The Malaysian story must be told by many
IREFER to the letter “Narration of history of nations” by Arof Ishak ( The Star, Feb 5) in response to “Day at the Museum” by June H.L. Wong ( The Star, Feb 25).
Arof described history as a “civilisational narrative” – An immigrant passes into the stage of the “end of history” upon the permanent departure of his or her native land and joins the continuing history of the native civilisation of the new homeland.
For him, this is the cost involved in migration and those who have found new homes cannot lay additional demands to the way natives narrate history.
However, we should also consider that there are also costs involved in nation-building. For example, it involved a story of give and take amongst community leaders for national interests. But that Malaysia or shall I say Malaya, was a 1957 story.
Our Malaysian experience today is qualitatively distinct and not just an update of something far older – the story of Malaysia today is one told like never before because it is our story, our Malaysia.
As we reflect on history and endowed with the benefit of deeper hindsight and reflection, how we look at history may be different the way the past was viewed by our preceding generation through this added value.
The perspective of history also grows richer as it contains more and more voices.
Our Malaysian story is a story told from the broad strokes of public policy into the very intricate emotions that run through our hearts.
This is why it warrants as many stories as possible. The narrative of the history of Malaysia is an on-going negotiation.
This explains why in many cases, this Malaysian “association” and the conversation around its origins and entitlement has sparked much disagreement among individuals and between two or more segments of society.
Ironically, this association is also a strong emotional and intellectual source of agreement between Malaysians on wide ranging issues from politics to trade to sports.
In agreeing or disagreeing and in whatever feelings that we may have of one another, nothing will separate the fact that we are all Malaysian.
This is our imagined reality – I have yet to know Arof but in our minds there is an image of our communion by being Malaysians. I would most likely identify Arof as a fellow Malaysian if I heard him speak in a crowded Tube station in London.
It certainly did not begin with us. Our forefathers would have felt the same. Our children too - they will find a similar association with one another.
The key difference would be how would we, in this generation go about in this association.
For Arof, Wong’s feeling of “shaken and stirred” is what happens when a person does not understand history.
While that may be true, it would be very useful to also acknowledge there are many other feelings that go with it, such as happiness and sadness, unity and division when told by different people.
After all, who really does have a full understanding of history? This is probably Wong’s reason for spending her day in the museum – to learn and experience more perspectives.
Unfortunately for her, she felt stirred from the lack of inclusive storytelling from Muzium Negara on the contribution of other Malaysian communities in our national history.
The matter at hand should not be who has the right to demand how the “Malaysian story” is told. It should be that the storytelling must go on because when we cease to talk, it will be the beginning of the end.
The Malaysian story must go on in its various streams and versions and we should defend the right of every honest and sincere Malaysian to add to its diversity.