Love, French; 2012)

I guess this is what happens when people live long lives. There is a mismatch between the mental faculty and physical ability to carry on with life. The mental acumen may be alert for a much longer time than the turgor of muscles of the physical form. The ego of being cocksure and refusal of the aged to be put away, compounded by the fact the offspring all have convolutedly confusing fast-paced separate lives with their own sets of problems may make living in the twilight years a living hell for themselves and those around them. Nobody is evil or is neglecting their duties. In this modern life, where the nuclear family concept is the norm, children who have just too much on their plate can barely put their own family in order, what more to fulfil their filial duties.

At least this what was going through my mind as I patiently followed this 2-hour French film where the characters literally drag themselves befitting people aged 80. The emotional component is accentuated by slow repeated movements, like feeding and cleaning the hemiplegic wife, to drive the message behind the story.

The film starts with firemen forcefully breaking into a bedroom where a corpse is lying down sprinkled with flower. Then it goes into a flashback...

Anne and Georges, retired piano teachers, are just returning from a piano recital of their student. They continue their mundane life talking about this and that. Anne had a temporary lapse of consciousness during breakfast. After some complications of surgery, she becomes hemiplegic. Georges goes out of his way to ensure anything is taken care nicely. A trained nurse checks on her periodically.


Their daughter, Eva, drops in. She feels disappointed with her mother's condition. Exchange of words happen with her father, whom she feels is not doing the best for her.
Things become worse when Anne has another stroke to degenerate further to be bedridden, childlike in her behaviour and incoherent. Remembering her wish not to be hospitalised or institutionalised, Georges continues caring for her despite the difficulties. Seeing her suffering constantly, he smothers her with a pillow. He seals the room with duct tape and continues on with his life. In a fugue state, he wakes up one day to the clanking of cutlery at the kitchen sink. Georges is surprised to see an able-bodied Anne talking incessantly. She invites him to go for a walk. He leaves, never to return.

In the next scene, Eva pays the visit... FIN!

A depressing movie, not for the people who watch movies to forget their misery and escape into a world of fantasy. You do not have pretty actresses with flashy clothes. In its place, you have an 85-year-old actress and a story about loneliness, sickness and the frustration of caring for the sick. Being an art movie, it won many awards. The 85-year-old main actress, Emmanuelle Riva, is the oldest actor to be nominated and won awards!

Wednesday, 8 May 2013

Brands, the essence of life?

We have all been told that we are all irrational beings and we do things on impulses, much to regret later on. This is crux upon which the advertising business is based on. Their modus operandi is simple, create an illusion of attaining happiness with their product when the truth of the matter is that nothing like that exists - a painter gets an inspiration after smoking a particular brand of cigarette, an entrepreneur is successful because he drinks a particular liquor and life is so easy when they use a particular brand of mobile device!
What a pity, man is still not happy.
In the running circle, there is forever literature put forward on new studies which revealed such a new product is better than the one before, how everyone had got it wrong all the while and so on...
In the 70s sports footwear underwent major transformation with much science and technology input. After that, everybody pretty agreed on the need for footwear to run. Fast forward 3 decades later, suddenly all these footwear and cushioning have allegedly made our intrinsic muscles of our foot atrophied and redundant. Now we are told to go back to basics, back to the cavemen days when our ancestors were roaming barefoot hunting for their meals.
Then everybody went barefoot or minimalist. Now, this people are saying minimalist is not for them after having aches here and there.
All these while, the lone wolf runner in his mid 50s whom I occasionally meet on the Sundays' long run is and has been quite happy with simple unbranded unfancy shoes and on top of that, he just zooms past us effortlessly putting all of us, younger caps to eat humble pie with our branded spanking new shoes.
At the end of the day, it is only the bad carpenter who complains about his tools! It is the skill, not the tool.

Remember how India was banned from the 1950 World Cup finals because they wanted to play soccer bare-footed! (Don't know whether it is true?)

Monday, 6 May 2013

A way with words!

Pockets of civilizations started with confluences of humans sporadically in areas considered fertile, non hostile, hospitable and habitable.Over time, the inhabitants started developing sets of rules and governance to maintain law,order and sanity to the weaker one in the society. They developed the art of imparting knowledge to the progeny so the knowledge that their forefathers had acquired by trial and error would not be lost in translation or the annals of time! With the innate greed that was ingrained in the DNA, pretty soon, one civilization tried expand their land over the other. (Land = Crops = Produce = No hunger = Bargaining power = Respect = Primordial sexual needs satisfied)
One technique employed by the invaders was make subject of their conquest to look down upon their own achievements, even though advanced by light years, and to look upon the the visitors' feats awestruck whilst to discard their own. Awestruck, they were and discard, they did!
And so the whole world speaks English and its forms it is spoken. And not knowing to speak in the lingua franca of the world is cringed upon.
Like that, the product of the post-modern world like me seem to find greater joy in appreciating the finer points in English rather than my own mother tongue. One of the podcast that I enjoy listening to right now is 'A Way with Words'. It is a programme showcasing the use of the English for the people who use it as their native language. The presenters of the show make an interesting presentation of learning English in a very fun and imaginative way. Some of the information that one can pick up are quite mind boggling and sometimes plain simple. They also discuss some idioms and obscure expression, looking at it from a history perspective and origin.
For example, "I am going the cut the quick of you....". The word 'quick' in the phrase refers to life, just like quick-sand (sand appears alive), baby quickening (the baby is alive), the quick and death (living persons), nails bitten down to the quick (the tender, sensitive flesh of the living body)....
Some of the things may appear petty but to lovers of the language, it must be God-send. There is a difference between the usage if the word 'use' and 'utilize', if it really matters! If you use a stapler to staple, then you use a stapler. If you use a stapler to do something that it is not intended for, like to smack somebody on the head, then you utilize the stapler!

https://soundcloud.com/waywordradio/120922-awww-1349-good-juju-mp3

Saturday, 4 May 2013

A peep into the rich and famous

Kanchenjungha (Bengali, 1962)
Director: Satyajit Ray

Ray must have felt disappointed his revolutionary movie that was 10 to 15 years ahead of its time did not stir enough public interest that he would like to. It also had the honour of being his first colour film, and he wrote the screenplay for the first time.

Deviating from the usual storytelling, this story narrates real-time happenings of a patriarchal Bengali industrialist family during their holiday at Darjeeling, overlooking the peak of Kanchenjungha and the crisis that they go through. In essence, the story is told through the conversations that occur during their walk through the mist, the ever-changing sunshine, overcast sky and the desire to sneak a peek at the elusive second highest peak of Himalayas. The irony of it is that, at the end of the film, when the mist has cleared up, nobody seems interested as they have more significant issues to handle.

The film is bilingual (English/Bengali) in keeping with the educated rich who are grateful to the British who brought 'civilisation' to India. They savour the British (a Dr Campbell) who had the foresight to develop a place like Darjeeling for them to enjoy. The protagonist of the movie, an MBE recipient, also admires the active lifestyle of the elderly whites (unlike their Indian counterparts who seem sickly and fretful). Despite adorning the Western tunic and way of living to a certain extent, he is still plagued with traditional superstitions. As he was about to start his walk in one scene, after hearing a sneeze by a passerby (signified a bad omen), he delays his journey! Old habits die hard!

It is the last day of their holiday and Indranath is still unlikely to view the peak of Kanchenjungha due to mist. Indranath, a proprietor of 5 companies, is in Darjeeling with his wife, a brooding sad-faced lady who is concerned about the turn of events the family; his brother-in-law, a widower who is a keen bird watcher; his first daughter who is going through a crisis with her husband about her former boyfriend; and his young 20-year-old daughter whom Indranath is hoping will marry the suitor of his choice. 

Indranath is rather pleased with himself for choosing the path that he decided that made him big. His wife is worried that her younger daughter, Monisha, may make the same mistake that the elder one did - marrying someone to satisfy her father. The elder sister has a hard time deciding between her daughter, her unloving gambling but rich husband and her lovingly persistent ex-boyfriend. She later finds out that he was behaving the way he was because he had come to discover her infidelity. Through the series of walks, they managed to patch up.

Her father's suitor, Banerjee woo the confused Monisha. Simultaneously, she happened to be introduced to a poor man, Ashok, who seems more to her fancy. The internal turmoil is depicted with great facial expressions and acting by the actress who plays her role. Ashok, the young man who befriends Monisha, has his misconceptions and stereotyping of the rich.
A side character in the movie is Indranath's son who is more interested in wooing pretty girls, but no one seems to find it wrong. I suppose Ray is trying to show the inequality of social justices between sexes. The movie ends as Indranath realises that Monisha had rejected his choice and befriended the poor boy Ashok. He was earlier in the film introduced to him with a prospect of securing a job in his company! Suddenly, the clear view of the peak of Kanchenjungha does not interest him...

Thursday, 2 May 2013

The go-getter and the waiter?

I have been in the company of many grown men. That does not sound right, does it? The main agenda of union may vary from group to group. Some try to relive their loss of youth, other of the same testosterone driven deprived males may instead pursue their dream to compensate their losing prowess either in the athletic and conjugal fields.
An interesting discussion took place in the running group recently - Lifeless Footwear!
One party was vehemently arguing that his success in his field of indulgence was not primarily due to his outstanding academic achievements but rather his aesthetically pleasing personality, charming demeanor and his utmost care that he takes on his physical appearance. With his alluring and assertive manner of handling situations, he, in his lifetime had superseded many other more qualified individuals with much more impressive CV.
The other party reiterated that even though he looked impressive and would fit the bill of every mother's prospective son in law and every CEO's manager to do his dirty job, they are some things that looks do not decide. This party, being the pacifist and leaving to-the-fate kind of fellow, stressed that some things are determined by unspecified unexplainable forces. No matter how qualified one he is, certain things are beyond control. He attributed his success in life to karma, guidance from people around him, good progressive friends and lots of hard work, the only thing he knows. The divine forces paved his way to good fortune by clearing obstacles along the way, like not getting chicken pox during an important examination. But then, a dynamic and assertive person could even fight fate.....

Wednesday, 1 May 2013

Music, music and more music...

Les Misérables 2012; [pronounced leɪ ˌmɪzəˈrɑːb (Fr)]
The poster shows a young girl, played by Isabelle Allen, in the background of a dark night. Text above reveals the cast listing and text below reveals the film's title.
Back in the spring of 1995, as I was wandering around the streets of London aimlessly after the clinical examination That is the advantage of having name starting with the first alphabet. You are mostly in the first few names of the exam register, hence you sit for your practical exams first and have to wait the rest to finish theirs!
So, my partner in crime then, LSC, insisted that we should not leave London without watching at one show in the theatres there. Living on a shoestring budget, the only plausible way to purchase their ticket were from a kiosk in Soho selling last minute tickets. Of course, this is before a time when Soho (at least in UK) only meant a strip "SOuth of HOuston (Street)" which was famous for nightlife, theatres and Chinese food! The concept of Small Office Home Office was unheard then! 
To me then, theatres did not excite me. I thought it would like the school dramas that they staged in school. I did not expect it to blow my mind as it did.
Due to unavailability of tickets we ended up watching 'Miss Saigon' instead of  'Les Misérables' or 'Cats'. The highlight of 'Miss Saigon' was the scene of people trying to board a helicopter. The whole theatre hall shook violently as if a helicopter was indeed on stage, with the excellent make believe stroboscopic lights and powerful acoustics to mimic the sound and sight of the rotating rotor blade of a chopper! My impression of the theatres changed forever.
18 years later, I finally got the opportunity to watch Victor Hugo's 'Les Misérables' on film.
Set in the depressing times of 1815 in Paris, two decades after the French revolution where everybody seem restless, poor and unsettled. The state appears like a open sewer and poverty is everywhere. Children are running around aimlessly with nothing to do. Against this backdrop, our hero Valjean (Hugh Jackman) is released from jail after hard labour of 19years for stealing bread to feed his starving child. The years were added on when he unsuccessfully tried to escape incarceration. His jailer, Javert (Russel Crowe) has a personal vendetta against Valjean  (gaol no. 24601) and promise to bring him down.
Even as a free man, he is unable to secure a place to sleep in peace because of his checkered past. He is given shelter and food at a church, but being the thief that he has changed to be, he even steals silverware for the church. He is caught by the police but is given a lease of new life when the pastor denied any wrongdoing on Valjean's part. Valjean repents and changes his wayward ways.
Fast forward... 8years later, 1823...
Valjean jumps parole but made himself successful. He owns a factory and is a mayor of a town. One of his workers, Fontine (Anne Hathaway), is ostracized and sacked for having an illegitimate child. She sells her hair, teeth and finally her body to fend herself and her daughter who is actually treated as a child slave by the paid caretakers. After a dramatic display of emotions, Fontine dies. Even though Hathaway appears for a short segment of the film, she made an impressionable impression on its viewers. (she went on to win many awards).
Valjean goes on to adopt her daughter, Cosette, as he felt bad as Fontine was his employee. The story goes on to explore the complex emotions, turmoils that the characters go through - the relationship between adult Cosette and her adopted father, Cosette and her boyfriend (Marius), Marius and his revolutionary seeking friends and of course the duel between Valjean and Javert who is forever trying to bring him back to jail.
An excellent musical with a complex layered story with rich characters depicting a time in the past.

On Nattukottai Chettiars...