A director's story

I had an interview with Mr. Patrick Lim, a local film director. In our interview, he mentioned two of his most impactful memories that happened at Istana Budaya. The first was his achievement, where he was approached by another local film director, Dr. Anuar Nor Arai, to be his assistant director, and also an actor in the play 'Ronggeng Rokiah'. This play boosted Mr. Patrick's confidence as this was a play on a big scale, and his character spoke in front of the audience.

The second was his heartbreaking memory where he was supposed to direct a series with RTM called 'World Stars Road to Hollywood'. The main sponsor pulled out, leaving them with only very little money to work on. So, because of this, he was in debt with his crew, as well as his company's name and reputation - dented.

I would understand totally if you are having problems hearing what Mr. Patrick is trying to say in the videos because apparently there were other people who wanted their 'emotional' stories to be known as well. I apologize for the interruption of other people and their stories. Overall, I hope you would understand, and enjoy this video. Thanks.

Of roots and gratitude...

Lindsey Merrison, the director of this documentary titled ‘Our Burmese Days’, brought her mother, Sally, and uncle Bill back to Myanmar (formerly known as Burma) to revisit their past and unearth family histories. However, it was a painful journey for both Sally and Bill because it was their first visit in 40 years ever since they left Burma, and what was once stored aside, had to be reopened.

There were two things that gave me quite a thought after watching this documentary. The first was when Sally, repeatedly and stubbornly replied that she did not want to state her reasons for not admitting that she was from Burma, instead from Hamel Hampstead. No matter how many times asked by her daughter, Sally still kept her stand firmly by keeping the reasons to herself.

Her decision to do so kept me wondering why would she want to leave the past behind as something that would really affect her very much if it was brought into light. Was it something that had happened last time that she wanted to keep it to herself? Was it that she wasn’t proud of where she came from because she was afraid that people would look down on her?

In life, each and every one of us has our own secrets to keep. Even if we let someone we trust know everything about us, there will be at least one secret which we want to keep it and bring it with us to our grave. However, if the reason were to be her (Sally) not being proud of her origins and afraid that people would look down on her, then it is quite disappointing because it was where she was born and brought up. A place where it had mould her into what she is today. Her parents were buried there, and that was where her childhood memories still linger. Personally, I feel that she should not deny that she was from Burma. So what if people look down on you because you came from a third-world country? It is like indirectly disowning your mother, and saying that other people’s mother is yours. It also reminded me about Marjane Satrapi, author of Persepolis, who went to Vienna and denied her roots. Somehow denying your origins or roots is equivalent to not staying true to yourself.

Second thing that I realized was that we should be proud to be Malaysians. I hear people complaining that Malaysia is a country that has its flaws which, sad to say, could not be accepted by these people. But think it this way – at least Malaysia can provide its citizens food to eat, the economy though may not be as stable as other countries, it is still stable enough for us to live through. Every city in every state is slowly developing, and we are lucky to have sufficient basic necessities. Thus far, we haven’t had a war ever since we gained independence; though just very little and small disputes. What more could we ask for? Public and private universities are also mushrooming.

It is undeniable that human nature, we tend to make comparisons between something old, and something which we deemed better. Looking at the state of Burma through the camera’s lens, I felt very fortunate that I am lucky to have a comfortable shelter, good food to eat, and am able to attain education. I may sound like a typical girl trying to sound like she’s really happy with what she has, but yes, in all honesty, I am very lucky to be staying in Malaysia. I just hope that those people who complaint about this country will one day realize that they are already very fortunate to live in a place that is free from the most dangerous things that anybody will not want – earthquake, hurricane, constant protests, or drought. What more could we ask for?

Another look...

September 11, or famously known as 9/11, has certainly made an impact on all of us. It has even dug a deep crater in the hearts of families whom members were victims of the unduly actions of other people. What did the world see of the people who were responsible for creating a sad and ugly chapter in the world’s history? The American government quickly state that they were engaged in a war against terrorism, and not a war against Islam. However, it is ironic and unfortunate that the terrorists who caused 9/11 all happened to be Muslims.

There are always two sides of a coin. Why did the 9/11 happen? Was it because the Middle East wanted to be heard, and hence used this tactic to gain attention? We have only heard the American side of story, and sympathized with them because it happened in their land, at the same time so tragic; but did we hear the other side’s story? Do we actually know why these terrorist did all these? We did not even have time to sit down and listen to their needs because the whole world was busy moaning over what had happened, and the media became a tool of showing us the direction of where they want us to ‘go’.

The point is, we, from the other side of the world, do not know what is really going on, and can only obtain news through the media. The media can be bias in a way where they report what they want us to believe. They definitely cannot change news, but with just a slant. The late Edward Said, who was a literary theorist, cultural critic, an advocate, and a Professor at Columbia University, said that the American news media have portrayed “Islam” as a monolithic entity, synonymous with terrorism and religious hysteria. Today, the mass media paints a picture of Islam in a very depressing and misleading one. As Said have put it, “What emerges is that Ayatollah Khomeini…. and Palestinian terrorists are the best –known figures in the foreground, while the background is populated by shadowy notions about jihad, slavery, subordination of women and irrational violence combined with extreme licentiousness”. One would not deny this statement as what we have heard so far are all those terms in news.

I very much have to agree with Edward Said as we cannot simply judge Islam just because of how the media portrays them to be. When you watched Persepolis, what did you think about the Shah and his regime during the Iranian Revolution? Shah had his ‘most hated and feared institution’, domestic security and intelligence service of Iran (SAVAK) with him. The SAVAK is best known for its torture and execution of regime opponents. Now, I would have to admit that what the SAVAK did was just downright inhumane and definitely unacceptable, but what if I told you that the SAVAK interrogators were sent abroad to be trained? Ironic part was, it was reported that CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) actually trained the SAVAK agents. If America is responsible for training them, why isn’t anyone putting the blame on America for producing Muslims whom now they call ‘terrorist’? Training them on how to interrogate their prisoners, and then letting the media view these interrogators as people who have no heart? Call America a hypocrite.


In 1980, Said criticized what he regarded as poor understanding of the Arab culture in the West:

“So far as the United States seems to be concerned, it is only a slight overstatement to say that Moslems and Arabs are essentially seen as either oil suppliers or potential terrorists. Very little of the detail, the human density, the passion of Arab-Moslem life has entered the awareness of even those people whose profession it is to report the Arab world. What we have instead is a series of crude, essentialized caricatures of the Islamic world presented in such a way as to make that world vulnerable to military aggression.”

Is the American government taking Islam, or to be more precise, the Middle East countries for granted – as just mere oil suppliers? And when it came to politics, as Mahmood Mamdani described, Muslims in the Middle East were corrupted with the very same politics that corrupted the American government and its ideals. Author of the book Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, Mamdani actually made a distinction within Muslims, and categorized them into two – good Muslims, and bad Muslims. The good ones were described as secular and westernized; and the bad as premodern and fanatical. Does Mamdani have to actually distinguish Muslims into two categories? What if he’s wrong?

According to Fereydoun Hoveyda, National Committee on American Foreign Policy, in his book titled ‘The Shah and the Ayatollah’¸ he said, “Each of them represented (at least partially) one of the basic and contradictory trends that had agitated the nation since the early years of the twentieth century: secularist modernization on the one hand, and religious orthodoxy and traditionalism on the other. [the Shah and Khomeini, respectively]. So if this is the case, the Shah would be the ‘good Muslim’ and Khomeini, the ‘bad’ one – when the Shah had more brutality during his leadership. Ridiculous, isn’t it?

Terrorists are not bad, not to that extent. Most of you may oppose me, but I personally think that they did what they thought was right, nothing bad. Just as how Mamdani puts it, they are highly motivated, religious Muslims who believe they have the key to creating a just, equitable, and divinely sanctioned society. It was just somehow their actions were unacceptable. That was all. But Mamdani need not go to the extent of actually regard this particular group bad, and the other good. It is time we listened to their side of story, and not all about the West.

Liew Kung Yu & Milner's

The essay below is an assignment given by my lecturer. Note that this is my personal opinion. thus, to all readers, please do not take offense to what I expressed in this essay. This is merely what I think and how I relate to what I saw in Kung Yu's art, and read Milner's - nothing more, nothing less.

Malaysia, a third-world country, has been developing well ever since its independence in 1957. No doubt it went through a lot of hardships before, during, and after British decided that Malaysia was good enough to stand on its own. It is undeniable that the colonization of British and Japanese Occupation did unite the plural society that Malaysia proudly possesses. However, Anthony Milner, author of Historians Writing Nations: Malaysian Contests, puts it, “Malaysia has no obvious single Great Tradition”, to actually unite its nation like the Philippines or Indonesia. Being set to achieve its Vision 2020, as well as being a country with first-class mentality, seems a bit too far-fetched as the main core problem - country’s unity has not been stabilized yet. People are still prejudiced when it comes to races – it would be a lie if someone said he/she is not biased or being prejudiced to anyone. We are human beings, it is just natural. People are still afraid to speak up things which are deemed ‘dangerous or not supposed to’ when it can actually help in making life better to live in. One word that is seemed sensitive will cause an uproar. Even leaders and politicians still argue in Parliament while debating when it is supposed to be a diplomatic meeting.

Milner also said that Malaysia has no anti-colonial revolution by any local heroes that can be a “common point of reference”. In a nutshell, Milner analyzes that Malaysia has no common ground or this so-called Great Tradition that can actually bind or unite its colourful and diverse society together. On the surface, Malaysians may seem united and happy living together, but the ugly truth is that they are still not really what they seem they are.

Anthony Milner’s analysis could be very much agreed by Liew Kung Yu, a wonderful Malaysian artist. Kung Yu’s latest, Cadangan-cadangan unutk Negara Ku (Proposals for My Nation) consists of four very huge three-dimensional photo collages that reconstitute and recast images taken of city spaces to create and construct colourful and aesthetic landscapes that portray the characters of Malaysia. Judging by the title of these works, Kung Yu probably wanted to let everyone know that Malaysia should be what it is to be, through these works. I personally think that Kung Yu felt Malaysians were blinded by the fact that Malaysia is slowly becoming a first-world country with so many prized structures like KL Twin Towers (which is now the 3rd highest in the world), the KL monorail, Putrajaya, Kuala Lumpur International Airport, so much so that we do not see the deeper problems the country is still facing. He wanted us to actually take a step back and look at the current situation, and give it a good thought, by looking at his works.

His first work, ‘Konkrit Jungle’ literally defines that Malaysia is slowly transforming itself to be a concrete jungle. Cities after cities in every state are developing to be on par with Kuala Lumpur, and sometimes these buildings and monuments do not even play a vital role in uniting the citizens of this country. Looking at this frame, buildings are replaced by animals. People are shown walking like they are walking on streets or in parks. At the top of the frame, there are a few orang utans where they are placed which somewhat represents our Tugu Negara (National Monument) – a national sculpture to commemorate those who died in struggle for Malaysia’s freedom from the Japanese Occupation and Malayan Emergency. It could also mean that these orang utans are a representation of our leaders/politicians, and how they have been restricting us from our freedom of speech and expression, yet, they are the ones who are creating all the commotion and causing disunity among the citizens of Malaysia. What Kung Yu is trying to propose here is to have a concrete jungle which shows development, but at the same time urged all of us to remember our natural jungle and its inhabitants. They play an important role in this country too.


‘Metropolis Warisan’ depicts the ‘city’ filled with famous landmarks, buildings and structures that can be found throughout Malaysia. These structures are all in batik-like prints; in which Kung Yu wants to portray that even though Malaysia is developing itself, it should not lose its heritage-touch and roots. It is actually the heritage touch and our roots that bind us, citizens, together.

In ‘Pantai Gelora Cahaya’, public decorations and sculptures that are meant to enhance the beauty of the country are put in this work of art. If looked upon clearly, this piece of work actually portrays images of public decorations that are taken from all over the country. Liew Kung Yu, in doing this art, wanted to portray viewers that these decorations which are being put up in different places are of no use, but should instead be put in a place altogether so that our plural society can come together and admire these decorated structures. At the same time, this particular place should be a place where everyone could go to relax, enjoy and share the beauty of this place with one another – which could promote unity.

In his last piece of all the four, this, I find it very unique – complicated, yet straight forward. This one is called ‘Bandar Sri Tiang Kolam’ where there are clusters of houses, buildings and pillars. These clusters are all carried or served by gold-platted trays – which mean to show that we should have a good and solid foundation before pursuing something further. In addition, there is one tray that carries the village houses – Kampung Kolam. Another tray carries the middle-class houses – Taman Sri Kolam. The third tray carries the rich houses, named Kolam Height. These trays literally speak out for themselves – that even though the rich, average, and poor are somewhat separated because of status, the tray represents the solid foundation that all of them have, which is Malaysia. Kung Yu then adds bridges linking every tray with one another to promote a sense of unity, and to tell us that we should be helping one another, treating each other like we are one big family. The fourth tray carries buildings that built in cities; not only that, it has public monuments and sculptures that are not even in Malaysia. What Kung Yu is trying to say in this particular set of tray is that we should actually participate and appreciate in the construction of important buildings and landmarks for Malaysia. The last tray carries pillars, all having this little ribbon on them. They look like trophies that Malaysia are constantly seeking – wanting to be a well-developed country in the eyes of the international community. However, the bridge bridging these tray with others shows that Kung Yu wants to tell us viewers that the government should not just be constantly seeking awards, or trying to build skyscrapers or monuments to show how developed are we; instead, focus the effort to building a strong bond between all the races in Malaysia.

If inspected closely, all four pieces are actually gold-framed. The pictures are all inside a frame – in which it represents Malaysia. As Malaysia’s fourth Prime Minister said, “The Petronas Twin Towers stand out prominently against the skyline of Kuala Lumpur to symbolize courage, ingenuity, initiative and determination, energy, confidence, optimism, advancement and zest of a nation that will bring worldwide recognition and respect to all Malaysia”. If the twin towers were completed in 1998, 11 years later and the world still see us as having third-class mentality, how are we to justify Dr. M’s statement then?

The Big Durian

Puzzled, I kept on questioning myself why would Amir Muhammad name his documentary 'Big Durian'... of all names he had to name that. Would it be possible that since durian is the king of fruits in Malaysia, he uses this fruit to represent Malaysia? At the same time the durian's sharp stuff that pokes very well might represent the darkness and tribulations Malaysia had,is, and will go through... Anyway, below are my answers for Sharaad's Qs. =)


1. What scene in 'The Big Durian' made a n impression on you, and why?

The introduction in this documentary was the scene that made an impression on me. In the introduction, the narrator could not, or had did it on purpose, identify which is the 1st and 2nd tower of KLCC, as well as the two rivers that met somewhere in the heart of KL. That was the only scene that made me laugh, as it was just hilarious. If the director had did it on purpose, it was a very creative idea because that scene had certainly enlightened its viewers.

2. What was rumoured to be Private Adam's grouse (pain)/ reason which lead to him running amuck?

It was said that Private Adam's brother was killed by the Sultan of Johore when the Sultan was playing golf. Apparently the Sultan had lost the game, and the caddy (Adam's brother) laughed. Upon hearing the laugh, the Sultan got mad and hit the caddy with the golf stick. As a result of wanting to see justice, Private Adam decided to run amok. Another rumour was that he went to Chow Kit and started shooting becuase he felt that Chow Kit was 'infested' with prostitutes.

3. A character from Sabah ends her narrative by noting the look on Private Adam's face. What was it that she saw and how does it contrast with her feelings?

The look on Private Adam's face that she saw was a 'satisfied and freedom' look. It contrasted with her feelings because she wanted to be happy in KL, or she thought she would be. She felt envious of Private Adam for he had what she could not achieve - the feeling of being satisfied and happy.

4. From what historical vantage point is the director viewing the events of 1987? What is the 'present' of the documentary and what is its mood?

I think the director, having to view the events in 198, was trying to also see, besides the political tension and how double statndards were practiced by the government, the views of the citizens of what they thought about the events. He wanted to portray how Malaysians, were, and still are not ready to accept anything that is out of the norm, or to accept the differences of one another. For example, May 13 is still feared even till 1987, for the people at Chow Kit hid when the shooting began, or how Sandra Sodhy's character that ran away trying to avoid answering this topic.