About That Keris Incident....

How many years has a certain national leader been raising and waving the wavy dagger? For a stretch of time, it seemed that every year, the wavy dagger (known as a "keris" or a "kris") was sure to make its appearance at a certain political body's general assembly, and some people in the cheering crowd would make insensitive remarks, encouraging the national leader to use it. The question was, who were these people encouraging him to use it against? He rose from the "M" group (conveniently referred to as "M" after this) which seemed that, they were encouraging him to use the dagger against the non-M's.

Of course, the "non-M's" that make up part of the fabric of this great nation became afraid. Yet it seemed there was nothing that could be done about it. The raising of the dagger continued every year, leading many to think that: (1) It is acceptable in the eyes of the law to taunt and threaten the non-M's; and (2) The non-M leaders were not protesting against this threatening act. The non-M's in this great nation became abuzz with disdain for the dagger; it seemed that it would only be a matter of time before the dagger became bathed in crimson liquid.

This raising of the dagger continued as part of an illustrious ceremony, enshrined and sanctified with divine blessing from above; no one could squeak a peep in protest. Eventually it was televised. To the non-M's, it was unknown whether the M's in general were all in approval of it; but it did seem to reduce the idea of this great nation, born out of shared adversity and great hardship, to a laughing joke. The idea that many peoples, from different creeds and breeds, could be inspired to unite under one umbrella, and in unity free themselves from colonialism, was one that inspired many to believe that there was a future in this land. In the year of liberation, 1957, many proudly called themselves patriots and citizens, after the long and arduous journey fraught with many pitfalls. Many sacrificed their savings, pledging all they had, to support a cause that they believed in. A great many people pawned their jewelry to buy passage for national leaders to make their way to the land of the colonial master. Finally, hand in hand, the M's and the non-M's together, liberation was won! Unjoined states became joined under one banner. This land was born out of a shared struggle, one that envisaged a future where diverse peoples of various creeds and breeds would be united and forging a brighter future together.

Over time, untoward incidents, planned, provoked and performed by certain selfish perpetrators, have served to slice up, and destroy, the fragile bonds of that original society. Over time, we have become accustomed to living a life of segregation, discrimination, and polarization. The same people who were living at the time of liberation (1957, or 1963, depending on his/her geographic location) may still be alive, yet their views of what is possible for this great nation today may be less ideal, and less hopeful, than the views that they held in their youth. With the passing of time, painful experiences become dulled, and eventually, acceptance of unacceptable matters, becomes the norm. While it is true that certain incidents and certain policies may have benefitted this nation as a whole, but the Machiavellian manner in which things were executed have caused a great many families (and individuals) to suffer needlessly, to the extent of which the scars which remain to this day still manage to evince a sense of loss and bitterness.

What is amazing is that, in a bid to play up his persona, this national leader could raise the wavy dagger, to shouts of approval, forgetting that those who had lived through those darker days surely tremble with fear to look upon the aggressive manner in his campaigning. I am sure that violence is not the solution to our present day problems. M or non-M, we share many problems. It is no longer true that the C-community lives in urban areas, the I-community in the rubber estate, and the M-community in the rural areas. Many of us are now urbanized. M's should realize that they are statistically speaking, numerically superior to non-M's. If anything, the M's should realise that whether they succeed or fail, is ultimately up to themselves. Can vanquishing a non-M make the price of petrol go down? Or the price of trust investments go up? Or stem corruption and create a better, cleaner, and more transparent government? Is it possible, that by extirpating non-M's, societal woes can be solved? Will the police be able to solve long-unsolved robbery and fraud cases? Will "wanted" dangerous criminals be suddenly caught? Will the authorities suddenly protect whistleblowers, prevent unfair competition, magically reduce inflation, and dramatically decrease unemployment? These are real problems that should be addressed.

Our learned DPM (courtesy of Agenda Daily) said:

"Sebenarnya maruah orang Melayu tidak bersangkut pada soal keris, maruah orang Melayu hanya akan terbela kalau sekiranya orang Melayu berjaya dalam pelbagai bidang, politik, penguasaan ilmu, ekonomi dan sosial, segala-galanya mesti memperlihatkan kemajuan orang Melayu pada tahap kecemerlangan.

"Kita boleh bersaing bukan sahaja di persada negara tapi antarabangsa, pada masa itu orang Melayu akan dilihat sebagai bangsa berjaya. Jadi keris ini semata-mata soal simbol sahaja, tidak dikaitkan dengan soal kecemerlangan, kecemerlangan dalam realiti dunia ini bergantung kepada kejayaan kita dalam bidang strategik."

A rough translation would be:

"Actually, the honour of the Malays does not depend on the keris, [and] the honour of the Malays would be upheld only if the Malays succeed in various fields, politics, excelling in knowledge, economics and society, everything must see the progress of the Malays at the stage of excellence.

"[If] we can compete not only in this nation but also internationally, at that time Malays will be seen as a successful race. This keris is merely about the question of symbols, not relating to the question of excellence, excellence in the realities of this world depends on our success in strategic fields."

The use of the word "terbela" (upheld) regrettably implies that there is an "other", one that needs upholding against. Again, the implication (from the context) is that success must be measured by comparison against the non-M's. But if this is the case, then in the long run it is harmful to the M's and the non-M's. Firstly, in this nation, M's must work with non-M's, and vice versa, to succeed. Yet at the same time, M's are encouraged to compete with non-M's. Is it possible to both compete (sometimes harmfully) and at the same time co-operate with our potential business partners? That is a tall order. Things have to change. The M-community should realise that non-M's are their partners. A destructive relationship can only cause unhappiness. M's and non-M's should co-operate, and communal politics should change to take into account the aspirations and hopes of all communities. Issues like poverty, health, national policies, etc. should be tackled as problems that pervade all levels and sectors of society. Every one, no matter whether an M or a non-M, should be given equal opportunity and benefit. And most importantly, M and non-M relationship should be nurtured.

Further reading

• Wikipedia, "Kris" - link
• Agenda Daily, "Maruah Melayu Bukan Pada Keris" (26.4.2008) - link
  
• Malaysia Today, "Kerismuddin Apologises" (27.4.2008) - link
• Malaysia Kini, "Najib: Keris Apology Won't Derogate Malay Unity" (26.4.2008) - link
• The Star, "Hishammuddin Urged To Quit Over Keris Issue" (27.4.2008) - link
• The Star, "It Takes A Big Man To Apologise" (27.4.2008) - link