Symbolism and Playing to the Gallery

Going through Jeff Ooi's blogs and seeing the many comments from the public on the conduct of the UMNO Youth Chief also Malaysia's Education Minister, Dato' Hishamuddin Hussein, at the recent UMNO General Assembly, disturbed me somewhat.

Apparently, Dato' Hishamuddin in act of symbolism, held a keris, during parts of his speech to the UMNO Youth delegates.

This in itself would have been understandable - for the keris is an ancient Malay weapon, which symbolises the greatness and rule of the Malay Sultanate over the centuries (since the 15th century) and all the Malay "pendekars" that have fought on behalf of their sultans, in protecting their fiefdom.

It is a symbol which the Malays univ,ersally recognize - and the keris is still used as part of the coronation procedures of Sultans and the King in this country.

And this symbolism has carried through all the way to the 21st century - despite there being no absolute monarchy anymore and Malaysia is now a constitutional parliamentary democracy.

But the ruling Malay party, UMNO, has continued this symbolism, right from its formation in 1946. (Even if you look at the UMNO logo, the two main items there are the keris which symbolises Malay rule and the islamic calligraphy writing of a "nun", which symbolises that it is a Muslim party). The Malay leaders in UMNO are symbolised as the "pendekars" that will fight for the Malay cause.

Perhaps, the significance of the keris, was even more entrenched, when we take into account that UMNO was formed during colonial rule, in objection to the British administrators' plans of setting up the Malayan Union. Ironically, the party was set up by Dato' Hishamuddin's grandfather - Dato' Onn Jaafar, a true Malaysian, well ahead of his time (and ours, for that matter).

Even though the Malaysian independence were obtained by the political moderates like Tunku Abdul Rahman (who himself was a member of Kedah royalty) but there was no doubt that the Malays were willing to spill blood to gain their independence, if necessary, against British colonial rule.

Generally, the keris is a part of Malay psyche and identity. It's symbolism, history, heritage and culture, all at once. The man who wields the keris, is seen to be a hero that fights for the Malay cause. And that's the symbolism that Dato' Hishamuddin was trying to portray, I guess.


But being a Malaysian minister, is a truly complex thing. The members of UMNO may relate to the gesture, perhaps large sections of the Malay community too.

But other Malaysians in this day and age, will see no more than the UMNO Youth Leader and Education Minister, brandishing a weapon on stage. And perhaps due to lack of foresight, at the same time asserting Malay rights, by asking that the New Economic Policy (NEP) be revived. The image to others, may be somewhat menacing. Especially, when the NEP itself was born out of a racial riot bloodshed, in 1969.

It's natural for other Malaysians to feel threatened and insecure, sometimes. It has been almost a tradition, that no matter how moderate and liberal an UMNO Youth Chief is, sooner or later, playing to the grassroots Malay gallery, comes second nature to them. Regardless of whether they really mean it or not. It's like a process of gaining acceptance, from the people you lead.

Since the 1980's, if I'm not wrong, there's been at least two instances, when different UMNO Youth Chiefs (or their Deputies) have rhetorically threatened to burn down the Assembly Halls of some other communities, when they felt that an issue of Malay rights and privileges were being questioned. If I'm not wrong, one of them is now, Deputy Prime Minister.

All of them, have played the role of a Malay "ultra" at one time or another. (A Malay "ultra" was the name given to some of the young "turks" UMNO leaders, who were perceived to be trying to push for Malay political and economic hegemony - for instance, Dato' Jaafar Albar, Dr. Mahathir and Dato' Musa Hitam back in the 1960's)

Now accusations of Dato' Hishamuddin being a Malay "ultra" abound, because of the unfortunate appearance with the keris and making demands that the NEP be revived simultaneously.

If anyone has tracked his career at all, one would notice that he's far from being a Malay "ultra". He's a liberal by lineage and background, he schooled in St. John's Institution, historically, the most race blind school in KL, the company that he used to keep is liberal (the likes of lawyer/author/journalist Karim Raslan) and he's always pushed the cause of national unity, within schools - especially, at a time when racial polarization within the schooling system have never been worse.

By all measures, he's probably been the most reasonable and moderate of UMNO Youth Chiefs, refusing most times, to play the macho Malay character and instead, to focus on the work at hand.

And his UMNO Youth Deputy Chief is even more of a liberal - he used to have Jamaican rasta hair in university (albeit it was Oxford University) and less than 5 years ago, Khairy Jamaluddin would have been far less sympathetic in retaining the NEP, much less reviving it under a new guise of New National Agenda ("NNA").

But they are not ultras or racists. Not now, not in the past. Far from it. This is probably the most liberal, multi-racial and moderate pair in the history of UMNO Youth.

But no one looks at the history to judge him, fairly. It's the combined effect of brandishing an ancient weapon and at the same time, reasserting Malay rights that has caused him much damage, from the public perception perspective, especially of the non-Malays. The UMNO General Assembly is carried in all the national newspapers and electronic media - it is just not a Malay event, it is a Malaysian event, for all to witness.

We forget sometimes, that not all Malaysians relate to symbolisms in the same way.

As an UMNO leader and a Malaysian minister, the delicate balancing act of addressing all audiences, has to be carefully considered. One community's heroism is another community's villainism.

It is sad indeed, when callousness in form, leads to doubts on one's suitability and example as a Minister, in substance. But Malaysia is country that is saddled with much historical baggage and complexities. There is very little trust, shared histories, shared symbolisms and social capital that bounds the different racial communities together.

Sometimes, it seems like on political issues, (especially education-related issues) there is no consensus and we are only glued together by the leaders of the respective communities in the Government, via the multi-racial coalition of Barisan Nasional.

Perhaps, the lesson in this is that tolerance is the beginning of a harmonious co-existence in Malaysia, but it cannot be the end. If we regard it as an end in itself - it will be a barrier to national unity.

Unity must be forged on a common understanding of the relevant issues, a consensus on the approaches taken, strong sensitivity to the needs and concerns of others and genuine debate and acceptance of Government policies, by all.

For this nation to move forward, we must build trust beyond the confines of mono-ethnic parties, within a political coalition. There must be other ties that bind, at the community level. When we can start looking beyond race in all things and start doing what's best for Malaysia in the long run, then the process of national unity, can truly begin. Of being a Malaysian and having a shared history under the same roof - not of under different roofs but in the same neighbourhood.

Otherwise, all we've got after 48 years of independence - is still a fragile framework of racial tolerance. Tolerance will allow you to stagnate in one place peacefully, but only unity will bring you forward. And believe me, the realities of globalization will not wait for us, to get our act together.

The choices are stark - unite or regress.