Last refuge of a scoundrel
Our government has a narrow definition of patriotism. Apart from joining the army, it’s flying the national flag on Merdeka Day. The latter preoccupation is mostly surface display. What counts more is the intrinsic feeling a Malaysian has for his country. I don’t believe in flag-waving but I can bet that I’m more of a patriot than corrupt politicians who seek to suck our riches dry.
By Kee Thuan Chye
“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” So said Samuel Johnson, the famous British man of letters. He is believed to have said that to condemn the false use of the term “patriotism”.
The same can be applied to Defence Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi. However, in the Malaysian context, it might be read as “When you want to malign some people, you call them unpatriotic”.
In Parliament recently, this minister said that among the reasons for the small number of Chinese and Indians joining the armed forces was their lack of patriotism. It was so sweeping, so unsupported by evidence, that it could amount to nothing more than a false claim. What was his real motive for saying what he said?
More than that, it is indeed false patriotism to say that if you don’t join the army, you are not patriotic. Nothing could be more ridiculous than that. It is the same kind of thinking that goes along these lines – “if you are not with me, then you are not patriotic”.
Extended further, it is the same kind of thinking that informs the BN propaganda – if you don’t vote for BN, you are not patriotic. This, of course, is the ultimate hogwash.
Patriotism can be expressed in many ways that people tend to overlook. Those who campaign against a government that is corrupt because they want to see reform and the emergence of a better country are patriots. Those who stand up in defence of our institutions and our freedoms are patriots. Those who uphold principles in the work they do daily are patriots. Those who go out daily to do a decent day’s work to earn an income to feed their family and pay their taxes are patriots.
Unfortunately, our government has a narrow definition of patriotism. Apart from joining the army, it’s flying the national flag on Merdeka Day. The latter preoccupation is mostly surface display. What counts more is the intrinsic feeling a Malaysian has for his country. I don’t believe in flag-waving but I can bet that I’m more of a patriot than corrupt politicians who seek to suck our riches dry.
Truth to be told
Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th president of the US, has something significant to share on one of the meanings of patriotism:
“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country.
“It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”
In these volatile times and in the face of the many trials we are going through, these words should strike a chord among Malaysians. Now is the time to tell the truth – not to hide it, to manipulate it, or to dish out the ultimate hogwash.
Samuel Johnson was someone who valued true patriotism. For a poignant example of that in our own country, we need only look at the Second World War and ask who the true patriots were at the time.
Who fought the Japanese when the British army had surrendered and fled? To some Malaysians, it is taboo to consider the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) patriotic, but the evidence suggests the contrary.
How can the CPM not be considered patriotic when it refused to give in to the Japanese while other Malayans took the easy option of collaborating with the enemy? And although there were valiant Malays and Indians in the CPM, who were most of its members if not Chinese?
Of course, the fact that the CPM provided patriotic resistance against the Japanese is not known by many Malaysians. It has been expunged or distorted in our history books.
The current History syllabus at SPM level is clearly written by the victors, i.e. BN, mostly Umno. Just look at the Malaysian section of the textbook and you will see how the subjective selection of what goes into it serves to manipulate the truth.
Now that it has been decreed that History is to be a must-pass subject at SPM, you can bet the new syllabus will be constructed to further serve the victors’ cause. Malaysians would be naïve to believe that “history is history and we cannot concoct something that is not history”, as said by Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin. While they may not concoct, they can nonetheless construct.
History is a construct. It is not objective; it can be manipulated. How it is told depends on who is writing it. If Muhyiddin does not know that – which is unlikely – we at least should be aware.
Yap Ah Loy and Co
MCA president Chua Soi Lek could have been more explicit and to-the-point when he responded to Ahmad Zahid’s statement.
He could have mentioned Chin Peng and the CPM.
He could have mentioned the sacrifices of Yap Ah Loy and his band of 87 miners who were the first to set up a mining camp at the confluence of the Klang and Gombak rivers, 17 of whom died within the first month from malaria. That became the base from which Kuala Lumpur grew.
He could have mentioned the late Tan Chee Khoon who worked tirelessly to promote non-communal politics in Malaysia, and who fought against attempts to pervert the Constitution.
It is not enough for Chua to make general statements saying that the Chinese remained loyal to the country during the Japanese Occupation and the Indonesian confrontation, to illustrate the patriotism of the Chinese. He needs to give concrete examples.
His party has expressed concern about what the content of the new SPM History syllabus will be. Will the MCA do all it can to ensure that the new construct will include truths from various sides? Will it do all it can to ensure that the new syllabus reflects the patriotism of Malaysians regardless of race?
M. Kulasegaran, the MP for Ipoh Barat, made an important and pertinent point when he reminded Malaysians that non-Malays had headed the armed forces before, citing the excellent example of Rear-Admiral K Thanabalasingam, who was appointed the first Malaysian chief of the Royal Malaysian Navy in 1967.
How many Malaysians knew that? Would that be reflected in the new History syllabus?
There was a time when an Indian could be the chief of the country’s navy. When will that ever happen again? Meanwhile, is there any wonder that non-Malays are not keen to join the armed forces?
Ahmad Zahid, why don’t you tell us the truth?
