Kathy Rowland takes a look at language and the arts
A year after Independence from the British, the newly re-elected Chairman of the Malayan Arts Theatre Group, David Lyttle, announced a change to the MATG Constitution allowing it to stage plays in languages other than English. Claiming the authority of his Malay friends, Lyttle said that “the Malays are getting rather tired of Hang Tuah … ” and therefore, a production on Alexandra the Great, in Malay, would be a good way to begin the MATG’s foray into the uncharted territory of Malay-language theatre.
There is no record of such a production, thankfully, if previous attempts to do “Malayan” theatre by colonialcontrolled groups were anything to go by. The early days of modern theatre in Singapore and the Federated Malay States was very much of the Cousin Kate-school. Malaya was considered a cultural desert, and groups such as the Perak Players and the Theatre Club of KL were commended for flowering this arid land with productions like Charley’s Aunty and The Gondoliers. Clearly, what rated as fun entertainment in the home country, passed off as high culture relative to the absence of any such in the colonies, the existence of rich local art forms notwithstanding.
It would be a full 10 years after Merdeka before local theatre would gain its independence. In 1967, Syed Alwi, K. Das and others led a historic coup against the MATG establishment and for the first time, Malaysian theatre in English fell into the hands of the locals. The Malayan Arts Theatre Group became the Malaysian Arts Theatre Group, with a commitment towards developing a Malaysian Theatre. In February 1968, Lela Mayang was offered as “the first Malaysian play by Malaysians for Malaysians”. Based on a Malay play, the script was translated into English by Adibah Amin and revised by K. Das. A radiant Faridah Merican played Mayang to Rahim Razali’s Lela, while the production design was created by a young artist named Syed Ahmad Jamal. Explaining the significant choice of performance language, Syed Alwi, the Director, says, “we were trying to make a gradual change, and did not dare break out immediately”.
The Riots of 1969 were the catalyst for more drastic changes in theatre practice. The immediate response was most visibly played out in the arena of language, which was inevitable considering the centrality of the language issue leading up to the Riots. Article 152 of the Federal Constitution clearly says that Bahasa Malaysia would be the National Language, while also allowing for the use of English for up to 10 years after Independence. By 1967 however Malay had made limited inroads into education, public administration and business. Amendments to the Constitution in the wake of the Riots of 1969 strengthened the position of Malay and initiated a systematic change from English to Malay in education and the public service, to name two areas.
This period was marked by a concerted effort to use the national language in previously English language theatre practice. The President of the MATG, Syed Alwi switched from writing plays in English to Malay. Through the joint efforts of Syed Alwi, and producer Krishen Jit, English language actors crossed into Malay language plays such as Syed Alwi’s, Alang Rentak Seribu (1974) and Tok Perak (1975). Rakan, Teman dan Para Bangsawan (Syed Alwi, 1980), was a Malay play produced by MATG, to present “a deliberately heightened view of the political consciousness of this country” as noted by K. Das in the program notes.
In 1971, the MATG, which was generally viewed as an English-language theatre company, organized a three-day festival, Genta Rasa, in the Lake Gardens. Bringing together fashion shows and poetry recitals, dance and theatre, this first ever cross-language production was attended by thousands.
Despite this promising cross-language start, the following three decades have seen the continued politicisation of language inherited from a colonial system designed to keep us all in our place. Today, the choice of performing in one language or the other is often viewed as a highly political one.
Recent theatre history though shows a slow but encouraging move towards multilingualism in performance. But language continues to define theatre practice. Productions are still categorically defined as English, Malay, Chinese or Indian language theatre, even if means forcing a fit. How do you define Five Arts’ Family (1998) where different languages, dialects and inflections made for a paradoxically cohesive portrayal of a patriarch’s birthday party? And does Nam Ron’s Gedebe (2001), in full loghat Kelantan glory, qualify as a national language production? Why would Actors Studio’s Bahasa Malaysia production of Datuk Usman Awang’s Uda dan Dara (2002) still suffer the stigma of being an “English-language” production?
Unfortunately, we tend to see language in such unequivocal terms. The recent proposal to revert to English language, and the reaction from those who place themselves on either side of the language divide is a case in point. 30 years after the systematic implementation of Bahasa Malaysia as the medium of instructions in schools, we are once again ready to fall for the ploys of canny politicians dangling carrots before our eyes. What is the real issue here? That the implementation of one language marked a decline of in the another, “implementation” being the key word. In proposing to redress this, most seem locked into an either/or mentality. Let’s not lose the advances made in developing Bahasa Malaysia as the main medium of education. At the same time, we need to seriously address the appalling levels of the 2nd language across the board, rather than for certain subjects.
Creating policy based on a set of assigned values to each language is deeply problematic. Under this equation, English is the language of scientific knowledge and the elite, Malay is the language of culture and nationalism, and Mandarin is the language of communal-minded Chinese, and Tamil? The language of the backward?
Scratch beneath the surface and you’ll find that our perception of language is based on narrow stereotypes of ethnicity, which in turn are constructed by the political framework of the country.
Isn’t it time the politics of our language, reflect the polyglot nature of our reality rather than simply mirror the divided nature of our politics?
First Published: 04.07.2002 on Kakiseni