When the author declared that he is to paint an alternate history of Malaysia, which he dubbed as, well, Alternative History against the establishment-churned narrative he called as the Official History, I thought I would be surprised with a complete revisionist history based on what the author visioned. So, I read the book. After a few hours, I finished the book and enjoyed it. Hey, wait a minute! They are almost the same, the one he declared as the superior Alternative History and Official History as found in our secondary high school history textbook!
Cover the cover and the author's name, and strip away the ambitious foreword and give it to an anti-establishment person, I bet he/she would dismiss this as a propaganda from the government. :D
Aside from that peculiarity, I enjoyed this book as a revision for my high school History subject. The chapter on prehistorical Malaysia was very enjoyable; I welcomed the author consideration regarding the Austronesian origin of the Malays, which has been shown by linguistics and mitochondrial studies. The rest of the book, followed almost to the dot with the "establishment" history provided to us, with the addition of some politician's insider gossip talk.
So people who wished for a radical revisionist narrative of history, be prepared to be disappointed. People who has some fear on the possibility of being brainwashed after reading this book, do not fear. Or if you still feeling apprehensive, you can just read our history textbook.
Now it got me thinking: if at the end, the author was providing the same narration with the brand of history he detested so much, why he went on to proclaiming an ambitious foreword? He rightly mentioned that all parties involved in the Independence should not be excluded and fairly mentioned, but this does not justify him saying that current history is inadequate. Official History, as he dubbed it, contains the narration of victorious elites and insular in nature, rather than holistic. Again he is right that current history is insular and isolated from then contemporary events but that does not earned him the right of saying there’s a conspiracy among the elites. The absence of something does not inherently means a positive presence of another thing; that is one of the most basic logical aphorism available.
Besides, who did he meant when he said the elites? In the book he said, that Official History is the anecdotes of the victorious elites. Our history certainly should be improved by including heroes of the people including I guess, his heroes such as Ahmad Boestamam and even Abdullah C.D. But from his broad definition of elites, these figures of the people, according to him would immediately turned into one of the elites in the pedestal; now they have been mentioned, they have joined the victorious elites. I have shown here on how there’s many alternative (pun intended) interpretation of things.
Thanks to freedom of speech, we can say anything that we want, as long as it within the consistency and laws of logic. But to resort to an implicit socialist narration of discrimination and power struggles based from an assumption is a bit stretching even for the free-for-all concept of freedom of speech. But let me return the moniker oft thrown, this is Malaysia Boleh, so even this kind of reasoning could be taken as valid. Anything goes this days, as alternative and anti-establishments are in vogue right now. But just as the wearing of wigs which was taken as a fashion of the liberated now looked so ludicrous, we must always remember to be humble and moderate in our thoughts. Yes, history should be improved based on the full story, but never your or my own biased interpretation of history. Yes, the people should be included more, but that’s not the basis to allow schizophrenic paranoia of an elite conspiracy abound as the reason.
Perhaps some of you reading this were wondering, who is this guy who talk so much against an esteemed person? First of all, I am an individual with the full rights for the freedom of speech you balking over. (How does it feel when your ace-in-the-sleeve is turned against you?). Secondly , he might be an esteemed person or a scumbag for all I care, I am dealing with his arguments and narrations. People who are committed to eat grass for all their lives does not mean they are nobler than other people, despite whatever they believe themselves be.