Why does a debate on patriotism, deriving from
the Greek word, 'patriarch' meaning 'fatherland' can easily shake,
rattle and roll human reactions?
The
uncertainty about this nation’s future is not just leadership styles
and differences in governance that may be changed but allegiances and
loyalties on both sides of the political divide.
Naturally, August brings about the seasonal topic of “patriotism”
like the seasonal Malaysian fruit king, durian, making its odour and
thorny presence felt at the right time. Nobody is immune.
But time has also given “patriotism” many meanings to different
people even as unscrupulous politicians use the definition in their
rhetoric to gain favourable political mileage.
The concept of “loyalty and patriotism” to the nation has always been
a touchy issue particularly in the formative years of the nation,
before and after independence.
It reared its ugly head occasionally when rank and file Umno leaders
at the party’s annual general assemblies belittled and questioned the
loyalty and patriotism of non-Bumiputera communities, labelling them as
“pendatang” or migrants despite generations being born here.
Why does a debate on patriotism, deriving from the Greek word,
“patriarch” meaning “fatherland” can easily shake, rattle and roll human
reactions?
Is it just a feeling of being Malaysian in a manner that either you
love it or leave it type of sentiment? Does it apply to those Malaysians
who are often critical of their government but yet love this country
not necessarily in a blind or unquestionable way?
Or does it mean that if you see something wrong with your country or
your government but not do anything about it – makes you qualified as a
patriot?
A country is as good as its government.
“I am a concerned Malaysian who loves this country very much and I
cannot bear to see this country turn into another anguish May 13
incident.
“That is why I am taking this opportunity to contribute a bit of my
views on the New Economic Policy,” read the nine-page letter penned in
1989 by Malaysian Tan Lai Soon to Ghazali Shafie who was appointed to
head the National Consultation Council under the Mahathir
administration.
Ghazali, who passed away on Jan 20, 2010, previously served in the
Alliance-Barisan Nasional Cabinet including the Home and Foreign Affairs
portfolios from the time of Tunku Abdul Rahman to Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
The letter dated March 16, 1989 from Tan who hailed from Johor
expressed the writer’s deep disappointment with the socio-economic
developments at a time when the Mahathir regime was tackling the polemic
challenges of the Bumiputera policy fuelling a deepening racial
polarisation and deviations in the NEP’s implementation.
Tan wrote: “I remember during my younger days, there was no such
thing as Bumi and non-Bumi and all Malaysians irrespective of their race
and religion lived happily and went about freely without the slightest
feelings of polarisation.”
“When I was in Standard Three to Five, most of my school friends were
Malays and Indians and during the interval [school recess], we went out
in groups to coffeeshops or to stalls to have our food.”
Fondly recalling his nostalgic school days, Tan added, “We sat at the
same table with different types of food and there were no comments such
as halal or non-halal. We did not have strange feelings among
ourselves.”
Indeed, vividly in the memories of many older generations which
patriotic Malaysians unashamedly acknowledged were happy moments for
being true Malaysians during the time of Tunku.
Where did it go wrong?
Did something go wrong? Was there a turning point which changed the
course of this nation’s destiny? Did someone or any event hijack the
appointment of our nation’s destiny inspired by our Founding Father
Tunku’s dreams of a truly united nation?
Is his dream still in sight? Or have our younger generation of
leaders forgotten the spirit and momentous moment this nation has ever
known – our independence from British colonial rule of divide and rule?
The strong firm voice of our first prime minister reverberated across Merdeka Stadium in Kuala Lumpur on Aug 31, 1957.
Was the following parts of Tunku’s speech deemed prophetic today as we ponder upon his words:
“Whereas, in the course of human history, no nation, in order to
salvage itself, will ever remain static for a long time. It will be
compelled to decide on one of two directions, to go forward or
backwards. This depends on the ability and adaptability of that nation
in facing changes and developments.
“When the people are in a state of complete complacency with the
present status they tend to fear anything that may produce changes.
“They will suspect any move or anybody who comes out with new ideas
or inventions. But since human history is a history of changes and
developments of making things better and more perfect, this type of
self-satisfied nation will be left further and further behind and
eventually disappear and remain only to be revealed by future
historians.
“For us we are lucky that our nation is endowed by the grace of God
with fortitude, courage and dignity. We were once a nation with great
national heritage.
“…and with God’s blessing shall be for ever a sovereign, democratic
and independent state founded upon the principles of liberty and
justice, and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of the people and
the maintenance of a just peace among all nations…”
Should we relate the definition of “patriotism” to those words spoken by our founding father on the day of independence?
Even to astute-thinking Malaysians, these were hard questions as truthful answers could be discomforting and hurting.
Who would be brave enough to point out whether our nation was heading towards a spectacular failure or a raging success?
Are we polarised by divide-and-rule policies? Have we achieved or
fully fulfilled the principles and spirit of liberty and justice?
Is this nation governed with the peoples’ interest at heart by a
government seeking the welfare and happiness for its people for its own
power preservation or just before every general election?
Or was Tunku’s appointment with the nation’s destiny inevitably hijacked and diverted to a different course?
Answers in the next GE?
A defunct news magazine, Asiaweek, narrated on June 16, 2000, an
important event which occurred in June 1981, which many considered the
major turning point of our nation’s destiny.
“Tears flowed at the United Malays National Organisation general
assembly as delegates said farewell to their president and Malaysia’s
third prime minister, mild mannered former army captain Hussein Onn.”
A great patriot, Hussein had many advices on leadership. “Power is
given to us, not to lord over others, not to improve our standing nor to
enrich ourselves.”
After his stepping down, his party was heading contrary to his
advice, “Without integrity, a leader will use his position as a
commodity to peddle influence and to achieve status, name and riches.”
A onetime dropout from the party his father founded in 1946, Hussein
became premier in 1976 upon the death of his brother-in-law, Tun Abdul
Razak. But after the surgery at the start of the year, Hussein signalled
he would step down.
“The victory hug at the Umno meet went to a 55-year-old physician,
whose rise had been both controversial and spectacular. Mahathir Mohamad
had been expelled from Umno after the 1969 riots when he lost his seat
in the general election and spearheaded an attempt to depose the
country’s founding patriarch, Tunku Abdul Rahman.
“Wrote Mahathir at that time – ‘Glorying in its massive strength’ the
government has become contemptuous of criticisms and is no longer able
to feel the pulse of the people.’”
Was this the turning point of the nation’s destiny which saw Tunku’s
vision crumbling as the nation become more polarised and
materialistically corrupted?
Samuel Johnson, a British author and major contributor to English
Literature published a critique of his view of “false patriotism” titled
“The Patriot in 1774”.
Known for his famous statement, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrels,” Johnson was critical of false patriots.
Malaysians today should ask themselves this question: Can patriotism
become a primary measure of a politician’s character and loyalty in
today’s landscape? Should Malaysians be loyal to the nation in contrast
to a ruling regime?
And should Malaysians continue to be patriotic to the nation or to a
government adulterated by a system of patronage and accused of lacking
accountability and transparency?
Will these answers be reflected in the outcome of the next general
election? Only you, as patriotic Malaysians, as a collective conscience
to the nation can truthfully respond to these questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment