What robbed us of our innocence?
FMT LETTER: From Dr Dominic Damian, via e-mail
What is it that broke the yoke of this magical formula and robbed us of our innocence? Can we feel the pulse of what really broke the backbone of the family unit in the country? There are varied reasons and I may not be correct about the whole scenario, but this is how I see it.
Materialistic greed was not yet realised in the era of the 60s. The concern in fighting the insurgency and winning the hearts and minds of the general population was a binding force. It was the pragmatic realisation that the bread of equality offered was the only plausible and acceptable way to win a battle.
There was never an issue of a majority race with inalienable rights. Each and every individual was an important component in building the infrastructure of a fledgling nation. There were various major races and persons of ethnic background who were involved in the army, police and civil service. The legal system was that of the highest order.
Power was never realised as concept to rule but rather to serve. Our early leaders were not persons who were of exceptional intelligence or creative talents. They were just individuals who carried the hopes of a nation on the shoulders of rational thought and supported by the moral principles of rights and wrongs. The rule of law was rarely abused. The taxpayer’s money was never squandered on dubious ventures nor were there politicians who just enriched themselves or their families.
Religion was a beautiful concept, we Catholics used to fast rigorously for the Lent period, quite a few of us cheated on the fast but it was never a dramatic issue, our Muslim brothers and sisters would also fast during the month of Ramadan and likewise the Hindus. No one questioned the other – it was accepted as a simple fact of each one’s life.
Our friends from the various religious backgrounds would come to the Church for some music and likewise one could go to the mosque or temple. There never were issues with serious or dramatic consequences. There are friends who gave me books on their respective faiths and this was read and it most certainly helped in building the walls of the soul.
One cannot claim that racial segregation was not evident, there were occasions especially that some segments of the Chinese community would show their prejudice towards others, by giving items at cheaper prices to members within their community, or telling other races that certain items were beyond their budget, or even keeping the best items for members of their own community.
The Indians likewise, had their own share of prejudices and stereotyping against the Chinese. Can we blame the individuals involved for such racism. I think that there wasn’t sufficient education or knowledge on racial equality and as such this can be attributed to ignorance more than malice. Nevertheless, one cannot run away from these weaknesses but just hang our heads in shame that we had this in our past. Acknowledgment and the resolve to improve will always make us better persons.
On the political front we had in our midst a brilliant and far-sighted visionary in Onn Jaffar, while America and Europe were still struggling with racism, we had a man with conscience and moral wisdom. This was a person who could see the country beyond the lenses of ethnicity, culture or creed. In Malaysia, the ‘ I have a dream’ speech was in reality being promoted by Onn Jaffar long before any leader, other than Ghandi, in the world was advocating such causes.
When his cause was rejected by those who were his closest aides it had already consigned us to the eventualities of a future that would compromise us as a nation in the wrong hands. The architects and engineers of Onn Jaffar’s fall were around to show themselves in the future. It must be made known that Onn Jaffar could never have succeeded against the prevalent sentiment of his aides, to obtain a new mandate would have been so very difficult in terms of communication logistics as he would have had to create new branches over the length and breadth of the country in the shortest span of time.
Umno branches were already in place, having been built over a number of years. There was no way that Onn Jaffar’s positive thoughts could have reached the masses given the many disadvantages. It is such a pity that the mainstream parties and important political figures could not see and appreciate the vision of this great man. Onn Jaffar may have been one our very first of our unique original minorities, his compassion, rational forward thinking, conscientious voice was lost in the wilderness of self interest.
The undeserving, inglorious, ignominious end of Onn Jaffar was an implosion with tragic consequences within Umno where leaders are never secure. This is clearly evident in the way the Tunku, Hussein Onn and Abdullah Ahmad Badwai were all dispatched in an insidious manner. When a good ideology or leader or thought is forsaken and sacrificed – anything in the future can be compromised. The precedence for good is overtaken by the brooding forces of dark that only fight for themselves other than the citizens of the country.
Tunku would have experienced and must have felt the same way as Onn Jaffar had felt, that there was no place in the politics of this country for men or women of calibre who cared about the common dignity of the citizen. The advent of May 13, 1969 did not separate the country and it is now an indispensable knowledge available as the truth unravels that it never was a racial disturbance as we were led to believe.
It was a combination of elements the circumstance emanated from the politics, and various other factors that came together by intention, engineered incidents and some that were sheer accidents or ill-luck. This is borne by the simple fact that it was not widespread and contained within specific parts of the country. It also seems to be an excuse engineered by the political elite to keep and take power.
The baton or torch of leadership was passed from our beloved Tunku Abdul Rahman in a manner less than dignified. The wheels were already set in motion and the trajectory of ills that would degrade and depreciate a nation was already in place. Even those who assumed powers would never have foreseen the destruction and havoc that a single incident can impact a nation. All other negatives that followed were just the follow up consequence of what may be the single biggest mistake.
Removing a leader, especially a founder and one accorded the title of ‘Father’ opened the Pandora’s box of how easy it was to obtain power. If one can do it to the Father of a Nation, one can do it to anyone – nobody is safe. Everyone can be removed and everyone has a price. The security of an unassailable position could be broken and breached with relative ease.
Now we ought to reflect what was it that made the Tunku a very special individual. He did not posses exceptional gifts or extraordinary leadership capabilities, he was respected for his common touch, empathy, honesty and the skeletons of corruption can never be found in the closet of his life or any of his living relatives. Neither was he a manufactured leader who needed public relation officials to prop him on a charm offensive.
His weakness and strengths was an open book and he endeared himself to the common citizen. If one were to compare him to our all leaders who followed after him it would be an equivalent of holding a lighted candle against the brilliance of the sun. His faults that cost him the leadership were simplicity, honesty and a naïve trusting disposition.
The leaders that followed after Tunku stepped down may have been more capable, astute or intelligent and would have thought they would receive support and loyalty of an equal standard. The magical ingredients of nobility, dignity, concern, care, humility and simplicity could never be replicated and could never be bought. Tunku’s wealth was his good natured character in excess.
Many who toiled to make the country successful were inspired by the Tunku. My father used to refer to him in Malayam as ‘achan’ – translated as brother. This is the affinity and esteem that Tunku established in the relationship of trust with the citizen. With Tunku’s removal, no PM who followed could retain the full trust of his cabinet, party members or members of other component parties.
How does one trust the acquisition of a leadership when it may be tainted with an act of dishonour? There was an article of Tunku in the Readers Digest where it was expressed that he was the happiest PM in the world, and we may have been the happiest citizens in the world. In this current day and age a political scientist expounds the latest theory of a good government being adjudged by the happiness index of the citizen. We already had this concept in our leadership and especially in our first prime minister. No genius, political scientist or analyst was required to give us a complex jargon of happiness – we lived it through live experiences.
No comments:
Post a Comment