Deconstructing the Perfect Man

Dr Azly Rahman, an academician who holds all sorts of mind-boggling degrees and sometimes writes for Malaysiakini, once propounded that the wayang kulit display of the Ramayana epic or the makyong is a form of neo-feudalistic indoctrination, the type that Hang Tuah suffered from and which Jebat gave two fingers to.

In his article for Malaysiakini Neo-feudalism of the cybernetic Malays he wrote:

In many an analysis of the transformation of the Malay society from the times of the Melaka Sultanate to the emergence of the Malay nationalism we find the conclusion of the idea of a good Malay subject is one who surrenders total obedience to his or her Ruler (the sultan or the Raja). The king is said to be ‘(Allah’s) representative on this earth’ and is thus bestowed with the Divine Rights.
Modernizing it even further, can we say “the idea of a good Malaysian subject is one who surrenders total obedience to his or her political leader (the PM, MB or party leader)”?

Blogger Sakmongkol (Dato’ Mohd Ariff Sabri bin Hj Abdul Aziz) alluded to the modernized ‘expectations’ in a certain way in his post hutang UMNO pada budi orang Melayu.

Azly Rahman proceeded on to say:

But the problem lies not in the here and now but in the past; one that needs to be de-constructed and reconstructed. It lies in the Malay psyche. It lies in the notion of hegemony as it relates to political-economy of totalitarianism and controlling interests that continue to cement the master-slave narrative/relationship of the ruler and the ruled.

That master-slave narrative has become a technology of psycholinguistic control and institutionalised as ‘culture’. The Portuguese, Dutch, Japanese, and British colonialists succeeded because the fertile ground of the slave mentality is already prepared historical- materialistically.

We can see this mentality in the idea that Malay political leader must not be challenged (such as in case of the presidency of the Umno) and this is a manifestation of this neo- feudalism hypermodern inner construct of the Malay in the Age of Cybernetics.

Wakakaka, I know I know, good olde Azly Rahman has been notable for using frightening words in his essays that makes you wonder whether your education has been an utter failure, or you’re an intellectual pygmy, or you're suffering from ataxaphasia, or perhaps you have just overeaten more than your share of pulut-nasi-lemak-cum-banana-santan-curry-ish literature. You suffer hours or even days of slow literary digestion.

Anyway, 500 years of such historical indoctrination have shown that Azly Rahman has been correct, in that Malays in general (& not excluding many other Malaysians) have inherited such a slave mentality or, in its modern and extreme form, slavish adoration of political leaders.

Substitute the word ‘UMNO’ with ‘PKR’ and we have the same stuff, that to PKR members, Anwar Ibrahim must not be challenged, because (to paraphrase Azly’s finding) “the idea of a good PKR member is one who surrenders total obedience to the Great One”.

Thus, except for many of those former members who left in utter disgust or were expelled for bucking the ‘inner coterie’, PKR members never ever question Anwar on, for example:

· The most un-reformasi promotion of frogs in Perak (prior to the drastic ricochet wakakaka)

· The most un-reformasi 916. When asked whether 916, had it been successful, would have been a total disrespect to the people’s democratic choice, many idol worshippers argued PKR couldn’t afford to wait until 2013 to replace UMNO, and thus the end (Anwar as PM) justified the means (including shameful frog-ological cheating of the voters, which of course they criticized most vehemently when Najib/UMNO was the proponent).

· The utter shameful frog-hunting expedition to Taiwan. Tian Chua fitted in but shame on Eli Wong for being party to it, though I didn't heistate to defend her on my blog during the period of her most trying times.

Let me pause here for a while and ask, do you PKR people still believe n reformasi?

OK, I bet your answer would be as above, that PKR can’t afford to wait until post-GE 13 to replace UMNO, and thus the end (to enthrone Anwar as PM soonest) justifies the means whatever these may be, even living in a world of self deception (about reformasi), by burying their heads in the sand like the proverbial ostrich and ignoring the most un-reformasi practices of their idol.

· His out-of-the-blue support of the implementation of PAS’ hudud. Of course I don’t expect the PKR Muslim members to question him on this but why were the non-Muslim members struck dumb during that time? Eli? Tian Chua? Sivarasa?

· His last minute and very personal selection of Loh Gwo Burne (who?) as PKR candidate for the federal parliamentary seat of Kelana Jaya. Loh’s perceived unsuitability as a federal MP led Haris Ibrahim to demand an explanation from Anwar Ibrahim for his (Anwar's) choice, which as with all such challenging queries to PKR, remained unanswered. Bloody great refomasi process.

· The questionable governance of PKR’s last party polls. Hell of a lot had already been written by Haris Ibrahim, (OK, let’s exclude RPK) and PKR’s own members (some still members like Chegubard and Mustaffa Kamil, while others had left) without the need for me to elaborate.

Instead ask Gobala, once chief bodeker of Anwar, Zaid Ibrahim wakakaka, Jenapala (who was marginalized like another Nallakaruppan), Jonson Chong, Chegubard (still in PKR and unlike Mustaffa Kamil, had refused a consolation prize of some party position, but recently backstabbed by PKR insiders), and earlier on, Johari Jasin, Abdul Rahman (membership No 3 and now in PAS).

But I’m sure, in accordance with PKR beliefs, each and every one of them was wrong, evil and a frog like RPK, unlike the precious pristine pure Great One.

I don’t intend to join RPK in commenting on the Haadyai video clip nor on the Sodomy II case, which incidentally brings me to RPK.

Now, while I sometimes don’t agree with RPK, I do with his recent criticisms (minus the Haadyai & Sodomy II incidents) of Anwar and Azmin Ali.

In fact RPK has been far more generous than I have been, in persuading Nurul Izzah to take over the reins (not 'helm', wakakaka) of PKR.

As RPK (and a sweetie once) said, one can be anti Anwar without being anti Pakatan or anti PKR. And I include myself in this group.

But alas, as Azly Rahman wrote, (as modified/modernized by kaytee) “the idea of a good PKR member is one who surrenders total obedience to the Great One” where total obedience also means defending him regardless.

Thus, leaving aside RPK's unauthorized comments on MCLM, I wasn’t surprised to read numerous and very venomous vilifications of him for his opinons on Anwar, while not one comment or query had been raised on Anwar’s credentials as a reformer and his performance in that respect, let alone his suitability as a future PM.

Very few bother to read what RPK said, about the danger of focusing on the personality cult of Anwar instead of policies of Pakatan as a future government (eg. where’s the bloody shadow cabinet? but day in day out, it's all about Anwar vs Najib & Najib vs Anwar - cukup lah!), ...

... leading to such moronic declarations, that if Anwar is jailed, PKR members will storm the barricades at Putrajaya to place Anwar there (of course made by a bloke whose political existence is dependent on Anwar Ibrahim's continuing political influence)

Look, let's consider RPK playing the role of deconstructing (wakakaka, Azly Rahman’s word) the Great Anwar Ibrahim a la what Kassim Ahmad did in his doctoral thesis 'Perwatakan Hikayat Hang Tuah'.

Hang Tuah was the very epitome of Malay heroic loyalty until Kassim Ahmad raised doubts on his iconic status in (circa) 1950.

Dr Bakri Musa commented on Kassim’s thesis as follows:

In it he challenged the traditional interpretation and made the hitherto hero Hang Tuah as nothing more than a palace hack, and elevated the anti-hero Hang Jebat as the true hero, willing to kill even the sultan in defence of honor and principles. Surely Jebat was the reformer wakakaka.

Similarly in studies on the Hindu saga, Ramayana, some modern scholars have questioned the true nature of the epic’s typified heroic Rama and his arch foe, the demonic Ravana. The scholars have considered reversing the roles and status of the two principal antagonists, something that would have been previously considered as an unimaginable proposition, namely, that Rama was a cad in many ways while Ravana was a chivalrous hero of sorts.

Some conservative Hindus may even take that proposition as blasphemous, not unlike conservative Malays on the role reversal of Kassim Ahmad’s Tuah and Jebat.

The studies have focused on what has puzzled Ramayana scholars throughout the centuries, namely, the inexplicable nature of the relationship between Rama and his wife Sita, specifically Rama's deplorable behaviour towards her.

Like Tuah, Rama was the hero of the saga, an avatar of Vishnu born on earth to save the world and the heavens from Ravana. Sita was his loyal wife. Together, with Rama's brother, Laksamana, the three left Ayodha on a pre-destined mission.

They went through trials and tribulation. In the course of their mission until their eventual triumphant return to Ayodha, Rama accused Sita twice of infidelity, even though she was innocent. Each time Sita was forced to prove her purity by ordeal.

But in spite of her repetitive demonstration of virtue, she was considered a tainted partner. Sita was never accepted by Rama as a loyal and full member of the Ayodha family.

Why did such a so-called righteous hero like Rama, ironically termed the ‘Perfect Man’, treat his partner Sita with such distrust, lack of respect and injustice, not once but on two separate occasions? By contrast, Ravana treated his hostage Sita with great respect and chivalry.

So, who's actually the hero and who's the villain in Ramayana?

Rama's caddish treatment of Sita was not his only 'crime'. His treacherous murder of King Vali by stealth from behind a tree while the latter was fighting his brother Sugriva) was disgraceful and most unchivalrous for the 'Perfect Man' Rama was supposed to be.

The dying Vali was so shocked by Rama's treachery that he said (from Wikipedia) "if you are searching your wife you should have come to me for help and friendship. Whoever took Sita even if it is Ravana I have defeated them and would have taken them at your feet and at your mercy".

Then he asked Rama with his dying breath:

• What was my crime?
• Even if I committed a crime (with my brother), what is your right to kill me?
• The third statement shows Vali's disapproval of the way Rama killed him. He says, "I was fighting with some other person and was not careful enough when you shot me."

Rama showed his unrepentant arrogance in a most disgraceful reply to Vali's third question, as disgraceful as was his equally arrogant reply to Vali's second question.

He said that Vali, King of Kishkinda (a monkey kingdom) was just a monkey, therefore he as a king on the hunt couldn't be bothered whether the prey being hunted was careful or not, dismissing Vali as being in the same category as a deer being hunted.

Such was Rama's unmitigated sin of killing by treacherous stealth the King of Kishkinda, yet whose army he sought for help (through Sugriva) to rescue Sita from Ravana. Can you respect Rama's arrogant and totally unrepentant argument?

Anyway, do consider Azly Rahman's postulation about 'neo-feudalism hypermodern inner construct of believers'.

While I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that PKR people consider Anwar as the ‘Perfect Man’ wakakaka, why vilify RPK for his deconstruction of the Great One and his (Anwar's) alleged disrespect for reformasi, when the former had sacrificed so much (including the safety and welfare of his family) for the latter?

Even if RPK had gone over to bat for UMNO, so what! Assuming for a moment that's true, I believe no one more than RPK has earned that independent right to do so, after so many personal sacrifices for Anwar, without attracting such infantile venom.

After all, Anwar is no greater than Hang Tuah or Rama, though of course I could be wrong here wakakaka.