Do Not Fear Fiery Speech

Non-Malays and non-Muslims should not fear the fiery speeches at the recent UMNO general assembly, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said last night.

What does he mean?

"Instead of getting alarmed, there are lessons to be learnt from the whole episode. It means all of us have to be careful in dealing with issues concerning race and religion," Pak Lah said.

What do you mean sir?

Can I presumed that you are saying: "We won't do what we say; it's only rhetorics and to play to the gallery. At the same time, we want to you to be vary of what we will do when we run AMOK."

Or, could I assumed that you mean: "We are Cakap, Tapi Bikin Tak Boleh Serupa?"

But Pak Lah, it was damn scary! Youth information chief Datuk Azimi Daim said: "Umno Youth must be more effective, creative and proactive in defending such rights and privileges, as these are issues that make members jump. When certain issues come up, it is natural for the warrior blood in the veins of the Malays to become heated."

Razali Idris (Terengganu) said: "The Malay's economic growth is only about 2%, while the non-bumiputra's is at 6%. This wide disparity will create unrest and an incident like May 13 might repeat but this time, the parang will not fly. An ants' nest should not be disturbed."

Mohd Effendi Yusof (Kelantan) said: "Don't play with fire...we (Malays) will fight till the end."

Hasnoor Sidang Hussein, (Malacca) said: "Umno is willing to risk lives and bathe in blood in defence of race and religion. Don't play with fire. If they mess with our rights, we will mess with theirs."

Tan Sri Mohamad Rahmat said: "Don't test the Malays, they know 'amok'".

Hashim Suboh said: “Datuk Hisham has unsheathed his keris, waved his keris, kiss his keris. We want to ask Datuk Hisham when he is going to use it.”

Use the keris? I don't think he meant to use it to cut wood because it's better to use the axe. I don't think the keris is used to slaughter the fishes to make dinner. I remembered Hang Tuah use it on Hang Jebat - he stabbed and killed him. Isn't it frightening to know that the keris is used to kill someone.

Farish Noor said the keris is a beautiful object: Graceful, elegant and curiously feminine, if it is unsheathed. This is what Farish said:

The keris, it has to be remembered, is a composite object: It consists of the blade (mata keris) as well as the sheath (sarong keris); and in the symbolic coupling of the two (the keris inserted into the sheath or sarong) we see the symbolic enactment of the sexual act of copulation or intercourse. Here the upright keris assumes its phallic identity as the penetrating element (linggam), while the sheath assumes the status of penetrated object (yoni). But a tantric reading of this would reverse the order of interpretation by arguing that the masculine power of the keris blade is being enveloped and thus contained within the sacred feminine space of the sheath; thereby bringing about equilibrium and order, when the feminine encapsulates, embodies and contains the masculine. Ultimately, therefore, harmony in the universe is achieved when the expansive (and potentially destructive) power of the masculine is domesticated and tamed by the feminine. (Dedicated lovers of femdom would understand what I mean by this, but let me not digress…)

To unsheath the keris was an affront to society, the keris and the keris-owner. It was an expression of crude, brutish masculinity that bordered on the uncivilised and bestial. Yet tell that today to those demagogues who brandish the keris in public as soon as a camera is pointed at them. By taking the keris out of the sheath and separating it from its feminine counterpart, the sarong, they have rendered the feminine secondary. Here lies the symbolic machismo of the act, and in this singular gesture a feminine object of reverence and beauty has been transformed into a masculine symbol of power, aggression and violence. This marks the first epistemic violation of the keris, though sadly there are many more…

The first epistemic violation of the keris lay in the transgression of its gendered meaning, from a feminine object to a masculine one. The second violation occurred when it was transformed from a universal object to a particular one, turning it into a symbol of exclusive racial-ethnic identity.

Today the keris is seen by some as a symbol of exclusive Malay power and identity. Set in the context of Malaysia where racialised politics has become normalised, the keris is now made to stand at the cultural frontier that separates the Malays from other ‘races’. But honestly, was there ever a time when the keris was an exclusively Malay symbol?

Isn't it scary, more so after reading Farish elucidation.