COMMENT
A legend is the story of an ordinary person doing extraordinary things.
P Ramlee is one such legend. He is actor, director, singer, musician,
composer and comedian of the highest talent and ability. He was the
undisputed king of Malay entertainment during his lifetime. In many
ways, he still is today. He is a true legend.
Hang
Tuah, too, was an ordinary person doing extraordinary things. But
unlike P Ramlee, whose existence can be confirmed by millions, there
apparently has been no proof of Hang Tuah's existence.
So, Hang Tuah had existed only in the collective minds of the Malay society, with his exploits told and retold in fairytales and folklore.
Is Hang Tuah, therefore, a legend or myth? Based on my definitions above, this hangs on another question: did Hang Tuah exist in the first place?
At present, the answer is a no and a yes.
No, said Professor Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim at a convention on the Malay cultural root and reported in Malaysiakini. There has been no strong and conclusive evidence of his existence, Khoo reportedly said further. In the event, Hang Tuah might well be a figure in myth.
Yes, he did exist, countered Malaysian Archaeologists Association president Professor Emeritus Nik Hassan Shuhaimi Nik Abdul Rahman, at the same convention. There is a tomb in Tanjung Kling (in Malacca), said to be Hang Tuah's, although no name has been written on it, Nik Hassan had said.
One said yes, the other said no. Both can't be right, nor can they both be wrong. One is right. Which one? To me, it is he who is telling the truth. The scientific truth, that is. The truth that is conclusively supported by proof and evidence, that everybody accepts without any more doubt.
Can the scientific truth be uncovered? Yes, sure. And Nik Hassan has even mentioned the way how it can be done - by exhuming the remains in the grave and giving it a DNA test.
This being so, why can't this be arranged quickly and have this matter resolved once and for all?
A tricky detail
Here comes the tricky bit. Nik Hassan reportedly said that giving such tests to the remains might prove difficult due to religious sensitivities. "This is a Muslim tomb. We don't want to disturb this tomb because there may be sensitivities involved in terms of religion."
So, because of this tricky detail we have to go on speculating well into the future as to whether or not Hang Tuah existed or otherwise, whether he is a true legend or a mere myth.
I wish to draw some lessons from this case.
The first is that we must not accept all past wisdoms without examining them under the microscope. We have to be more analytical, discerning, sceptical and more scientific about anything that comes our way. We have to go to the truth of any matter or case.
Is Hang Tuah a legend? Let's go for the facts. Did he exist? Again, let's go for the evidence. Assemble all of the possible alternative possibilities. Shortlist the most probable answers. Select the few highly possible ones. Nothing would or should stop us from seeking truth. If there is one blocking the way, then the block should be overcome. The pursuit of truth must go on.
Secondly, when we go about seeking the truth, we really have to be open-minded and scientific about it. We must not be governed or hampered by prejudice, superstition or anything else hiding behind (in this case) religious sensitivity.
I refer to the possibility of extracting DNA from the tomb. Why can't the remains of the Hang Tuah tomb be exhumed? Must religious sensitivity, as claimed, be a barrier to this noble endeavour of searching for truth?
If so, can't the ulama or mullah be called for a discussion (for example) and seek their cooperation, understanding and support in the matter?
Which brings me to the third lesson. It is that the whole world is changing, and fast. It is becoming very technical, scientific and technological. This being so, there is need for a change of mindset, just to be part of this constant and rapid change. The alternative is to be left behind (or drowned) in the sea of change.
So, should the ulama refuse to provide cooperation and support, then they should be counselled to be more open with their mindsets or risk being drowned. Surely, when given the proper sense of importance and urgency on the issue, they can come up with some workable fatwa saying yes, this special tomb can be exhumed; it can be done.
If they refuse, someone must tell them they are doomed to drown in the sea of change.
A thinking facility based on facts
Finally, the fourth lesson. Following the fact that the world is fast becoming very technical, scientific and technological (it has been for centuries now) there is need for us to educate our younger generation with, first, the thinking ability and second, with a thinking facility based on facts and truth, on scientific evidence; not on suppositions, myth and prejudice.
I support this contention by writing by two versions of teaching about Hang Tuah in a history class.
The first says:
"Hang Tuah is a legendary Malay warrior. He is the best nationalist and champion of the Malay race. His famous saying is ‘Takkan hilang Melayu di dunia.'"
This teaching style is stiff, rigid, even emotive and final. It is the traditional, closed-minded (and boring) way history has been taught to us all at school.
The second is:
"Hang Tuah is claimed to be a legendary Malay warrior. But recently his existence is in doubt because there has been no strong evidence supporting it. There is a tomb in Tanjung Kling said to contain his remains. Efforts are being made to get samples of the remains and its DNA tested.
"If our scientists and historians can conclusively determine the DNA is that of Hang Tuah then he is our real and true hero. If not, then we can still hold on to the belief that he had existed and he remains our hero. Maybe, at some time in future, we might locate and identify some ancient human remains and this could be that of Hang Tuah."
The second is the more pragmatic, open-minded and scientific way of teaching the same thing.
I prefer to have been taught the second way, if there can be another time. Since I can't, then I do look to the time when we can teach history to our young this second way.
But the fact remains that history should be taught scientifically, i.e. by seeking truth, by unearthing who had actually been doing what at what specific time and specific place. All these primary facts must be right, for this constitutes truth, scientific truth. No effort must be spared to get them right.
The historian or history writer may later interpret the scientifically proven facts according to his leaning and philosophies, but even this must be within earshot of truth.
History as written by politicians
The important point is that on no account must historians interpret and teach history based on myth, value judgment, half-truths or on selective omission.
On this last point, Khoo Kay Kim (right)
had hinted, even confirmed, at the convention that Malaysian history
has been written ‘by the executive branch' of government. In other
words, the history we are teaching our young at schools today is one
reflecting the wishes and demands of the political leaders.
Come to think of it, they have been harping all along that Malaysian history must be written ‘by the victors', not by the way the facts and evidence seem to suggest.
This goes contrary to my contentions above and is most alarming: are we to accept the idea that Hang Tuah is a legend and hero, because the politicians say so, in the event this is their preference? Or are we to accept him as one because the facts say so?
The first is a lie, or at the very least the perpetuation of myth. It is also intellectual dishonesty. The second is factual, scientific and intellectual honesty.
I say this: we have to teach our young with intellectual honesty all the way. It is for the good of everybody, our young, our people our leaders and our country in the short and long terms.
AB SULAIMAN is an observer of human traits and foibles, especially within the context of religion and culture. As a liberal, he marvels at the way orthodoxy fights to maintain its credibility in a devilishly fast-changing world. He hopes to provide some understanding to the issues at hand and wherever possible, suggest some solutions. He holds a Bachelor in Social Sciences (Leicester, UK) and a Diploma in Public Administration, Universiti Malaya.
Hang
Tuah, too, was an ordinary person doing extraordinary things. But
unlike P Ramlee, whose existence can be confirmed by millions, there
apparently has been no proof of Hang Tuah's existence.So, Hang Tuah had existed only in the collective minds of the Malay society, with his exploits told and retold in fairytales and folklore.
Is Hang Tuah, therefore, a legend or myth? Based on my definitions above, this hangs on another question: did Hang Tuah exist in the first place?
At present, the answer is a no and a yes.
No, said Professor Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim at a convention on the Malay cultural root and reported in Malaysiakini. There has been no strong and conclusive evidence of his existence, Khoo reportedly said further. In the event, Hang Tuah might well be a figure in myth.
Yes, he did exist, countered Malaysian Archaeologists Association president Professor Emeritus Nik Hassan Shuhaimi Nik Abdul Rahman, at the same convention. There is a tomb in Tanjung Kling (in Malacca), said to be Hang Tuah's, although no name has been written on it, Nik Hassan had said.
One said yes, the other said no. Both can't be right, nor can they both be wrong. One is right. Which one? To me, it is he who is telling the truth. The scientific truth, that is. The truth that is conclusively supported by proof and evidence, that everybody accepts without any more doubt.
Can the scientific truth be uncovered? Yes, sure. And Nik Hassan has even mentioned the way how it can be done - by exhuming the remains in the grave and giving it a DNA test.
This being so, why can't this be arranged quickly and have this matter resolved once and for all?
A tricky detail
Here comes the tricky bit. Nik Hassan reportedly said that giving such tests to the remains might prove difficult due to religious sensitivities. "This is a Muslim tomb. We don't want to disturb this tomb because there may be sensitivities involved in terms of religion."
So, because of this tricky detail we have to go on speculating well into the future as to whether or not Hang Tuah existed or otherwise, whether he is a true legend or a mere myth.
I wish to draw some lessons from this case.
The first is that we must not accept all past wisdoms without examining them under the microscope. We have to be more analytical, discerning, sceptical and more scientific about anything that comes our way. We have to go to the truth of any matter or case.
Is Hang Tuah a legend? Let's go for the facts. Did he exist? Again, let's go for the evidence. Assemble all of the possible alternative possibilities. Shortlist the most probable answers. Select the few highly possible ones. Nothing would or should stop us from seeking truth. If there is one blocking the way, then the block should be overcome. The pursuit of truth must go on.
Secondly, when we go about seeking the truth, we really have to be open-minded and scientific about it. We must not be governed or hampered by prejudice, superstition or anything else hiding behind (in this case) religious sensitivity.
I refer to the possibility of extracting DNA from the tomb. Why can't the remains of the Hang Tuah tomb be exhumed? Must religious sensitivity, as claimed, be a barrier to this noble endeavour of searching for truth?
If so, can't the ulama or mullah be called for a discussion (for example) and seek their cooperation, understanding and support in the matter?
Which brings me to the third lesson. It is that the whole world is changing, and fast. It is becoming very technical, scientific and technological. This being so, there is need for a change of mindset, just to be part of this constant and rapid change. The alternative is to be left behind (or drowned) in the sea of change.
So, should the ulama refuse to provide cooperation and support, then they should be counselled to be more open with their mindsets or risk being drowned. Surely, when given the proper sense of importance and urgency on the issue, they can come up with some workable fatwa saying yes, this special tomb can be exhumed; it can be done.
If they refuse, someone must tell them they are doomed to drown in the sea of change.
A thinking facility based on facts
Finally, the fourth lesson. Following the fact that the world is fast becoming very technical, scientific and technological (it has been for centuries now) there is need for us to educate our younger generation with, first, the thinking ability and second, with a thinking facility based on facts and truth, on scientific evidence; not on suppositions, myth and prejudice.
I support this contention by writing by two versions of teaching about Hang Tuah in a history class.
The first says:"Hang Tuah is a legendary Malay warrior. He is the best nationalist and champion of the Malay race. His famous saying is ‘Takkan hilang Melayu di dunia.'"
This teaching style is stiff, rigid, even emotive and final. It is the traditional, closed-minded (and boring) way history has been taught to us all at school.
The second is:
"Hang Tuah is claimed to be a legendary Malay warrior. But recently his existence is in doubt because there has been no strong evidence supporting it. There is a tomb in Tanjung Kling said to contain his remains. Efforts are being made to get samples of the remains and its DNA tested.
"If our scientists and historians can conclusively determine the DNA is that of Hang Tuah then he is our real and true hero. If not, then we can still hold on to the belief that he had existed and he remains our hero. Maybe, at some time in future, we might locate and identify some ancient human remains and this could be that of Hang Tuah."
The second is the more pragmatic, open-minded and scientific way of teaching the same thing.
I prefer to have been taught the second way, if there can be another time. Since I can't, then I do look to the time when we can teach history to our young this second way.
But the fact remains that history should be taught scientifically, i.e. by seeking truth, by unearthing who had actually been doing what at what specific time and specific place. All these primary facts must be right, for this constitutes truth, scientific truth. No effort must be spared to get them right.
The historian or history writer may later interpret the scientifically proven facts according to his leaning and philosophies, but even this must be within earshot of truth.
History as written by politicians
The important point is that on no account must historians interpret and teach history based on myth, value judgment, half-truths or on selective omission.
On this last point, Khoo Kay Kim (right)
had hinted, even confirmed, at the convention that Malaysian history
has been written ‘by the executive branch' of government. In other
words, the history we are teaching our young at schools today is one
reflecting the wishes and demands of the political leaders.Come to think of it, they have been harping all along that Malaysian history must be written ‘by the victors', not by the way the facts and evidence seem to suggest.
This goes contrary to my contentions above and is most alarming: are we to accept the idea that Hang Tuah is a legend and hero, because the politicians say so, in the event this is their preference? Or are we to accept him as one because the facts say so?
The first is a lie, or at the very least the perpetuation of myth. It is also intellectual dishonesty. The second is factual, scientific and intellectual honesty.
I say this: we have to teach our young with intellectual honesty all the way. It is for the good of everybody, our young, our people our leaders and our country in the short and long terms.
AB SULAIMAN is an observer of human traits and foibles, especially within the context of religion and culture. As a liberal, he marvels at the way orthodoxy fights to maintain its credibility in a devilishly fast-changing world. He hopes to provide some understanding to the issues at hand and wherever possible, suggest some solutions. He holds a Bachelor in Social Sciences (Leicester, UK) and a Diploma in Public Administration, Universiti Malaya.
No comments:
Post a Comment