Mengenang H. M. Dahlan

[Kertaskerja yang dibentangkan pada “Kolokium Sehari Satu Dasawarsa Allayaraham H. M. Dahlan” anjuran Program Sains Pembangunan, Pusat Pengajian Sosial, Pembangunan dan Persekitaran, Fakulti Sains Soaial dan Kemanusiaan, UKM, pada 27 Oktober 2007, di Bilik Senat, UKM, Bangi.]

Prof H. M. Dahlan: Teman Seiring dalam Kembara dari Pengajian Budaya ke Sains Sosial

Oleh Rustam A. Sani

Saya mulai bertugas sebagai Pensyarah di Jabatan Antropologi dan Sosiologi (JAS), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), pada tahun 1976. Pada waktu itu UKM masih belum berpindah ke kampus tetapnya di Bangi, masih menjadi “setinggan” di Jalan Pantai Baru, Kuala Lumpur, dan masih berjiran dengan Universiti Malaya. Namun, pada ketika itu JAS bukanlah sebuah jabatan baru – sudah enam tahun umurnya sejak JAS ditubuhkan pada tahun 1970.

Meskipun pada waktu penyertaan saya itu Ketua JAS adalah Sdr Dahlan Haji Aman, namun usaha untuk “menggoda” saya supaya menyertai JAS telah dilakukan oleh seorang teman lain, yakni Saudara Hairi Abdullah. Pada waktu itu saya baharu sahaja pulang dari England (memperoleh Postgraduate Diploma in Theoretical Sociology dari University of Reading dan MA in South East Asian Studies dari University of Kent at Canterbury) – dan baru menyertai Pusat Bahasa UM untuk mengajar Ilmu Penterjemahan.

Pada ketika itu JAS sedang menghadapi masalah mencari tenaga pengajar, khususnya dalam bidang-bidang tertentu seperti Teori Sosiologi dan Antropologi. Tambahan pula pada ketika itu terdapat tenaga pengajar dalam bidang tersebut yang memutuskan untuk berkelana ke lapangan-lapangan lain yang lebih mencabar dan lebih “exciting”. Oleh itu, salah satu tarikan besar bagi saya menyertai JAS pada ketika itu ialah kemungkinan yang ditawarkan kepada saya untuk mengajar dan memperkembangkan bidang-bidang pengajaran yang saya gemari – Teori Sosiologi dan Sosiologi Politik.

Namun, aspek yang lebih menarik bagi saya tentang JAS ialah suasananya – sebahagian besar tenaga pengajarnya terdiri daripada teman-teman yang memang sudah saya kenali dan dapat dianggap seangkatan dengan saya dari zaman kami menjadi siswa di Jabatan Pengajian Melayu, Universiti Malaya, pada akhir tahun 1960an. Oleh yang demikian, saya tidak menghadapi banyak masalah dalam menyesuaikan diri dengan JAS maupun dengan ketuanya, Dahlan.

Bilangan para pensyarah JAS pada ketika itu tidaklah terlalu banyak – mungkin sekadar memenuhi tiga lantai sebuah blok bangunan rumah pangsa di Jalan Pantai Baru itu. Namun, bidang pengajaran yang dibebankan kepada para pensyarahnya cukup luas, meliputi bidang-bidang Psikologi, Antropologi dan Sosiologi. Bidang Psikologi berkembang menjadi sebuah Jabatan sendiri beberapa tahun kemudian di kampus baru UKM di Bangi – namun Antropologi dan Sosiologi terus menerus tidak diasingkan, meskipun gagasan dan pertukaran fikiran ke arah itu pernah tercetus.

Sebagai sebuah Jabatan akademik yang muda dan kecil pada mulanya, pada hemat saya salah satu “kekuatan” JAS itu ialah sifat introspektif dan “self-conciousness” sebagai pendukung sebuah bidang baru yang sedang cuba diperkembangkan dalam sebuah suasana akademik yang baru (yakni UKM yang ketika itu sedang diperkembangkan sebagai sebuah IPT yang secara experimental menggunakan bahasa kebangsaan Malaysia sebagai bahasa pengantarnya).

Bukan semua, tetapi sebahagian besar, para pensyarah di JAS mempunyai latarbelakang akademik yang agak sama. Sebahagian besar daripada mereka datang dari latarbelakang bekas pelajar “dewasa” yang terlatih di Jabatan Pengajian Melayu, Universiti Malaya – khususnya dari Bahagian Kajian Budaya Melayu – dan kemudiannya meneruskan pengajian mereka pada peringkat Sarjana di jabatan-jabatan Antropologi dan/atau Sosiologi di universiti-universiti di luar negara (khususnya di AS, UK dan Australia).

Latarbelakang latihan para pensyarah JAS yang dapat dikatakan tidak begitu mantap dari segi bidang-bidang Sosiologi dan Antropologi semasa seperti yang terdapat di Barat itu dari satu segi sebenarnya merupakan suatu rahmat. Para pensyarah pada peringkat itu sebenarnya menyedari tentang “kelemahan” mereka dari segi itu dan berusaha untuk memantapkan latarbelakang konsep dan teori mereka dalam pengajian mereka di luar negara. Keadaan ini juga menjadikan mereka begitu insaf tentang betapa perlunya menggubal semacam pendekatan dan tradisi sendiri dalam memperkembangkan semacam ilmu sosial dalam suasana akademik yang amat tebal sifat penerokaannya itu.

Dan semua ini dilakukan dengan kepekaan teoritis yang amat jelas. Bagi saya, inilah salah satu kekuatan dan keistimewaan Dahlan dan teman-temannya, yang merupakan para pensyarah peneroka dan pemula JAS. Dua tahun sebelum saya menyertai JAS, teman-teman peneroka itu sudah menganjurkan suatu seminar bagi membincangkan halatuju JAS dan orientasi sains sosial di negara ini pada keseluruhannya. Kertaskerja-kertaskerja dan hasil persidangan itu kemudiannya diterbitkan sebagai sebuah dokumen yang saya kira boleh dianggap sebagai dokumen penting yang menggariskan pemikiran para anggota peneroka JAS dalam memperkembangkan bidang mereka.

Pengalaman latihan pasca-sarjana Dahlan sendiri memperlihatkan ciri ini. Pada tahun 1973, beliau mengemukakan tesis MA yang bertajuk “Theories and Policies of Modernisation: An Application of A. G. Frank’s Critique with Particular Reference to West Malaysia” kepada Jabatan Antropologi dan Sociologi, Universiti Monash, Australia. Kelihatan di sini bahawa beliau telah memperkembangkan lagi suatu topik yang amat diminati di Jabatan Pengajian Melayu UM ketika itu, tetapi menganalisisnya berdasarkan pendekatan teori Sosiologi semasa yang amat populer ketika itu.

Oleh itu, saya melihat perkembangan sains sosial (khususnya Antropologi dan Sosiologi) di JAS sebagai semacam penerokaan yang bertitik-tolak daripada pendekatan Kajian Budaya Melayu (sebagai sebahagian daripada Pengajian Melayu) dalam kerangka kajian yang pernah diperikan oleh sarjana Josselin De Jong (1984) sebagai “bidang kajian etnologi”. Bidang kajian ini kemudiannya dipadukan dengan pengaruh yang diterima daripada perkembangan bidang Antropologi dan Sosiologi yang mutakhir di Barat.

Bagi saya, inilah sumbangan yang amat bererti yang telah diberikan oleh golongan para pensyarah peneroka di JAS terhadap perkembangan dan pertumbuhan sains sosial setempat. Sumbangan itu merupakan sumbangan kreatif dalam melahirkan suatu tradisi ilmu yamg tersendiri, yang tidak secara bulat-bulat menyalin begitu sahaja tradisi kajian etnografi Kajian Budaya Melayu atau meniru begitu sahaja perkembangan mutakhir Antropologi dan Sosiologi di Barat.

Menurut hemat saya, sifat introspektif dan kreatif para pensyarah peneroka ini merupakan salah satu sebab penting mengapa pengasingan sepenuhnya dua bidang Antropologi dan Sosiologi tidak pernah terjadi di JAS maupun melahirkan dua Jabatan yang berasingan. Pada intinya, para peneroka ini berpendapat bahawa dua bidang tersebut lahir sebagai kesan daripada sejarah pertumbuhan ilmu sosial yang dipengaruhi oleh pertumbuhan sosial masyarakat Barat sendiri – Sosiologi merupakan hasil pendekatan yang positivistik tentang masyarakat mereka sendiri dan Antropolgi berkembang pada sebahagian besarnya sebagai hasil daripada pertembungan dengan “budaya-budaya lain” yang lebih bersahaja dan lebih primitif.

Seperti yang pernah saya catatkan di tempat lain (A. Rahman Embong, 1995: 92):

“Apabila leluhur ilmu yang berlainan ini kita terapkan dalam situasi kita …tidak relevan sekiranya kita mempertahankan pengasingan kedua-duanya … Kedua-duanya patut diterapkan dalam satu bidang dengan memakai satu nama sahaja … [B]ukan sahaja namanya mesti baru, tetapi isinya juga harus menggambarkan integrasi kreatif kedua-dua disiplin itu.”

Unsur-unsur perkembangan dan pertumbuhan ilmu yang mendorongkan berlakunya integrasi dan pemikiran kreatif ini sebenarnya memang wujud – khsusnya kerana keperluan melaksanakan pertumbuhan itu (baik dari segi penyelidikan, penulisan maupun pengajaran) dalam bahasa Malaysia. Malah inisiatif JAS menjalin hubungan dengan para akademik bidang sains sosial di Indonesia (khususnya di Universitas Padjajaran Bandung dan dalam siri Seminar Kebudayaan Indonesia-Malaysia (SKIM) anjuran bersama dua universiti itu) merupakan sebahagian daripada usaha meneroka dan meninjau kemungkinan-kemungkinan pertumbuhan bidang ilmu tersebut yang sedang diungkap dalam kerangka bahasa setempat dan serantau.

Namun dalam hal ini juga, Dahlan dan teman-temannya di JAS tidaklah berasa puas dengan sekadar bidang ilmu itu diungkapkan dalam bahasa tempatan, kerana yang mungkin dilahirkan hanyalah sekadar suatu bidang “ilmu sosial terjemahan” (a translation social science) dalam bahasa Malaysia dan Indonesia, dan bukannya suatu pengungkapan teoritis dan substantif yang sebenarnya (lihat Judistrira Garna dan Rustam Sani (ed), 1990). Amatlah menarik bahawa SKIM1 yang bersidang di Bandung pada 8-11 Disember 1985 membincangkan topik: “Antropologi-Sosiologi di Indonesia dan Malaysia: Teori, Pengembangan dan Penerapan.”

Dalam menyeramakkan pertumbuhan sains sosial yang khusus bersifat tempatan ini, salah satu kegiatan yang diberikan perhatian oleh Dahlan, baik sebagai Ketua JAS maupun sebagai individu akademik, ialah bidang penerbitan akademik. Sekitar pertengahan tahun 1970an dan 1980an, para anggota JAS telah memainkan peranan yang aktif lagi konsisten dalam kegiatan-kegiatan penerbitan akademik bukan sahaja pada peringkat jabatan, malah pada peringkat Fakulti dan Universiti juga – antara lain mengendalikan jurnal-jurnal seperti Akademika dan Jurnal Antropologi dan Sosiologi. Malah para anggota Jabatan turut memainkan peranan penting dalam penerbitan jurnal Ilmu Masyarakat (terbitan Persatuan Sains Sosial Malaysia).

Di JAS sendiri, Jawatankuasa Penerbitan Jabatan telah memainkan peranan yang aktif dan konsisten. Selain menerbitkan buku proceedings tentang persidangan Jabatan pada tahun 1974 dan siri SKIM, turut diterbitkan pada tahun 1976 buku yang diedit sendiri oleh Dahlan: The Nascent Malaysian Society: Development, Trends and Problems. Yang dimuatkan dalam buku itu ialah hasil penyelidikan (atau nukilan tesis) para pensyarah muda JAS – dan buku itu telah diulang cetak (edisi kedua) pada tahun 1986.

Satu persoalan penting berkaitan dengan perkembangan bidang Antropologi dan Sosiologi dalam konteks Malaysia ialah persoalan sifat disiplin itu sendiri, yakni apakah bidang itu harus bersifat ilmu “tulen” atau ilmu “terapan” (applied). Persoalan ini sekurang-kurangnya merupakan persoalan yang harus kita hadapi dalam konteks pengajarannya di universiti. Dari segi konteks leluhurnya di Barat, jelas sekali bahawa ilmu-ilmu tersebut telah berkembang sebagai ilmu tulen dengan latabelakang falsafah sosial yang kritis. Namun dalam zamanya sendiri, Dahlan dan rakan-rakannya terpaksa berhadapan dengan cabaran yang dihadapi universiti untuk menjadi “socially and politically relevant.” Tekanannya ialah supaya Antropologi dan Sosiologi dijadikan ilmu terapan sepenuhnya, sehingga mengorbankan sama sekali unsur-unsur “ilmu tulennya” yang terdapat sebelum itu.

Dalam menghadapi cabaran yang dihadapi ilmu sosial dan oleh institusi universiti sendiri dari segi kerelevanannya ini, pada hemat saya, Dahlan telah memperlihatkan kemampuannya untuk bersikap kreatif tetapi realistik. Dilihat dalam kerangka kegiatan pentadbiran ilmu (sebagai Ketua Jabatan, Dekan Fakulti), pengajaran, penulisan, penyelidikan dan penerbitan, kecenderungan Dahlan terhadap aspek-aspek ilmu tulen Antropologi dan Sosiologi dari segi epistimologi dan teorinya tidaklah pernah luntur. Namun dia juga dapat melihat kemungkinan ilmu-ilmu tersebut “diterap” demi keperluan amali masyarakat dan demi pembangunan dan pertumbuhannya.

Dalam kerangka inilah kita melihat ikatan yang semakin meningkat antara kegiatan akademik Dahlan dengan keperluan amali Kerajaan Negeri Sabah yang memerlukan input sains sosial dalam merangka perancangan pembangunan ekonomi dan sosialnya. Dahlan telah menemukan kegiatan akademik dan pentadbiran ilmunya di Jabatan dan Fakulti untuk melancarkan projek penyelidikan dan penerbitan yang agak besar yang dinamakan Kajian Etnografi Sabah. Projek tersebut amat jelas unsur ilmu terapannya, namun jika pendekatan dan rasionale projek itu dikaji secara mendalam maka akan jelaslah bahawa pendekatannya maupun asas teoretisnya amat teguh sifat-sifat ilmu sosial sebagai ilmu tulen.

Sebagaimana yang kita ketahui, minat serta penglibatan Dahlan dalam projek Kajian Etnografi Sabah ini semakin lama semakin menjurus ke arah terbentuknya semacam suatu bidang baru yang dinamakan “Sains Pembangunan” dan dari suatu segi semakin membawa beliau lebih jauh terpisah daripada JAS – pada suatu ketika beliau menjadi Dekan, Fakulti Sains Pembangunan, UKM Cawangan Sabah.

Dalam kertaskerja ringkas ini saya tidak bermaksud untuk melakukan suatu taksiran, apa lagi taksiran kritis, tentang pencapaian dan kejayaan (atau kegagalan) sains sosial, khususnya Antropologi dan Sosiologi, sebagai suatu bidang khusus dalam suasana dan bidang akademik di negara ini. Apapun pencapaian bidang tersebut, saya ingin menekankan betapa besarnya peranan yang telah dimainkan oleh Allahyarham Prof. H. M. Dahlan sebagai salah seorang pelopornya. Peranannya itu tidak sekadar penting dalam kerangka sumbangannya sebagai seorang “pentadbir ilmu”, yakni sebagai Ketua Jabatan Antropologi dan Sosiologi, sebagai Dekan FSKK, dan sebagai Dekan, Fakulti Sains Pembangunan.

Namun, bagi saya, peranan lebih penting yang telah dimainkan oleh Dahlan ialah sebagai seorang penggiat dan pemikir (yakni pemimpin cendekia) bidang tersebut pada tahap-tahap awal pertumbuhannya. Dahlan merupakan seorang pemikir dan pelaksana cita-cita tentang usaha mewujudkan ilmu sosial yang bukan sekadar mantap dari segi teori dan epistemologinya, tetapi dapat pula dimanfaatkan demi keperluan dan kesejahteraan masyarakatnya yang juga sedang membangun.

Zamannya telah meletakkan Dahlan dalam suasana melaksanakan kegiatan ilmunya itu dalam kerangka suatu pengembaraan cendekia dari bidang kajian budaya yang berteraskan etnologi dan etnografi kepada bidang-bidang sains sosial tahap yang lebih mutakhir. Dari segi ini, kecemerlangan peranan Dahlan amatlah jelas terserlah.

Kajian yang lebih mendalam diperlukan untuk mentaksir sejauh mana peranan Dahlan itu telah mendatangkan kesan terhadap pertumbuhan sains sosial seterusnya – baik di UKM maupun di negara ini pada keseluruhannya. Tambahan pula, saya sendiri agak jahil tentang apakah yang telah berlaku kepada bidang akademik ini seterusnya, setelah saya meninggalkan JAS pada tahun 1988 – pada mulanya untuk turut mempelopori Jabatan Sains Politik UKM dan kemudiannya malah pergi lebih jauh daripada itu.

Pengetahuan saya tentang kegiatan dan peranan Dahlan sebagai pekerja ilmu selepas tahun 1988 itu juga tidaklah begitu mendalam. Namun demikian, saya cukup tertarik dengan bukunya yang telah diterbitkan setelah beliau meninggal dunia, Urbanisani: Alam Kejiwaan Sosial dan Pembangunan, Bangi: 1997). Bagi saya, buku ini memaparkan intipati daripada pengembaraan cendekia Dahlan tersebut: bagaimana dia memadukan ciri-ciri ilmu sosial sebagai ilmu tulen, menerapkan kaedah dan pendekatan sains positivis di mana perlu, bersuluh dengan pencerahan yang dapat dimanfaat dari perenungan para ahli filsafat seperti Alisjahbana dan Spangler, dan menyumbang terhadap keperluan pihak pentadbir negara dalam memahami isu yang perlu mereka fahami.

Namun, sebagai seorang yang turut mengalami dan turut terlibat dalam kegiatan Dahlan di JAS pada tahun 1970an dan 1980an, saya berkeyakinan bahawa sumbangan beliau itu amatlah besar dan sukar dapat dinafikan. Oleh yang demikian, saya amat bersyukur kerana dapat kesempatan untuk bergiat dalam bidang Antropologi dan Sosiologi pada waktu yang sama dengan Dahlan, lebih-lebih lagi kerana kesempatan untuk menjadi sahabat karibnya pada tahun-tahun yang dilalui dengan penuh kegairahan itu, baik dari segi kecendekiaan maupun dari segi-segi lainnya.

Why Singapore-KL ties will stay volatile

[The Stratis Times (Singapore): 18 July 1998]

By Rustam A. Sani

In Jerusalem, the Israeli regime has built a museum and a memorial with “the eternal flame” as its main feature. It is a very symbolic reminder of a terribly supreme suffering – the Holocaust – that the Jewish race in Europe experienced during World War II.

The eternal flame will never perish, just as the Holocaust will never perish from our memory. A sinister reminder like the Holocaust is an extraordinarily powerful political force to unite a group.

It is not surprising, hence, that Singapore, an island state with a largely immigrant population that is constantly anxious over its survival, needs a historical symbol no less magical than the Holocaust incident.

The Government needs the symbol to rally the people to be on constant guard against a lurking enemy, and the people need the symbol as a rallying call for unity in facing the enemy. Like “the eternal flame”, the symbol should not perish from the memory of the Singapore “race”.

The flame shall burn brighter when it faces the occasional extraordinary threats, such as when the Government feels threatened by increasing opposition influence.

Unfortunately, the symbol the Singapore Government chose to use to symbolise the existence of the country and the unity of its people is its negative approach to ties with our country – its closest northern neighbour. Every time it feels the need to rally the populace to unity, Singaporeans receive dire warnings about the “dangers from the north”.

Ties between Singapore and Malaysia have again moved into a difficult phase.

We can feel the chill in the bilateral friendship over the different views held by the two countries on issues and disputes, despite the lack of official statements.

Leaders at high levels (but not at the summit) trade accusations and demands for apologies; criticisms that do not go through proper channels and get press coverage earn admonitions and outright condemnation, while assumptions of ill will and jealousy abound. Allowing these disputes to go no further than this level will ensure that they will not go beyond the phase of mutual insinuations and criticisms – and my even die a natural death a few weeks later.

However, allowing the mutual criticisms to go to higher levels runs the risk of the strained ties gathering “official” status and generating harsher political statements from both sides, which was what happened in early 1997. Hence, the door to a solution will always be there, regardless of what is done to the relationship.

This pattern shows two important truths about ties between the two countries. First, the ties are a special relationship that both sides affirm and appreciate. Second, though both sides will work for a solution to any dispute, there have never been attempts to fully resolve the basic contradictions in relations between the two neighbouring countries.

We can roughly assume Singapore-Malaysia ties will turn bitter every 1½ to two years; that each time Singapore faces an internal integration problem, its relationship with Malaysia will turn sour.

We can trace the roots of the soured ties between Singapore and Malaysia that erupted early last year to the Singapore general election that analysts characterised as one in which the ruling party faced a serious threat from opposition parties.

The senior leaders of Singapore had to remind Singapo9reans of the need for upholding national unity and defending the existence of the Government. The alternative was re-absorption into the Malaysian entity.

And within the framework of selling that alternative as unacceptable, Malaysia was in variably depicted as something bad and sub-standard, as an unjust system of government, racist, inefficient and so forth.

When it (the People’s Action Party) defeated a feared opposition leader during the general election and he took refuge in Johor, it had to depict Johor as a place unsafe and crime-infested.

The indirect criticisms by the senior leaders of a neighbouring country sparked off highly emotional and irrational sentiments from several political groups in Malaysia.

The dispute later ended with several insulting statements against Johor by (Senior Minister) Lee Kuan Yew in his court affidavit being “retracted”; and the tendering of apologies by several circles in both countries.

However, as usual, the resolution was a resolution of that particular episode only – not a lasting resolution on the basic contradictions in international relationship between two neighbouring countries.

As long as the basic contradictions are not resolved, relations will erode again when certain conditions arise that will spark off change or internal threats, as happened in early 1997.

Such a set of circumstances has lately appeared. Although the Singapore economy has withstood the Asian economic crisis, the Singapore Government is admitting that the Singapore economy is feeling the effects of the crisis. Several off-budget measures have been implemented, and the country is warning its citizens of the severe effects of a recession next year.

Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong stated recently: “Asia is facing a crisis. How can Singapore defend itself? As long as Singaporeans, regardless of race, language and religion, work together to make this country an outstanding homeland, we will survive. This is the most important lesson we can learn from our history”.

What he meant as the historic lesson – or a Singapore Holocaust – is the series of racial riots that occurred in the 1960s. In 1964, when Singapore was part of Malaysia, two racial riots broke out in July and September.

When Singapore had already gained its independence, racial disturbances broke out in 1969; and they were alleged to be an overflow from the May 13 incident in Malaysia.

Mr Goh regards deep understanding of the riots as very important in shaping the consciousness of Singaporeans that their country is a multi-racial country. Hence, the incidents are featured as key materials in the National Education Exhibition that he launched, particularly in the multimedia theatre tracing The Singapore Story.

Interestingly, amidst the new enthusiasm for Singapore’s “history”, for its emergence as a just and multi-racial society after freeing itself from the communal clutches of Malaysia, The Sunday Times (Singapore) ran a weekly series of extracts from a book by Dr Albert Lau, entitled “A Moment of Anguish: Singapore in Malaysia and the Politics of Disagreement”.

From the angle of an academic contribution to history, I see nothing special about the book. Its approach is nothing more than an interpretation of history according to the Singapore Government’s angle.

The bias in the choice of reference materials is very clear, Western sources were emphasised over sources from politicians and written materials in Malaysia of the era.

Even more interesting is that the writing and emphasis of the book, and the choice of quotations for serialisation, are clearly intended to describe certain parties and political figures in Malaysia as protagonists hostile to Singapore and key players in the Malays’ oppression of other communities.

When some of the parties and figures subjected to the lopsided depiction are bodies and figures that still exist and remain active – or at least are still remembered in a positive light in this country, such as Syed Jaafar Albar – the presentation of a writing in the form that is not entirely academic will invite a reaction that is not entirely academic. This will particularly apply, considering that most people in Malaysia have an interpretation and memory of the historical incidents totally different from those interpreted and portrayed by the Singapore historian.

I predict that the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia will always remain volatile.

This will always be so if Singapore continues to use the history of its participation in Malaysia and its separation as its own holocaust that will unite its people in sharing a common historical experience.

Ties between the two countries will always remain so, as long as Singapore feels that to upgrade the level of its internal integration, the country must play the Malaysia bogey card, like Germany under the rule of Hitler.

Such historical interpretations will continue as long as Singapore adheres to historical interpretations that are propagandistic, one-sided and reject the possibility of the interpretations of others as more accurate.

In view of the arrogance and dogmatic interpretation, Singapore and Malaysia “are fated to remain in a state of hostility” to eternity. It is only when both of us feel less threatened or when the internal unity considerations of our respective countries are beyond dispute, will we learn to cultivate mutual tolerance, and continue the hostility in slightly better circumstances.

Voice of the people

By Helen Ang

Malaysiakini.com
27 September 2007

There are 27 million of us populating Malaysia according to the Department of Statistics. So it’s impossible to aggregate public opinion despite agents of Barisan Nasional putting up a valiant ventriloquist act as the people’s voice.

Though the cat has generally got our tongue, a few segments of the public are willing to speak for themselves. Yesterday’s Walk for Justice was one significant, heartening instance.

The march in Putrajaya was an expression of the Malaysian Bar’s effort to nudge the judiciary back on track. It was a best foot stepping forward on the proverbial thousand-mile journey to reform.

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as prime minister and First Gentleman (correspondingly, given that his wife has been fawningly anointed First Lady) naturally had first dibs on the Lingam tape. His all too predictable response a week ago was: “I am disappointed. The video was released with the aim of getting the people angry with the country’s judiciary system” (reported in The Sun, Sept 21).

True to form, the PM was ‘disappointed’ that the tape surfaced but did not convey dismay at its contents. Anwar Ibrahim released the video on Sept 19 and because digital technology is lightning fast, it was immediately the talk of town.

Interestingly enough, the Star’s top news on Sept 20 – this is Malaysia’s largest circulation English tabloid and a media organisation that styles itself ‘The People’s Paper’ – was a banner headline meant to get people angry … but not at the judiciary.

The Star had screamed “Get the beasts!” (I think ‘scream’ is a fair description given the paper’s use of the large and bold exclamation mark). The bloodcurdling cry is like something Goebbels (that would be Joseph, Nazi Propaganda Minister) would shriek to galvanise Brownshirts and a lynch mob.

‘Beasts’ is how the People’s Paper calls perpetrators of the torture on the little girl whose body was found in a sports bag. It’s easier to sound the horn against mere animals than VVIPs and I suppose after the beasts are ‘gotten’, the next logical step would be to draw and quarter the suspect(s).

Channelling public anger

The poor girl had been subjected to an appalling death and a lot of Malaysians sympathise with her bereaved family but not it seems the Inspector-General of Police who announced police was investigating the parents for negligence or de facto Law Minister Nazri Aziz who concurred that the said parents could be charged with negligence.

I do wonder how malleable public opinion is and in what hither-thither direction the Star and other mainstream media had been trying to shepherd this perplexed flock called public opinion over the murder.

Killers who commit depraved acts on their victims in addition to murder are an aberration or at least one would hope so. There is the Altantuya trial now in progress but the last I can remember of another sensational killing was bomoh Mona Fandey and her accomplices years ago chopping up an overly ambitious Umno state assemblyman into pieces.

On the other hand, corruption – which is what the Lingam tape could be evidence of – is not an aberration but has instead been described as ‘systemic’.

That our country is suffering from systemic corruption is the belief of Transparency International-Malaysia founding president Tunku Aziz Ibrahim.

In his keynote address yesterday in conjunction with the release of TI’s annual corruption perception index, Tunku Aziz said, “Today, we are in the grip of widespread institutional fatigue” and that every major institution of governance in Malaysia had been ethically compromised to the point where “public confidence in these institutions has all but evaporated”.

Tunku Aziz and former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy, had jointly lodged a report with the ACA over alleged judicial impropriety last week. But from the mainstream media’s agenda setting on big news, Malaysia appears to have no more serious problems than ‘negligent’ parents who lose their young children, flag burners and YouTube rappers.

Shaping public opinion

Recently I came across a posting which so cogently encapsulates my own thoughts on the shaping and shapers of public opinion that I’ve sought permission of its author, the noted intellectual Rustam Sani to reproduce his writing here.

‘I am not an “objective” blogger – and not apologising for it’, Rustam confesses in his blog ‘Suara Rakyat’ (Vox Populi). He explains: “Sadly enough, the majority of the so-called professional journalists serving our mainstream media – both print and electronic, even digital – have been so indoctrinated to believe in this erroneous perception of objective journalism.

“Wittingly or unwittingly, to these journalists a piece of writing that supports the status quo is generally considered to be neutral and is not questioned in terms of its objectivity, while one that challenges the status quo tends to be perceived as having a ‘point of view’ – and therefore ‘biased’. Statements and assumptions that support the existing power structure are regarded as ‘facts’ while those that are critical of it tend to be rejected as ‘opinion’.”

My opinion, then, is that mainstream media playing down the gravity of Batu Burok earlier, and the Lingam tape and the Walk for Justice presently, while conversely and one-dimensionally playing up sensational crime stories is an indication of their BN-serving subjectivity.

My other opinion is that reporters have played it too safe by functioning as stenographers. Rustam provides an insight into why our local brand of journalism tends to dispense with interpretation and analysis: “Journalists who accurately report what their sources say can effectively remove responsibility for their stories onto the people they interview and quote.”

“The ideal of objectivity [in Malaysian terms] therefore encourages uncritical reporting of official statements and those of authority figures. In this way, the individual biases of individual journalists are avoided but institutional biases are reinforced,” he writes.

Ensuing from this orientation where the establishment is ensured the right of reply (or avenue for their excuses), government and corporate interests are “guaranteed access to the media, no matter how flimsy their argument or how transparently self-interested” while “no such access is guaranteed to critics, however”.

Burying scandals under sand

Institutionalised superficiality inherent in reportage on scandals potentially damaging to the BN incumbency (if and when it becomes impossible any longer to pretend ostrich-like that nothing happened) works to the advantage of official obfuscation and defusing public anger by watering down and diffusing the real foci of issues.

Rustam has observed that “to counter claims that society was being, in effect, brainwashed by this media monopoly, government-controlled corporate publishers – and to a certain extent the journalists themselves – promote the idea of ‘professional journalism’ (a concept defined narrowly to be confined to journalistic activities of those who work full-time in newsrooms of the mainstream newspaper establishments).”

It is a situation of government-sanctioned journalists qualifying themselves and at the same time trying to disqualify others.

Others refer to ‘unprofessional’, unaccredited with Ministry of Information news sources like web portals and blogs, and the ragtag of online writers and bloggers, i.e. ones targeted in Umno’s cyber war against monkeys.

These are the two sides of the government-legitimised-and-not divide currently tugging at public opinion.

The pro-establishment point of view is that the three-member ‘independent’ panel announced by Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak to probe the authenticity of the Lingam tape is proof of the government taking action and there is no further need for any royal commission of inquiry as the PM says.

The alternative point of view is that the panelists, like the rest of our fatigued institutions, do not inspire public confidence and this muhibbah Malay-Chinese-Indian panel is a delaying tactic to fob off more pressing demands. After a suitable interval enough for Malaysian memory to recede, the matter will be housekeeping as usual – swept under the carpet.

If you are willing to challenge the status quo and assumptions supporting the existing power structure, please walk to the People’s Parliament here. Find there a people’s petition drafted by civil rights lawyer Haris Ibrahim to the Yang Dipertuan Agong.

You are public opinion. We have a voice.

A time for Malaysian nationalism?

By Rustam A. Sani

[New Straits Times: November 12, 1991]

When Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad presented his working paper, “Malaysia: The Way Forward”, before a gathering of corporate leaders at the first meeting of the Malaysian Business Council his purpose was, among other things, to present his “thoughts on the future course of our nation.”

Of the nine challenges that he thinks the nation must face in its path of becoming a fully developed industrial nation by the year 2020 (i.e. one generation from now), he considers the challenge of establishing a united nation as “the most fundamental, the most basic.”

To the Prime Minister, this particular challenge entails the establishment of “a united Malaysian nation with a sense of common and shared destiny”.

“This must be a nation at peace with itself, territorially and ethnically integrated, living in harmony and in full and fair partnership, made up of one ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ with political loyalty and dedication to the nation.”

The statement sounds very much like a call for us to embark on a Malaysian nationalist movement. Why do we need a nationalist movement, you might ask, 34 years after we have achieved independence?

Why not? Nationalism is, after all, an ideology that strives for the creation of a nation on behalf of a people. To have established an independent state does not necessarily mean that a nation has been created as well.

When a group of people is perceived by some of its members (or leaders) to constitute a nation – based on whatever political rationale or sense of common identity – then its normal for those members to launch a movement (i.e. a nationalist movement) to strive for the realisation of their perception of nationhood.

When the people concerned happens to be still under foreign domination, then the nationalist movement could constitute an anti-colonial movement as well. Establishing the nation would entail freeing it from foreign domination so that it could it assume its rightful place with equality and dignity in the world community of nations.

But nationalism need not always be anti-colonial in nature, especially in historical cases where a nation has not been established for the people despite the absence or termination of foreign rule.

Being members of political communities appears to be almost a “natural” state for man. Since antiquity man has lived in one form of political community or another –a community from which he draws his sense of identity and the authority that governs his behaviour, and to which he gives his loyalty.

But being a citizen of a nation-state may not be that natural, for the dominance of the nation as a form of political community is of comparatively recent origin.

To citizens of many post-colonial nations, the idea of nationhood itself has been acquired, in fact, as a by-product of comparatively recent colonial experience. For instance, there is no such thing as India or Indonesia before those geopolitical domains so designated today were brought together by their respective colonial masters.

What is crucial in forging a sense of nationhood among a people is a shared sense of common identity and destiny.

A certain “myth” of common origin – such as the belief that the people historically belonged to one cultural or racial group – could greatly help in creating such a “nationalist” sentiment, but it need not necessarily always be so. The search for (or the creation of) unifying national symbols is, however, always crucial in the establishment of a nation.

There are people who question the relevance and viability of nations and nationalisms in the future. After all, long established nations (such as the Soviet Union and Canada) are showing signs of breaking up into their constituent units.

What is often overlooked, however, is that even if these nations are breaking up, they are giving way only to the creation of yet other (albeit smaller) nations. With the probable continuing relevance of national symbols, the foreseeable future is most likely to remain a haven for flag-makers and designers of national emblems.

It is therefore quite safe to predict that the world of the next century is likely to remain a world of nation-states, even though the boundaries seperating them may have been changed or redrawn.

In a world where ideological rivalries would have ceased to define relationships among nations, it would be the economic advantages of nations, as well as the internal cohesion of each one of them, that are likely to determine the cause of international relations.

It is, therefore, good enough reason for nation-states, specially a developing one like Malaysia, to give at least equal (if of greater) emphasis on programmes of nation building.

The task of nation building is especially difficult in cases such as Malaysia, where national identity would have to be “creatively” carved out of a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural plural society bequethed upon it by its colonial historical experience.

As the social framework that we have inherited from the colonial period is delicate and explosive in nature, in the past one generation of our post-colonial history little, if any, political and intellectual initiatives were devoted to debating and formulating a notion of the nation that we wanted to create.

Almost all our energy was spent instead (perhaps rightly so) on the management of the physical development of the state and on efforts at reducing the possibilities of inter-ethnic tensions in the post-colonial era.

We embarked on a post-colonial policy of national unity, with the Rukun Negara as its ideological statement, which is far from constituting a nationalistic ideology of a “new” national identity.

On the one hand, there was the social inertia of the original notions of Malay nationalism. Malay nationalism may have been the only “true” form of nationalist movement that we had in our colonial history, but it was also a movement that “failed” to realise its dreams of establishing a Malay nation in the context of the multi-ethnic post-colonial state.

The Malay nationalistic tradition, however, never really developed into a vibrant intellectual movement after independence to strive for the reformulation of its former nationalistic notions into a new conception of Malaysian nationalism – in which elements of Malay nationalism could be utilised as the defining elements.

On the other hand, there was also a marked intellectual failure among the non-Bumiputeras to reformulate the old perception of their role in the “plural” society of the colonial period.

There have only been hazy indications of political and intellectual willingness to creatively rethink the notion of their social integration into a new cultural identity within a new concept of nationhood.

Any suggestion of any form of national integration would be simply and summarily dismissed as an attempt to dominate them culturally.

As a reaction to the perceived domination, purely political actions have been initiated in the name of the cultural freedom of defending ethnic identity (often poorly conceptualised and hardly understood by the “defenders” themselves). Often the sentiment that comes out clearly is a sense of longing to return to the plural society milieu of the colonial period.

The “Malaysian Malaysia” concept is the most lucid expression of such a sentiment, an expression of a longing to return to the “cultural laissez faire” milieu of the colonial era, of unwillingness to submit to any creative notion of nation building – in short an antithesis to what a concept such as “Bangsa Malaysia” should mean to us today.

With our political thinking influenced by such a political culture, many concepts – so crucial in the formulation of a specifically Malaysian notion of the nation building process – continued to be perceived in a mind-set established in the context of the colonial social matrix.

Take the case of the national language. Until today, the task of developing the Malay language into a modern “national” language, a language defining all aspects of our national life and therefore defining the “identity” of the nation, is still predominant the concern of the Malays (a concern which I must add is definitely waning).

As a consequence, the language has not developed into anything more than an “official” language – a language to be used grudgingly in official situations.

Like the national language, a number of other “symbolic” elements of our nation building concepts – such as national culture, national education system, etc. – are in need of being freed form the matrix of our colonial plural society thinking, to be understood anew outside the divisive idioms of out ethnic political culture.

There is a need for them to be reconceptualised and reformulated in a more intellectually informed discourse of a Malaysian nationalistic ideology.

Out past practice of “nationalistic substitution” – of simply managing, or avoiding, possible sources inter-ethnic strains – is inadequate for the purpose of charting our future.

Perhaps in the light of the emphasis given by Dr Mahathir to the notion of “Bangsa Malaysia” in his Vision 2020, the nineties may be an opportune time for us to embark on a Malaysian nationalist movement.

As usual in the history of nationalisms, the movement could perhaps be preceded by an intellectual discourse, in order to clarify our notion of “the (Malaysian) nation of intent”.

Kassim Ahmad, Doktor Persuratan Kehormat UKM (1985)

PIDATO UMUM:
Penganugerahan Ijazah Kehormat
Doktor Persuratan
Kepada Kassim Ahmad

Majlis Konvokesyen Ke-13
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
17 Ogos 1985

Disampaikan oleh
Rustam A. Sani
Ketua
Jabatan Antropologi dan Sosiologi

Dengan nama Allah yang maha pemurah lagi maha penyayang.

Seorang sarjana yang berpendidikan tinggi belum tentu berhak dianggap seorang intelektual. Seorang intelektual secara jitu dan mendalam memikirkan persoalan-persoalan yang dihadapi masyarakatnya. Dia harus turut terlibat dalam persoalan-persoalan itu dengan menyalurkan hasil pemikirannya melalui tulisan atau kegiatan, untuk manfaat masyarakatnya. Peringkat pendidikan formal yang dicapai tidaklah ada kena mengenanya dengan keintelektualan. Seorang yang berpendidikan tinggi tetapi hanya menggunakan pendidikannya itu untuk kepentingan peribadi atau kerjayanya bukanlah seorang intelektual.

Kassim Ahmad sekali gus merupakan seorang sarjana dan intelektual. Sebagai seorang sarjana dia telah memperoleh pendidikan formal yang tinggi. Telah banyak sumbangannya dalam pengkajian sastera Melayu. Sebagai seorang intelektual, dia secara cekal dan berani telah turut terlibat dalam memikirkan persoalan-persoalan yang dihadapi masyarakatnya. Telah dipersembahkannya kepada masyarakat sumbangan bakti hasil pemikirannya melalui kegiatan-kegiatan sebagai penulis sastera kreatif, sebagai ahli teori dan kritik sastera, sebagai penulis esei falsafah dan politik, dan sebagai aktivis politik.

Namun demikian, nilai sumbangan Kassim dalam semua lapangan itu tidaklah dapat secara dangkal diukur dengan menghitung bilangan dan menyukat timbunan. Meskipun bilangan puisi yang dihasilkannya tidaklah seberapa, namun nilai intrinsik sumbangannya terhadap perkembangan puisi Melayu moden telah muafakat diakui oleh para pengkaji. Kegiatan politiknya mungkin tidak mempunyai kesan secara langsung terhadap proses perundang-undangan negara ini, namun peranannya dalam memperjuangkan keadilan sosial untuk golongan tani dan proletar tidaklah dapat disangkal lagi.

Barang siapa yang mengenal Kassim secara peribadi tak dapat tiada akan merasa kagum oleh sifatnya yang sederhana dan bersahaja. Puisi-puisiya mungkin indah dan mendebarkan, pemikirannya mungkin kritis dan menggemparkan, namun Kassim tidak pernah berasa perlu untuk melahirkan perasaan dan pendapatnya dengan gerak yang tangkas atau gaya yang gagah. Kesederhanaan ini mungkin hasil dari asal usul sosialnya yang serba sederhana. Namun kesederhanaan itu tidak pula pernah menjadi penghalang baginya untuk dengan cekal meneroka belantara hidup samudera maya yang penuh cabaran ini.

Kassim Ahmad dilahirkan dalam sebuah keluarga sederhana di Lepai, Bukit Pinang, Kedah pada 9 September 1933. Oleh yang demikian, dia dilahirkan sebagai anggota masyarakat Melayu-Muslim yang tertindas wujud lahiriahnya dan tercengkam kesedaran nuraninya oleh belenggu penjajahan. Ayahnya yang berlatarbelakangkan masyarakat tani itu terdidik menurut cara pendidikan Islam yang tradisional, yakni menurut sistem pondok. Dari pangkalan sosial yang demikianlah Kassim melepaskan dirinya bebas utuk menyelam dalam dan menjengah jarak di alam ilmu dan pendidikan. Dia tidak pernah takut membiarkan dirinya terbuka luas kepada segala macam pengaruh. Malah dia sendiri secara sedar membenamkan dirinya ke dalam kancah pemikiran asing yang ditemuinya dalam pengembaraannya itu.

Kassim yang pada mulanya mendapat didikan di Sekolah Melayu Bandar Baru (1939-46), kemudian melanjutkan pelajaran ke Maktab Sultan Abdul Hamid, Alor Star (1947-54). Ijazah Sarjanamuda Satera diperolehinya dari Universiti Malaya (Sigapura) pada tahun 1959, dan Ijazah Sarjana Satera diperolehi dari Universiti Malaya (Kuala Lumpur) pada tahun 1961. Sebagaimana yang disimpulakan oleh Kassim sendiri: “Saya menghadiri sekolah menengah Inggeris dan universiti Inggeris yang mengajar nilai-nilai dan ilmu-ilmu moden Barat yang kadang-kadang mengandugi faham dan semangat anti-Islam … Tetapi bagiku, sifat-sifat rasional dan saintifiknyalah yang menarik dan memikat hatiku”. Oleh yang demikian, meskipun pendidikannya menyebabkan Kassim jauh meninggalkan pangkalan budaya masyarakat tani Melayu-Muslimnya, namun akar umbinya tidak pernah tercabut dari pangkalan tersebut.

Sebagai minat kesarjanaannya, dia mengkaji sastera klasik bangsanya. Tetapi untuk itu dia mempergunakan sepenuhnya perspektif ilmu Barat yang diperolehinya. Dalam melaksanakan kerja kesarjanaannya, Kassim tidak pernah bersikap sebagai ahli teknik dan pengkaji naskah semata-mata. Implikasi sosial daripada hasil sastera klasik itulah yang cuba difahami dan diserlahkannya. Untuk latihan sarjanamudanya, Kassim telah menghasilkan satu pendekatan kajian yang baru lagi segar tentang Hikayat Hang Tuah. Dikemukakannya gagasan pandangannya, dari sudut Marxisme, tentang erti sosial daripada watak-watak yang bertingkah laku dan bertindak tanduk dalam hikayat tersebut.

Minatnya terhadap hikayat tersebut kemudiannya diteruskan dengan melakukan suntingan teks yang kini telah diterbitkan oleh Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka sebagai edisi yang dianggap berwibawa. Untuk ijazah sarjananya, Kassim telah mengkaji dan menyunting Syair Musuh Kelantan. Sesuai dengan sikapnya yang menentang koservatisme dalam masyarakatnya, maka karya Abdullah Munsyi juga menarik perhatiannya. Lalu dikaji dan disuntingnyalah Kisah Pelayaran Abdullah. Dalam rangka minat kesarjanaannya itu, Kassim pernah bertugas sebagai Pegawai Penyelidik di Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (1960-62) dan kemudian menjadi pensyarah yang mengajar kesusasteraan Melayu di School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London (1962-66).

Menelaah dan menyerlahkan erti baru khazanah sastera klasik bangsanya tidaklah memadai bagi seorang cendekiawan berjiwa seni seperti Kassim. Ada rasa terpemdam dalam dadanya yang meronta-ronta minta dilepaskan ke tengah-tengah masyarakat. Seorang seniman memerlukan saluran karya kreatif untuk melahirkan rasa yang demikian, seperti yang diucapkannya dalam sajak “Pidato”:

beri aku lidah
aku mau berkata-kata
seperti laut yang menghempas
di pantai merdeka.

Maka “lidah” bagi Kassim terjelma dalam bentuk sejumlah karya-karya puisi dan cerita pendek yang telah mulai dihasikannya sejak tahun 1952. Sebahagian besar karya-karya itu kini terkumpul dalam antologi Kemarau di Lembah (1967).

Karya-karya kreatif Kassim memperlihatkan penglibatan sosial yang amat jelas lagi mendalam. Sebahagian besar karya-karya itu menggarap tema kepincangan masyarakat: penindasan kelas, ekploitasi buruh dan petani, dan ketidakadilan sosial. Namun demikian, karya-karya tersebut tidaklah merupakan tulisan propaganda yang kaku dang dangkal. Malah, karya-karya kreatif Kassim (terutama pisinya) merupakan pengucapan seni yang amat halus, segar nadanya, dan berjaya pula mencungkil kemungkinan-kemungkinan puitis yang terdapat dalam bahasa Melayu moden. Sesungguhnya, karya-karya kreatifnya melibatkan pemaduan yang mesra antara ide yang progresif, pengucapan yang berani dan bentuk yang indah.

Dilihat dari segi isinya yang terlibat dan memihak kepada rakyat tertindas, maka karya-karya Kassim tampaknya meneruskan tradisi Angkatan Sasterawan ’50 yang memperjuangkan “seni untuk masyarakat.” Namun demikian, dari segi pengucapannya ternyata bahawa Kassim secara sedar berusaha menyumbangkan kuntum-kuntum baru yang segar kepada khazanah sastera bangsanya. Akan tetapi, ide-ide revolusioner yang sering terpancar dalam puisinya kadangkala dipetik di luar konteks lalu digunakan untuk menuding jari yang penuh dakwaan ke arah Kassim. Misalnya sajak “Sidang Roh” pernah digunakan dalam kempen pilihanraya untuk menyelar sikap dan keperibadiannya -- malah mempersoal akidahnya. Percubaan pertama untuk menghasilkan novel telah dilakukannya sewaktu dalam tahanan antara tahun 1976 dan 1981. Novel itu diberinya judul Zaman Pacaroba. Sayangnya, apabila Kassim sendiri kemudiannya dapat menikmati kebebsan kembali, novel tersebut telah dijatuhkan hukuman bunuh sewaktu masih dalam bentuk mauskrip lagi!

Ciri-ciri karya kreatif Kassim ini tentu sahaja amat kuat dipengaruhi oleh sikapnya mengenai fungsi sastera sebagai seorang ahli kritik dan teori sastera. Dalam bidang kritik sastera Melayu moden, yang sering ketandusan para penyumbang yang berwibawa, Kassim tegak sebagai salah seorang penyumbang yang mantap lagi gigih. Sebagai ahli teori sastera, Kassim pada asasnya menyarankan penciptaan karya sastera yang dari segi isi dan bentuknya menggambarkan gerakan masyarakat dengan jujur lagi benar. Baginya karya sastera memikul tugas sosial yang berat untuk golongan rakyat terbanyak. Sejak akhir-akhir ini Kassim mulai pula bergiat menghuraikan pemikiran dan melontarkan gagasan tentang ciri-ciri sastera Islam. Melalui polemik yang hebat tetapi terhormat dengan Shahnon Ahmad dan beberapa penulis lain, Kassim menganjurkan sifat sastera Islam sebagai karya sejagat yang mendukung unsur-unsur nilai Islam yang progresif, tanpa mengira apakah karya tersebut dihasilkan oleh sasterawan Muslim maupun tidak.

Keghairahan Kassim akan pembelaan nasib golongan rakyat yang tertindas itu sesungguhnya bukanlah sekadar impian romantis seorang seniman. Di ringga dadanya terpendam tekad waja seorang pembela rakyat yang berani lagi gigih, seperti yang diucapkannya dengan penuh optimis dalam sebuah sajaknya:

… Ada besok maka pasti ada suria
aku akan pergi
dengan seribu jebat si anak tani
sekian lama kita mati dalam setia
kali ini kita hidup dalam durhaka

Dan kecekalan jiwa pejuang ini disalurkannya melalui politik. Meskipun sewaktu bertugas di London, minatnya terhadap politik tanah airnya tidak pernah luput. Selain berfikir dan menulis tentang persoalan tersebut, dia bersama-sama teman-teman sealirannya pernah mengirim memorandum bantahan kepada Setiausaha Agung PBB, U Thant, menentang gagasan pembentukan Malaysia. Dalam konteks analisis hubungan-hubungan neo-kolonial sedunia pada waktu itu, implikasi gagasan tersebut amat dikhuatiri oleh Kassim.

Sekembalinya dari London, setelah berkhidmat sebagai guru selama beberapa bulan, Kassim mulai secara aktif terlibat dalam kegiatan politik parti. Selaras dengan keghairahannya akan penderitaan rakyat, maka parti yang disertainya ialah Parti Rakyat Malaya yang menganut faham sosialisme dan dipimpin oleh Ahmad Boestamam. Pada tahun 1968, Kassim mengambil alih pimpinan parti itu, lalu menamakannya Psrti Sosialis Rakyat Malaya. Penyertaanya dalam kegiatan politik ini tidaklah memberikannya kedudukan mahupun kemewahan. Malah kegiatan dalam parti yang serba kekurangan itu menuntut segala macam pengorbanan daripadanya dan keluarganya. Kemuncak pengorbanan itu ialah penahanannya selama empat tahun di bawah Undang-undang Keselamatan Dalam Negeri.

Percubaan yang dilakukan Kassim beberapa kali untuk memperoleh hak menjadi penyambung lidah rakyat di parlimen tidak pernah mencapai kejayaan. Namun demikian, dari segi sejarah sosial dan sosiologi politik orang Melayu, pimpinan politik yang telah disumbangkannya itu dapatlah dianggap sebagai penerusan tradisi pimpinan para intelektual golongan rakyat yang telah dirintis oleh tokoh-tokoh seperti Ibrahim Yaacob, Dr. Burhanuddin Al-Helmi, Ahmad Boestamam, Ishak Haji Muhammad dan lain-lain. Kini Kassim sudah tidak lagi menganggotai parti yang pernah dipimpinnya itu, namun minatnya terhadap persoalan politik bangsanya belumlah malap.

Dalam segala bentuk penulisannya, Kassim mempunyai sikap yang bebas, berani menimba pemikiran dari pelbagai sumber, dan dengan berterus terang menentang unsur-unsur kekolotan yang dianggapnya mencengkam dan melemahkan perkembangan intelektual masyarakatnya. Sikap yang demikian sering menyebabkan Kassim dislah tanggap sebagai telah tercabut akar umbinya daripada unsur-unsur budaya masyarakatnya, malah menentang masyarakatnya. Demikianlah halnya hubungan Kassim degan Islam. Sebagaimana yang telah diakui sendiri oleh Kassim, dia memang telah sejak lama mengembara mencari falsafah yang amat memuaskan jiwanya. Pengembaraan itu membawanya kembali kepada Islam sekitar pertengahan tahun tujuh puluhan. Namun demikian, dia tidak dapat berpuas dengan sikap seorang pengembara lelah yang telah mencari perlindungan redup di bawah ketenangan prasangka seorang Muslim baka.

Dia berusaha mencapai pemahaman yang mendalam tentang falsafah tauhid Islam melalui pendekatan yang rasional, saintifik lagi kreatif. Kajiannya itu menemukannya dengan jawaban-jawaban agung yang terdapat dalam Al-Qur’an terhadap persoalan-persoalan besar yang dihadapi oleh manusia dan dunia moden. Tetapi penemuan itu tidak pula membutakan mata hatinya terhadap kelemahan-kelemahan teori sosial Islam yang diakibatkan oleh berkuasanya semangat taklid anti-rasional dan anti-sains sejak abad kesebelas. Oleh yang demikian, dalam tulisan-tulisannya mengenai Islam, Kassim tidak sekadar berpuas mengemukakan pemerian tentang falsafah tauhid dan teori sosial Islam. Sebaliknya, Kassim menganggap sebagai kerja besarnya untuk menyertai tradisi beberapa orang para pemikir Muslim untuk memehami faham taklid dan membuka kembali pintu ijtihad – dan dengan itu kembali kepada keagungan intelektual pada abad-abad awal Islam. Pemikirannya itu pada mulanya dikemuakakan dalam sebuah risalah yang berjudul Masalah Teori Sosial Moden Islam (1977) dak kemudiannya diperluaskan dalam buku yang berjudul Teori Sosial Moden Islam (1984).

Demikianlah, dalam segala bidang kegiatannya Kassim merupakan seorang pegembara intelektual yang berpergian jauh tetapi tidak pernah terputus hubungan nuraninya dengan masyarakat dan budayanya. Sesungguhnya, pemgembaraan itu memberikannya ketajaman perpektif untuk melihat masyarakatnya secara objektif, sehingga tidak dapat dia memejamkan matanya kepada unsur-unsur kejelekan dan kekolotan yang melemahkan masyarakat itu. Lalu bergiatlah dia untuk memerangi kelemahan itu dengan kecekalan moral yang luar biasa.

Melancarkan perang intelektual dengan collective conscience sebuah masyarakat yang konservatif ternyata merupakan kerja yang amat berbahaya. Socrates yang berbuat demikian beberapa abad yang lalu telah dihukum oleh masyarakay Athena dengan memaksanya mereguk racun hemlock. Masyarakat kita juga telah memberikan hemlocknya kepada Kassim dalam pelbagai bentuk – tuduhan dan tohmahan, pengharaman karya, penahanan, penindasan, dan sebagainya. Semoja masih wujud kewarasan dalam masyarakat kita untuk mengizinkan pintu ijtihad dibuka dan menghargai serta menghormati kejituan intelektual dan kecekalan moral seperti yang diperlihakan oleh Kassim Ahmad.

Rustam A. Sani
17 Ogos 1985.

Points of contention in Bahasa Baku

By Rustam A. Sani

[New Straits Times: Thursday, Februaury 4, 1988]

If you were to converse informally in Malay with some Malay writers of the 1950 generation (Asas ’50) – such as A. Samad Ismail, Usman Awang and Asraf – you would find that the language they use is not any different from that used by an average native speaker of the language.

But give them the rostrum to address a formal gathering, you will immediately notice a change in the language they use. Not only do the sentences become more structured, but the words and intonation too undergo a marked transformation.

Because of the /a/ sound at the end of every word ending in an open vowel /a/ (and there is a large number of such words in Malay), listeners tend to think that they are Indonesianised or Indonesian-influenced.

Indeed, in certain aspects, the formal language that they use shows close affinity with the formal and official Indonesian language (or Bahasa Indonesia which originated from the Malay language, anyway).

But it is certainly not “Indonesian” in the strict sense of the word. Words of strictly Indonesian usage, such as bisa (able to) and kebutuhan (needs) are never used.

The best way to describe the language would be to take a formal piece of writing in Bahasa Malaysia in the new standardised spelling system and to read it exactly as it is written (i.e. phonemically).

And, lately that mode of pronouncing Bahasa Malaysia has become the centre of a fresh controversy as it has been adopted as the standard form of pronunciation for Standard Bahasa Malaysia (or Bahasa Malaysia Baku) in schools.

What seems to be the major point of contention among the opponents of Bahasa Malaysia Baku (BMB) is the adoption of the /a/ sound in the final open vowel /a/, a move alleged to be the subjugation of Bahasa Malaysia by Bahasa Indonesia.

The form that is considered by these opponents to be the proper standard Bahasa Malaysia is the one based on the Johor-Riau dialect, in which the final open vowel /a/ is pronounces as /e/. They contend that it is this feature that makes Bahasa Malaysia distinct from Bahasa Indonesia.

While the final open vowel /a/ is hardly the sole feature of BMB, it is certainly an integral aspect of the language if we intend to be consistent in the application of the principle of phonemics in its formal usage: that words be pronounced exactly as they are spelt, and vice versa.

Proponents of BMB, however, reject the notion that the final open vowel /a/ is exclusively Indonesia, or that the Johor-Riau dialect should be the basis for a formal and standardised Bahasa Malaysia.

They contend that the Johor-Riau dialect is but another dialect in Malaysia, just as there are other dialects found in Kelantan, Kedah, Perak, Sarawak, Negeri Sembilan, and elsewhere in the country.

Just as the final open vowel /a/ is pronounced differently in different corners of the Malay world (including Singapore, Brunei and Indonesia), it is also pronounced differently in the spoken dialects of different areas within Malaysia: /a/ in Kedah, Perlis, Pulau Pinang, Sabah and Sarawak; /o/ in Negeri Sembilan, parts of Melaka, and Kelantan; /e/ in Perak.

However, the adoption of the final open vowel /a/ does not in any way imply a preference for the dialects of Kedah and Sabah, for example, over that of Johor.

In applying the principle of phonemics in the pronunciation of BMB, no one dialect is going to emerge the “victor”. Every dialect will find any one of its features that is not consistent with the pronunciation system of BMB dropped in its formal usage.

The Kedah dialect may find its pronunciation of the final open vowel /a/ consistent with the BMB usage, but would find its /gh/ sound in place of /r/ (as in /oghang/ for /oghang/ not consistent with the BMB pronunciation.

Likewise, the Johor-Riau dialect will find some features of its pronunciation that is consistent with BMB retained in its formal usage.

One very convincing argument for the rejection of the final open vowel /a/ sound of the Johor-Riau dialect is the difficulty in explaining its inconsistencies in applying the principle of phonemics in systematic language teaching in schools.

One of the results that the implementation of BMB hopes to achieve is the standardisation of the pronunciation of foreign loan words in BMB.

In the case of foreign loan words, too, the principle of phonemics shall apply: that the words shall be pronounced exactly as they are spelt in the official Bahasa Malaysia spelling system and not as they are pronounced in the language of origin; therefore /teknologi/ will not be pronounced /teknoloji/, /industri/ will not be pronounced /indastri/, and /rakyat/ will not be pronounced /ra’yat/.

Based on such a principle, it would certainly be confusing for students in schools to be told to pronounce a word that is spelt as s-a-y-a as /saye/ or a word spelt l-a-m-a as /lame/.

Moreover, it becomes doubly confusing when the Johor-Riau dialect itself does not have a really consistent rule on the pronunciaition of the final open vowel /a/. For example, words like asrama, wanita, bola, sandiwara are always pronounced exactly as they are spelt and never asrame, wanite, bole, sandiware.

One other argument that is usually offered in opposing BMB is its alleged novelty; the idea is said to have come rather suddenly and people are unprepared for it.

Such an argument is however not quite correct. In fact, the idea of a standard formal pronunciation system for Malay had been discussed and resolved by experts at the third Malay language congress in Johor Baru in 1956. The idea was again upheld at the fourth congress in Kuala Lumpur in 1986.

Moreover, the prononciation of Bahasa Malaysia with the final open vowel /a/ is not really something novel in its formal usage. Besides its usage among certain intellectuals and writers, that mode of pronunciation has for some time now been the acceptable form in poetry reading and in songs.

Francesca Peters and Sheila Majid, for example, certainly cannot be dubbed “Indonesian” singers simply because they do not render their songs in the Johor-Riau dialect.

Another point that must be underlined is that he implementation of BMB does not entail drastic changes in the syntactic structures of Bahasa Malaysia that its users would have to relearn the language anew, in its entirety or in parts. All it entails is the standardisation and systematisation of its pronunciation in formal usage.

Consequently, therefore, the implementation of BMB is not designed to “eliminate” any or all dialects as the mode of informal communication among people in their daily primary social interactions.

People who habitually use the BMB pronunciation in formal discourse, such as the academician Prof. Awang Had Salleh, the linguist Prof. Nik Safiah Karim, and the poet Usman Awang, can always switch to their respective Kedah, Kelantan and Johor dialects when interacting with their children and spouses at home.

The opposition to the implementation of BMB seems to come mainly from native speakers of Malay who hold the erroneous notion that formal BMB should be exactly the same as their colloquial mother tongue.

The fact is that their colloquial mother tongue is best left a tool with which to converse with their mothers, as it is totally unsuitable and inadequate for the purposes of formal, intellectual and sophisticated discourse – a role for which the BMB is being prepared.

The difference, even disjuncture, between a formal language and an informal dialect is more readily recognisable in other languages. In Bahasa Indonesia, for example, people move back and forth from their bahasa daerah or bahasa sukuan (area or ethnic dialects) to the official language with ease, depending on the situation in which they are communicating.

In England, even those with a Cockney (of London) social origin would be using the King’s English for purposes of formal discourse.

In the English language, the spoken form of the formal and standardised King’s English is often refered to as the BBC English, as it is the pronunciation form adopted by the broadcasting corporation.

Unfortunately, RTM does not seem to be too keen on the BMB idea, because it is more concerned with efficient and immediate transmission of information rather than with the development of a standardised modern official language. With efforts that are being taken at TV3, however, it is not unlikely that the spoken form of BMB could in future be known as Bahasa TV3.

It is difficult to understand why the linguistic affinity that could develop between BMB and the official Bahasa Indonesia is causing anxiety in some quarters.

Undeniably, the affinity could lead to greater interlegibility between the two languages, even perhaps with those of Brunei and Singapore, too.

Such a development can only be beneficial to all parties concerned I their efforts to modernise their respective official languages – and perhaps develop them into a common regional language for the twenty-first century.

It is perhaps appropriate that the first step towards such a development is being taken in our schools.

Phoenix-like, a new kind of Malay arises

[Business Times (Singapore), Weekend Edition, March 27-28, 1993]

The controversy surrounding the constitutional amendments aimed at eliminating the legal immunity of the Malay rulers – which was recently passed by the Malaysian parliament after incorporating certain counter amendments by the Yang DiPertuan Agung – is not merely political and legal in nature.

The open debate on the position of the Malay rulers generated by the controversy – especially the series of ‘exposures’ in the Malay press – was interpreted by some as a manifestation of profound cultural change being experienced by Malay society.

Such a debate would have been unthinkable a few years ago, because it would have been considered politically too sensitive for the Malays, who have always considered their rulers as the symbol of their unity and political dominance in the context of Malaysia’s multi-ethnic society.

But this time around, the situation is quite different. Not only was the issue openly discussed, but a group of about 100 Malay intellectuals who met in Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka to discuss the matter, defiantly declared that “the future of the Malays does not depend on the rulers, but on leaders who are morally upright and intellectually dependable”.

Excesses in the lifestyles of the Malay rulers that were tolerated for years have suddenly become the subject of vicious attacks.

Why has such a radical change in Malay political attitude suddenly emerged? One explanation is that the change is indicative of a profound cultural transformation among the Malays that has been brewing for some time now and has started to erupt in the 1990s.

Whereas Malay political attitudes since the time of independence in the late 1950s had been marked by a lack of confidence – by a need to be constantly reassured of political dominance through asserting cultural symbols of distinctively Malay identity – the Malays of the 1990s are politically and economically more confident.

At the heart of this previous “lack of confidence” had been a keen awareness of Malay economic backwardness, and frustration with being unable to come out of the cocoon of rural peasant economic conditions maintained by the colonial structures of the past. Malay self-perception has always been that of a group within a multi-ethnic society unable to participate as a full partner in the modern economic life of the post-colonial state.

It was this structural social imbalance, perceived to be the cause of ethnic riots in 1969, that the New Economic Policy (NEP) of the early 1970s was supposed to address – and eradicate.

Whether the NEP has been able to bring the Malays squarely into the mainstream of modern economic life in post-colonial Malaysia is still a matter for debate. But one thing is certain: 20 years of the implementation of the NEP, with its plethora of measures designed to enhance the economic position of the Malays, has instilled a greater sense of Malay confidence – a sense of satisfaction that the degree of participation in the economic life of modern Malaysia is now commensurate with their bumiputra (native) status.

A number of social indicators of this new sense of confidence can be discerned. The National Development Policy (NDP), introduced in the early 1990s to replace the NEP, while retaining its basic thrust, seems to show greater concern for the economic plight of other ethnic groups, such as the Indians.

The Third Bumiputra Economic Congress held in Kuala Lumpur in January 1992 was quite different from previous congresses in the sense that there was less emphasis given to the exclusive enhancement of Malay business and economic interests. Greater emphasis was instead given to enhancing economic cooperation among the ethnic groups.

Even Umno, the dominant Malay political party, has become distinctly less “exclusive” in its perception of what constitutes Malay identity. With the entry of Umno into the Sabah political arena, the party has now accepted non-Muslim bumiputras in Sabah as full members of the party.

Recently, there have been moves to accept Portuguese from Malacca into the party as well.

Malaysia’s vision of its political future into the next century has been formulated in a paper entitled “Malaysia: The Way Forward” presented by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad at the inaugural meeting of the Malaysia Business Council in Kuala Lumpur on 28 February 1991.

The crux of the vision is that Malaysia should be a fully developed industrial nation (bangsa Malaysia) within one generation – that is, by the year 2020.

The reaction of the Malays to Dr Mahathir’s vision – dubbed “Vision 2020” – is also somewhat indicative of their newly-acquired confidence. There has not been any conspicuous objection to the idea of cultural transformation needed for the creation of a fully developed industrial society, nor creation of a new “national identity” – the bangsa Malaysia.

Even Malay opposition political parties were merely expressing their sense of apprehension that Malays may not be fully prepared to participate as equal partners in the project – and may, in the process, lose their dominance and even their identity.

Dr Mahathir himself seems to share that apprehension, seen in his constant calls to Malays to change their ways and values, urging them to take part in modern business activities, and to work doubly hard so as to compete with the other ethnic groups.

In his Presidential Address at the Umno General Assembly on Nov 8, 1991, the Prime Minister went even further by emphasizing the need to create a “new Malay and bumiputra race” (bangsa Melayu dan Bumiputra yang baru) which is both psychologically and culturally prepared to enter the 21^st century.

His definition of the new Malay seems to be a “cultural” one – “an ethnic group whose culture is in keeping with the times, who (is) capable of facing all challenges, who (is) willing to compete without enjoying special privileges, who (is) educated and learned, sophisticated, sincere, disciplined, trustworthy and efficient”.

Are Malaysia’s Malays ready for the cultural transformation demanded of them in realizing Dr Mahathir’s Vision 2020? Cultural transformation is an abstract concept which is very difficult to put a handle on. “Melayu Baru” as a concept, however, has certainly gained currency among today’s Malays – both as an excuse and an explanation for doing things differently from the ways that they have always been done in the past.

When some Malays in Kuala Lumpur were recently accused of being “un-Malay” for the way they criticized the Malay rulers, their answer was: “Of course we are being un-Malay, we are the new Malay (Melayu baru).”