AN IMAGINED NATION: STAGING PLURALITY AND UNITY IN MALAYSIA*

By Prof. Dr. Solehah Ishak Faculty of Artistic and Creative Technology University Technology MARA

Introduction: Nation Building Malaysia, a British colony for eighty-three years, (figure derived from 1874, the date of official British intervention in Perak), became merdeka (achieved freedom) on 31st. August 1957. Independence was achieved through peaceful negotiations based on constitutional compromise citizenship by right of birth for the different ethnic groups in exchange for recognition of the special position of the Malays. (Malayan

Constitutional Documents, 1958). In August 1963, Malaysia together with Singapore and the Borneo States of Sabah and Sarawak formed what is now called the Federation of Malaysia. As a result of political differences and misunderstandings due mainly to racial composition, (Mahathir Mohamed, 1970), Singapore separated from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965.
*

Paper presented at the New Directions in Humanities Conference, June 8-11, 2011 in Granada, Spain.

In Malaysia there are three main ethnic groups: Malays form 50.4%, Chinese 23.7%, Indians 7.01% and others 7.8% (est. 2004 data). The division that the British first created still remains: the Chinese have more economic power and with independence the Malays have more political power. As long as the Chinese did not demand more political influence and the Malays did not want more economic power, these two groups were able to co-exist peacefully. Throughout Malaya/sias history, the state has been involved in constructing and creating a truly harmonious Malaysian identity in which its ethnically mixed population can be hybridized into a cohesive, national, imagined community (to borrow Ben Andersons phrase) which can transcend the limitations of its own multi-ethnicity. One of the best ways to do it is through language which must reflect not only the independence from a colonial past but must serve to reflect the nations independence to conquer new frontiers. The English language was to be replaced by a national language, Bahasa Melayu. The Malay language was designated in the Malayan constitution as the national language of the country. Article 152(1) of the Constitution stipulates that the National language shall be the Malay language and shall be in such scripts as Parliament may by law provide.
2

In 1960, the government launched National Language Week which later became National Language Month. The use of Bahasa Melayu by non-Malays was specially stressed. Under these changing circumstances the focus turned again on the National Language which was seen as the National Unifier. In Malaysia, Bahasa Melayu was chosen not only because it was verso to the English language, but also because it has become the lingua franca throughout Malaysia, to the lowest stratum of society. But the Malay language is tied in with the interest of a major ethnic group, the Malays. Over the years we should note the change in terminology. What first started as Bahasa Melayu (the Malay language) gave way to Bahasa Kebangsaan ( the National language), which finally, after the May, 13 1969 racial riots, became Bahasa Malaysia (the Malaysia language), to lessen its association with one particular race and to make it into a more encompassing Malaysian entity, as belonging to all races. The dilemma becomes more pronounced now because the English language is not only widely used but has in the new millennium been empowered to also become the lingua franca of the Malaysian nation. Fluency in the English language is now a pre-requisite and a mark of success and achievement.
3

The issue of the National language has to be fought on many fronts: on a national, post-colonial front where the national language is seen and encouraged to be used to free oneself from the shackles of a colonial past; on a multi-ethnic front where it must be accepted as a national unifier and now with ICT and a borderless world, it must be fought on a global front and must confront its colonial nemesis once again for English is widely used and accepted as a global language. In this post-modern era, Malay leaders have also realized the importance of the English language to be mastered by Malaysians of all races. The issue of the standing of the National language is still cause for concern by Malay nationalists who fought so hard for Bahasa Melayu to be accepted and used by all levels of society. This is an ongoing battle and it is hoped that the supremacy of the National language will remain unchallenged even as Malaysians gear themselves to be inhabitants of a borderless world.

National Culture

Malaysias hybridity also entails the need for political, social, economic and above all cultural re-engineering to ensure an imagined community of Malaysian homogeneity. This is an important part of nation building. The state has realized this crucial need for cultural intervention even in the early post-merdeka days. Thus it was that from 30 December 1957 until 2 January 1958 the first National Malay Congress was held in Malacca, where it was unanimously accepted that the Malay culture would be the basis for the National Culture. In 1960, the first Prime Minister of Malaya/sia Tunku Abdul Rahman proclaimed and reiterated in the Dewan Rakyat the validity of making the Malay culture as the basis of the National Culture. This notion was further empowered and legitimized with the setting up of the Ministry of Culture, Arts and Tourism, better known then as MOCATS. In 2005, there was another name change and the Ministry was referred to as KEKKWA, Kementerian Kebudayaan, Kesenian dan Warisan , the Ministry of Arts, Culture and Heritage. Its current name as of 2009 is the Ministry of Information, Communications and Culture, Malaysia. After the May 13 1969 racial riots, the government sponsored a National Cultural Congress, held for five days from August 16 20, 1971. The congress took the initial step towards defining the basic
5

fundamentals of the proposed national culture. The non-Malays had always insisted that it is meaningless to ask them to become absorbed into a common Malayan culture when that culture has yet to be identified (K.J. Ratnam, 1965). No one is yet sure what Malaysian culture is. Is it to be an amalgamation of the cultures of the Malays, the Chinese and the Indians? Or is it only the Malay culture which shall be made into a Malaysian culture to be accepted by all the different ethnic groups, just as the Malay language was accepted as the Malaysian national language by all the groups? The National Cultural Congress rectified this lack of knowledge and arrived at three main conclusions; first, that the principles that are used to shape a national culture should be based on Malay culture. Second, since Islam was chosen as the religion of the Federation, it was only natural that the National Cultural Congress should also make Islam an important element in the promotion of this national identity. Third, to show that the other ethnic groups have not been ignored, the Congress stipulated that the cultures of the Chinese and the Indians, where suitable and appropriate, should be incorporated in the promulgation of a national cultural identity (Ministry of Culture, 1973). But the basic

principle remains: Malaysian culture has to be based on the culture of the Malays. The government has succeeded in making Bahasa Malaysia the national language; it might even succeed in its economic programmes. But with culture there are bound to be problems. The different ethnic groups have their own cultural heritages of which they are proud. The Chinese culture, no less than the Indian culture, is important, and certainly not inferior to the Malay culture. It has been noted that:

While accepting the desirability of a local orientation in education, the non-Malays continue to insist on cultural pluralism. They are willing to become Malayans politically; culturally however, they are determined to remain Chinese and Indians. (K.J. Ratnam, 1965)

It is crucial in a multi-ethnic country where multi-culturalism prevails for the government to use its political clout and power to re-engineer and ensure the acceptance of the National Cultural policy within the praxis of nation building. This is to legitimize the role of the government in creating an imagined homogeneous community. This becomes more glaringly crucial in the postmodern, global era where there is a predominance of shifting paradigms and annihilating barriers to enable a
7

laissez-faire, accommodating attitude in all spheres of life. It is important to highlight the national culture, for it symbolizes the expression, nuances, identity and character of the nation state. Yet, culture is created, shaped, identified, disseminated by the inhabitants, their languages, beliefs, norms, taboos and ways of life. Thus in multi everything Malaysia, the national culture is based on the Malay culture but it has to accommodate the cultures of the others. It is simple to concretize it in words, to actualize it in reality is something else. Hence, the current national agenda and slogan of 1Malaysia as propounded by the current Prime Minister, Dato Seri Najib Abdul Razak. We are One Malaysia; we are Malaysians, (not Malays or Chinese or Indians or others). This is our national identity.

National Identity Within Malaysias multi-ethnic-religious-cultural-lingual nation state, how does one identify oneself? For starters, all Malaysians have and must carry an identity card now known as MyKad. On this tiny credit sized card, is listed ones name, religion and gender, but not ones race or ethnicity. One is then given an identity number, made up of ones

birthdate (year, month and date), the state one is from and a last four digit number. What is identity? How is one identified, categorized and catalogued? For administrative purposes it is done in the above manner. That is the official means of identification. But what about our real identiy as exemplified by the manner we live, the way we talk, eat, dress, pray, celebrate religious and cultural festivals, the friends we have and keep. Is that also not part of our identity? Are we not confused, perplexed, agitated about what is our national identiy as against our ethnic identity? Do we think of ourselves as Malaysians or as Malays, Chinese, Indians first? And even as we think of ourselves as Malays, do we not see ourselves as Kelantanese Malay, Perak Malay, Kedah or Johore Malay amongst others. And do we not think also of ourselves as Malays of Minangkabau, Achenese or Bugis origins? Likewise if are Chinese, are we Hakkas or Teochews or Cantonese? And if we are Indians, are we Telugus, Malaylees, Punjabis, Gujeratis or Sindhis? And what about our political inclinations and ideologies? Are we UMNO Malays, PAS Malays or Pakatan Rakyat Malays. Are MCA or Gerakan or DAP Chinese?

(These are the different political parties which exist in Malaysia and afiliated with one race) The point to be stressed is: not one of these
9

racial group comprises a hmogeneous ethnic entity. We become homogeneous only when we are posited against the other whoever that other might be. From my Malay perspective how do I interact with my Chinese, Indian and even Malay friends, colleagues and or neighbours? Can we be colour blind? Or are our eyesights so excellent that we can see not only colours, but also warts and even the most minute of blemishes, and even more, we can also imagine all of these blemishes or create them when they do not exist. Are we and must we always and forever be embroiled in and within the forces of contestations and controls embedded within our society and psyche? Perhaps we are all of the above, for we are after all automatically conditioned to think in terms of we and us and the Other them. Our togetherness, our harmonious existence, our nation state, to borrow Andersons phrase, are all imagined. But the imagination is also real, the divides pronounced, the pluralities and multiplicities deep and

corrosive and we as individuals alone cannot overcome and change these historically embedded, traditionally entrenched and sometimes politically motivated disparities. Hence the governments role, functions and concerns. Hence the nullifying of identities associated with racial and ethnic identities. Towards this end the government has instituted
10

various national policies of the post 1969 era and are now engaged in numerous transformation plans. These plans and policiies are made so as to transform our economy, society and mindsets so that we can all become One Malaysia, irrespective of our different races, ethnicities, religions, cultures. Thus, the current agenda and slogan of 1Malaysia. We are One Malaysia; we are Malaysians, (not Malays or Chinese or Indians or Others). This is our national identity. Still it is unavoidable to also highlight the fact that we are not even an intra, forget about being an inter homogeneous society. It is because of these that throughout Malaysias history, there has been a conscious need that has become almost part of the psyche of Malaysian leaders to create a United Malaysian nation. These efforts towards nation building and the creation of a uniquely, Malaysian identity has seen the propositions of various national and or prime ministerial slogans which then becomes translated into national agendas to be fulfilled. (For a detailed discussion of these national slogans see Kamaruddin M. Said Slogan 1Malaysia dalam Konteks Evolusi Demokrasi Malaysia, in Malaysian Journal of Youth Studies, June,

2010). The latest 1Malaysia slogan has its own agenda of social, economic, cultural transformations towards the empowerment of a
11

united Malaysian nation. It is not the concern of this paper to discuss the layered implications of this 1Malaysia concept, but it is crucial to point out that playwrights have always reflected, reacted and refracted on these issues of nationbuilding. It is within these contestations that three Malaysian playwrights have given us the didascalia of their theatrics from which we must read and find their intended or even unintended semiotics.

Imagining the Nation: The Plays Playwrights have reflected and refracted the socialeconomicpolitical cultural-racial-ethnic dynamics and divides of an ever changing, evolving Malaysia nation. This paper exfoliates how three Malaysian playwrights ponder the issues of racialism,ethnicity, plurality, identity, nationalism and unity in three different plays: Othman Zainuddins Myth, Noordin Hassans Children of this Land and Kee Thuan Chyes We Could. You Mr. Birch. Othman Zainuddins Myth opens with the return of the British as symbolized by Tuan Besar (Big Sir) to the country below the wind (Malaya). Myth gives us a whole array of easily identifiable characters.

12

There is the Indian Khadam (Slave), Nina Suras nephew, who is ever devoted and loyal to Tuan Besar, the British colonizer. Budiman is a Malay who alienates himself from other nationalist Malays when he decides to join forces with the communists but only to fight a common enemy, British colonialism. When Helang Merah, the Chinese Communist, wants to expand his objectives to include revolutionizing the kampung folks to accept communist doctrines, Budiman realizes he has to part ways with Helang Merah. As a Malay, Budiman cannot be part of the Chinese (communist) scheme to destroy the Malays and their religion, Islam. Budiman eventually returns to the fold of his Malay relatives. He is forgiven, accepted and welcomed back by his Malay brethren, in spite of their earlier differences and contestations. Herein lies the nature of identity in the Malaysian context. One is a Malaysian, yet one is manacled within the very real racial, ethnic boundaries, and by being thus one is, consciously or unconsciously, empowering ethnic nationalities, instead of identifying, seeing and believing oneself to be a Malaysian devoid of all these other identities. In Myth the playwright does not portray a healthy Malay-Chinese relationship. The Chinese are portrayed either as openly Communists,
13

hence enemies of the Malays and of the nation or of the even more dangerous possibility as the hidden enemies like the hypocrite Tong San. He pretends to be part of the Malayan nation, pretends to help the Malays, but in actuality he helps his communists brethen, the Helang Merah. Again ethnic nationalism and identity supercedes national identity. Moreover, Tong San is also portrayed as a greedy Chinese who wants to have and eventually control everything. For him the nation is a huge piece of cake. which is very delicious, (p. 95). He admits that he and his people already have a small piece, but this is all too insufficient, too little to be of any significance. He wants to have a bigger piece. He will bide his time, help the communists, plan well and when the nation is at war he will grab the lions share. Such is Tong Sans greed, cunning and hypocrisy. If the Chinese are portrayed either as openly bad by being communists, or being hypocritical and greedy, the Indians are not drawn in a favorable light either. Nina Sura is a character of Indian descent who owes no loyalty to the country. In times of peace and prosperity he will stay, trade, acquire property and accumulate wealth. In times of war, he will leave. But he is also honest enough to admit that it is worse where
14

he comes from, namely the real India, his country of origin, is really poor (p. 17). Nina Sura wants only to acquire wealth; he is satisfied if he can trade and made his money, unencumbered; he does not harbor Tong Sans ambitions. In fact he reminds Tong San that when they arrived Tuk Sidang was already ruling and there was already a raja in the town (p. 97). The subtext of this cautionary remark is to remind Tong San that they are immigrants, that the country already had a Malay raja/king when they came to the country. The plays subtext is to delineate the history of the nation and the history of the immigrants. In Myth the playwright has portrayed a country whose only attraction is the wealth it offers. It is not only Helang Merah or Tong San and Nina Sura, but the likes of Tuan Besar who all want to have the countrys wealth. This is the pull factor. But wealth alone does not ensure that people will stay, live and mix freely and harmoniously. Hence when the country is unsafe these people will flee. When the colony was attacked and invaded by the forces of Panglima Hitam (Black Warriors, symbolizing the Japanese), Tuan Besar and his troops were the first to leave their created empire. Nina Sura Diwana also wanted to flee. The play posits the notion that these people have the choice and the ability to leave and return to their country of origin. They are not bounded to the
15

nation, they do not have to stay, unlike the Malays who have no other choices. Myth reinforces the racial, ethnic divides and stereotype images of the greedy Chinese, the ambitious, heartless Communist, the ever loyal Malay nationalist (and Malay communist), the cant be bothered attitude of the Indian so long as he can make some profit, albeit he is politically aware that when they came, there was already a Malay raja. Myth in fact reinforces the stereotype images and contestations of multi everything Malaysia. Myth can be seen as a theater of denunciation which deprecates Tuan Besar, disparages the likes of Nina Sura Diwana and excoriates both Towkay Tong San and Panglima Merah. The play also decries the natives. Tuk Sidang, Tuk Iman, and Mawars loyalty to the country is unquestioned. Budiman is also made to return to the Malay-nationalist fold. These are the people who will lead the country. But the attitudes of other people, especially those involved in defending the country, is criticized, for they are portrayed as not being brave and proactive enough to take care of the nation state. Myth is a symbolic, fantasy play open to interpretations. It is Othmans way of saying that the multi-racial and ethnic relationships he so symbolicly portrayed in his play, is but a myth and like all myths it
16

should not be trusted. If one chooses to read this text in this way it could then serve a redemptive function which augurs well for the health of this nation. One is then seeing it as a parody which can be highlighted in theatre through a campy or parodied style of directing. Or perhaps Myth is indeed the way of living then and now. We are a plural society and our ethnic nationalities continue to dominate and be more important than our national identities. We live in one country but we still have choices to leave it when the economic or political situation is not good. Or we have no choice but to live in this country and to view the Other(s) with doubts and suspicions. We, the reader-audience of this play, are certainly left to decide what to do about it: perpetuate the chasms, continue the plural divides or become close and homogenous in spite of the multifarious diversified identities. Thus it is that Othman wants his readers/audience to evaluate themselves, their society, the past, the present and the future that they are heading for and that they want to now create. If Othman portrays the Chinese and the Indians in a negative light, Noordin Hassan in Children of this Land paints for us another portrait of the Chinese. In the list of characters Ah Heng is described as a, Chinese who has lived for a long time among the Malay community. Almost like a relative with Hamzahs family. Opposes the communists
17

and is finally killed by them, (p. 5). Ah Heng is a Chinese, but he not only opposes the Chinese Communist, he also fought for the Malayan nation and eventually was tortured and killed by the communist. Ah Heng not only grew up in the kampung, but grew up in front of Mak Sus eyes. As midwife it was Mak Su who brought him into this world. It is not surprising therefore that she is like his own mother. Such is the very close symbiotic relationship between a Malay woman and her Chinese son. Ah Ean and Ah Heng are in a relationship with the

Malays, a relationship that is signified to be not so much between friends as between relatives. Ah Heng considers Mak Su to be his mother and Kudus as his very own brother whom he greatly loves. Ah Ean and Ah Heng are part of and have been assimilated into the Malay community. Their complete assimilation into Malay life is

achieved by ostracizing them from the Chinese community and nullifying all their other ties. In this play, for a Chinese to be good, he must live with and be accepted by the Malays. Thus Ah Ean reiterates that they have no other place to return to. The play also highlights that Ah Heng willingly suffers at the hands of and is eventually killed by the communist. It is important to highlight that Ah Heng is not like Othmans Helang

18

Merah or Tong San, or even Budiman. Ah Heng epitomizes an ideal image of the Chinese as envisaged by the playwright. In Noordins play, it is not only the Chinese who are good, even the colonial master as represented by Tuan Brown, is portrayed in a positive manner. On a simplistic, superficial level, Tuan Brown is a kind, generous employer. Later it becomes clear that Brown has other motives: he wants to marry Sapura and takes her back to England. Sapura is far-sighted enough to know that such a marriage would not work. The cultural and social divides are too wide to be effectively crossed. In Children of this Land, Noordin Hassan gives a microcosmic portrayal of the macrocosmic, multi-racial-religion-cultural Malaysian nation where characters grapple with their ethnic identities as they negotiate and re-negotiate, their diversities and pluralities to empower their national identities. A complex play, Noordin does not paint black and white pictures based on ethnic lines. He gives a potpourri of the good, the bad, the ugly of differing inter- and intra-ethnic groups. If Ah Heng and Ah Ean symbolize the good Chinese who willingly have become assimilated into the Malay community, the playwright

simultaneously gives the larger, Chinese communists who are the

19

nations enemies. If Mr. Brown is the good British Colonizer, his nemesis is his own bad, self for he eventually succumbs to the mystery of the oriental thus exotic Sapura even as he had frolicked with the Malay, Western educated and liberated Hani. In this play, Noordin also gives a portrayal of the Malays in all their hues: good, concerned, bad, indifferent, and malevolent. This is best exemplified in Sir Sabur Shahs own family. Sir Sabur Shah is a Malay councilor, enamoured by the British and all things English. But he is also a survivor: when the British was in power, it was only to the British that he looked up to and emulated, but during the Japanese Occupation, he had no qualms about becoming friends with the Japanese especially when the Japanese now have the power. His son, Badrul Shah, is an opportunist who, like his father, does not help the Malays. But his other son, Aman Syah, is a concerned Malay nationalist who will help fight and garner forces to ensure independence of the nation. His daughter, Hani, is a liberated woman who is involved with the British, Mr. Brown, and during the Japanese Occupation with a Japanese officer. For Noordin all these elements form part of the nucleus of multieverything Malaysian society. For the playwright it is not only the good nationalists, in the likes of Hamzah, Sapura, Aman Syah and Ah Heng,
20

who are the children of this land. The wavering, British-enamoured, later Japanese favoured Malay councillor, Sir Sabur Shah, and his vaccilating son, Badrul, are also children of this land.Likewise the patient and nationalist Malay woman, Sapura, who is ever patient and dedicated to transforming the lives of other Malay women. Also in this continuum is the hard working, kuih selling, mat weaving mid-wife, Mak Su. These are all children of this land. The murderer, as exemplified by Hamid, also belongs to this land. To make sure that his readers/audience understand that Ah Heng is also a son of this land Noordin, after having portrayed Ah Heng as a Chinese who has been assimilated into the Malay community, re-emphasizes this fact as seen through Sitis dialogue with Kamariah. As Siti, the undergraduate, says this country, kak, is also Ah Hengs country. All the above people, the good Malays, the bad Malays, the good Chinese, the bad Chinese are children of this land. Noordins statement, given in a straight, declarative dialogue may jar his mostly Malay audience, cajole his Chinese audience and hopefully

succeed to inspire a re-thinking of ethnic identities and the re-aligning of national consciousness.. Perhaps it is because of the above that at the end of the play, Noordin, through the Chief Warden of the Prison, tells his audience that:
21

.A good person is one who is useful to society; helpful to himself and to other members of the community this is the first time that prisoners from different jails have worked together so successfully. Weve proven that we could work together, and tonight Im very proud to say that Ive witnessed the type of people we have here. Iron bars and walls are purely man-made. But our hearts, our thoughts, our feelings cannot be imprisoned by anyone except our own selves (p. 147)

The prison is a powerful image. Noordin wants the people to break free from this (ethnic?) prison, which has been shackling the hearts, minds, consciousness and feelings of the people. The prisoners, in the playwithin-the play have come from different jails, yet they have managed to work hard and successfully. Noordin wants us to carry that image further, to extend it to the different races in Malaysian society at large, such that we who are so multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-cultural will also

change, work together, willingly, hard and hopefully we will succeed to eventually metamorphose and become Malaysians. Perhaps, implicitly Noordin is saying that we as Malaysians, whether we are Malays, Chinese, Indians or others, are in this prison together. So we might as well work together to turn this prison into a meaningful, happy world for all of us. For only when this is done, can we live in this potpourri of many
22

hues and shapes, nurture our ethnic identities, enjoy our pluralities, our multiplicities, diversities and differences and by so doing empower our national consciousness and identity. The prison also poses a different image, one of imprisonment, of being manacled and shackled, and without having the freedom of being able to make choices. Above all, it is the notion of being unable to escape. The loss is not only of personal freedom, but also of an ability to break free from this bondage which can be seen as being unable to unshackle the dominant, main-stream ideas which have coloured our perceptions, shaped our trajectories and determined the formations of our ethnic racial-cultural psyches and angsts. But the nation state has evolved, the political-economic-cultural scenarios are not stagnant and static. We have and must also chang, accept and be able to accommodate. As Siti, the undergraduate, tells Kamaria: Times have changed; and situations are different, kak. The awesome reality is right in front of our eyes. We have to accept the truth and use it to the best advantage. (p. 151). But what is the awesome reality? The fact that this is a multi-racial, multi-ethnic nation and that we should be basking in these diversities; or we are boxed in within our own innate ethnic assumptions and that we are thus hampered and manacle? Or the
23

awesome reality is that we are all but members of one nation, we have all made sacrifices just as we have contributed to its growth and

progress, and although we all have our historical baggages we can move along a new continuum and create new trajectories and narratologies. As paradigms shift, we must be able to break free, to change, to adapt,to make sacrifices, to wilingly share, to accomodate and to accept new premises. This is the thrust of Noordins message. It is Nordins reflection of what being Malaysian means and entails. In Kee Thuan Chyes We Could. You Mr. Birch, we again take a journey into history, namely the history of British intervention in Perak with Sir Andrew Clarke, governor of the Straits Settlements, trying to solve the political problem of a Sultans ascension to the throne. Tan Kim Cheng has advised the Malay Sultan to approach the British for help for it is in the best interests of everyone that order is established in these parts. Business can now proceed as usual [my emphasis], (p. 3). From the beginning the premise is to ascertain that the country is at peace and all the differences co-exist harmoniously, for only when stability is ensured can other socialpolitical cultural cogs function together. The play also re-enforces the image of the Chinese as being interested only in business, namely in making money. Datuk Sagor highlights the
24

presence of the Orang Cinas shop (p. 41), the Chinese peoples shop. It is the Chinese who are doing business and obsessed with raking in the profits. As Birch, the British Resident says Drop a gold shilling and they (the bloody Chinamen) can hear it miles away (p. 4). The Chinamans main concern is to make money. He has no principles, he goes along with the party that will support his business/financial interests and he will do anything to ensure he succeeds. As the character in the play says, the only straight thing about the chinese is their hair (p.30). Besides economic power, the Chinese also wants political power and so plans to wrest power from the Malays. Tan, the Chinaman, cohorts with the Sultan, his friend, and will advise the Sultan to cooperate with the British. Tan is a Chinese middleman negotiating with the British and the Malay Sultan, all for his own ends. He admits that he is being devious in his dealings with the Chinese, Malays and the colonial master but what to do, must cari makan, what, (earn a living), (p.29). The Melayu therefore fears the Chinaman. Reminiscent of Othman Zainuddins Myth, Kee Thuan Chyes play posits the same stereotype image of the Chinese who are portrayed as greedy both for power and wealth. And always the fight is between the Chinese and the Malays, often with the British being the
25

colonial mastermind. Each seems to be the others nemesis. The Maharaja Lela is aware of the divide and rule policy of the British. He also knows that a gulf will be opened not only between them and us, namely between the British and Us (the Malays) but between Us and Us (Malays and Malays)! The British will create gulfs not only between the Malays and the Chinamen but also amongst the Malays themselves, and amongst the Chinese. Thus the British must be fought, an initial step which must be taken so that we, who are so diversified can not only be united but others, whoever these others are, within or without, cannot exploit our diversities and in so doing not only weaken us but prevent us from becoming united as one Malaysian identity. In Tan Kim Cheng, the playwright has given us different perceptions of the Chinaman, namely as perceived by the Chinaman himself, by the British and also by the Malays. Furthermore, it is also an image given by a Chinese playwright who has to negotiate and renegotiate myriad paths and byways as his dramatic character Tan Kim Cheng is doing, so as to be able to become, to be seen and to be accepted not only just as a Malaysian but also seen as not being

particularly pro-Malay and by implication anti-Chinese!! Herein lies the

26

cruz of living in a multi-racial nation and the negotiations that are involved. Again in this play, as in Children of this Land we are confronted with the image of the colonial master, the white man being enamoured by the exotic native slave, Kuntum. From Birchs speech we know that to him the colonized people are blessed with a gentleness. But Birch also admits that whilst he finds their brown skin inferior, it is nevertheless attractive The Birch-Kuntum relationship finds its parallel in the earlier Brown-Sapura relationship. This type of relationship is still based on a power relationship: the powerful white man and the powerless native woman, who, although inferior is stilI attractive. It would seem that at this juncture relations between the colonial master and the native cannot or should not proceed beyond that of a political exegesis, albeit one that is still based on power, on the one hand, and lack of power, on the other, both of which still involves a lot of negotiating. Birch does not have a flattering image of the locals. As he says these locals are incapable of organizing themselves. What they know best is fighting. For gain. The upriver chiefs versus the downriver chiefs. And the bloody Chinamen and their rival secret societies (p. 4.). For Birch things will only change with the presence of the British Resident.
27

The locals/natives are mixed in petty disputes inter and intra their ethnicities. The problematics become more pronounced when

compromises are unhinged and the natives empowered by being united as exemplified by the Malays who are not about to accept all that Birch has planned for them. As the Maharaja Lela says The white people have no place here. Birch has no right to tell us what to do. He doesnt understand the way things work in our society (p. 6). Birch does not understand our language (p. 6), or how things work in our (emphasis added) society. Moreover he is kurang ajar (literally not well taught, namely rude) (p. 6). He is a white misfit, a colonizer in tune only with the political mapping and economic plundering of the country, albeit aware of the racial pluralities and differences and playing them to his advantage. Still there are Malays who are obsessed with aping the ways of the British just as highlighted by Noordin Hassan in the character of Sir Sabur Syah. As the Maharaja Lela says:

.It has already happened with people like the Temenggong of Johore. He dresses like the white men, gambles on horses, plays the white mens games like hitting balls on a table with a long stick. Is he still one of us? (p. 37).

28

In this play, the Malays have to fight not only the Chinamen and the British but also their own kind who have gone over to the British and the Malays who are fighting for their own personal gains. This is the Us against Us syndrome, which has led to the questioning of loyalties and identities. Is he still one of us becomes a question of deep implications and significances. For the opposite is: he is no longer one of us; he has so transformed himself and thinks he can be part of the other, although in reality, he will never be really accepted into their fold. He will just be another misfit, to them and to his own people. Still in the final analysis the Malays will be united, and the British defeated, by something greater, namely the Malay tradition which will annihilate the British and give order to the lives of the Malays. As the Maharaja Lela says:

Our tradition will bring him down. He cannot challenge something that he doesnt understand, something greater than all of us. We live and die by it. In our society, every person knows his place. Every person knows the role he has to play as dictated by our tradition. That gives order to our lives. (p. 6).

Tradition will be the unifying factor. Tradition will annihilate them and unify us. Tradition will empower us. As the Maharaja Lela says join me now to stand up against the white men. Our numbers are bigger, we can
29

fight them if we join together. Come, my people, rise up against them, drive them from our land. (p. 43)

Theatrical Productions We could You Mr. Birch, as the playwright says, is satire and parody, mocking and self-mocking (in the Playwrights-Directors Notes). Kee Thuan Chye has made clever use of his actors breaking in and out of character. The readers/audience are brought in and brought out of the play ever so often so as to nullify the representation on stage and to highlight the reality around us. This is Thuan Chyes Verfremdungs Effekt to prevent us from being assimilated into the play and more importantly, to enhance our thinking and analysis. Throughout the play the actors break out of character to question, discuss and analyze what they are doing. And we, in the audience, are also broken out of our reverie of seeing a play when we see actors break out of character. In fact, the actors, when not in character, not only talk among themselves as people/actors but also address the audience and demand their participation. The technique of breaking in and out of character, of deliberately destroying the illusions of theatre, and of enhancing the Verfremdungs
30

Effekt enable us to analyze and evaluate our present. To this aim, the playwright has included the ensemble scene, where the young, dressed in contemporary dress, dance and indulge in much revelry. They dance to the strains of a joget number as they talk about the stock market. The play ends with the same ensemble group, frantically using their handphones as they talk to their stock-brockers. Past and present become interlocked when Kuntum, the slave woman, grabs a handphone and joins in the frentic fray of buying and selling shares. The ending takes a different hue. It is almost as if the playwright is saying: forget the play, forget the politicalcultural-religious-ethnic divides, forget the past, forget our history, instead live and enjoy the present and work for the future. But significantly the present is mired with finance as seen by the negotiating of shares.

Noordins technique is to present a play within a play within yet another play. Within these Pandora like boxes and never ending array of doors, he presents and re-presents to his audiences the history of the nation from the past to the present to the future. He uses techniques from traditional theatres, amalgamating songs, dances, multiple roles and the moving in out of characters to jolt his audiences. Noordin is also
31

an adept exploiter of the verfremdungs effekt. He even mocks at his audience by using his dramaticpoetic licences to turn his audiences into prisoners, at least for the duration of the play. Noordin implies that we are all prisoners, we might not know it or be aware of it, but we have all been imprisoned, our minds be they political, cultural, ethnic or religious- are shackled, our angst enhanced, our insecurities exploited, our consciousness denied, nullified, exacerbated and our futures compromised . As prisoners, we will be controlled and even manipulated. The choice is ours: continue to live in this prison, embedded within the same dynamics or break free from this prison to create new trajectories and possibilities. Othman Zainuddins theatre denounces and deprecates all so as to enhance the realities of the past which continues into the present and might perpetuate into the future. If these stereotypical images, so deeply ingrained and practised in our daily lives are not changed, they will forever affect and impact our current and future situations and endeavors.

Conclusion
32

The above three plays are attempts to find our ethnic and national identities in this multi-racial country of ours. Othman Zainuddins Myth is a symbolic fantasy which presents and confirms stereotypes of the past which unfortunately linger on to become problematics of the present. Hence at some levels society is integrated, at other levels it is not. The question is: can we release ourselves from this past? This is something which we all must re-think about if we are all going to be integrated. Noordin Hassan has given us an interesting play which attempts to portray integration. But Noordins integration demands absolute

assimilation into Malay society. Is it possible or viable for all Chinese to be like Ah Heng? Can they become thus? Must they in the first place, be like that? Or is this all a dream or nightmare for Noordin Hassan? Kee Thuan Chyes Birch forces us to relook at the whole history of British intervention, at the money minded Chinese, at the Malays as they tussle with power, slavery and fighting their many other nemesis. Above all Thuan Chye, throughout the play, by making his characters break out of characters forces the readers to evaluate the history of the nation. All three playwrights want us to ask ourselves what is history after all. Their plays highlight not only that our views of history are as we
33

want to view it, but also that if we can control history, then history will not control and dominate us. We have to break out of that stereotype and be able to change, adapt and above all accommodate. The dramatists

stress the fact that we not only have a choice but also a responsibility because we choose how we want to see history and how to let history determine our roles and our identities. All these playwrights have given us powerful didascalias so that we can understand better the semiotics of their theatres for us to further appreciate our pluralities, our diversities, use these differences (instead of fighting them) to empower ourselves and our identities so as to enable all of us to become a nation state of united Malaysians, bearing in mind, to borrow Andersons term, imagined though they may be. The above three playwrights have presented both the other and we/us in their plays, both within their ethnicities, pluralities and the overriding national community in the larger sense of a multi-racial nation. We are we, we are others, we fight against them, we even fight amongst and against us, yet in the final analysis what is our innate identity within this multi-religion, cultural, multi-hued pot of many possibilities. Within this context, characters and readers have to contest, contend, negotiate,

34

re-negotiate how to become really, truly Malaysian or in the current lingo, 1Malaysia.

35

Bibliography Plays Kee thuan Chye. We Could . You Mr. Birch. Penang: kee Thuan Chye, 1994. Noor Hassan. Children of This Land (Trans. Solehah Ishak). Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1992. Othman Zainuddin. Myth (trans. Solehah Ishak in Malay Literature Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1989, pp. 66-120. Cited Works Anderson, Benedict.1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso. Kamaruddin M. Said. Slogan 1Malaysia dalam Konteks Evolusi Demokrasi Malaysia, in Malaysian Journal of Youth Studies, Vol. 2, 2010. Mahathir Mohamed. 1970. The Malay Dilemma. Singapura: Asia Pacific Press. (N.A.). 1958. Malayan Constitutional Documents. Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Government. (N.A.). 1973. Asas Kebudayaan Kebangsaan. Kementerian Kebudayaan Belia dan Sukan. Kuala Lumpur:

Ratnam, K.J. 1965. Communalism and the Political process in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya.

36