Kesilapan unsur sejarah dalam filem 13 Mei

July 29, 2012 at 3:16 am 95 comments

Anachronism (anakronisme) bermakna yang tidak sesuai dengan zamannya atau salah masa.

Misal kata, kalau seorang askar itu dalam sebuah filem Perang Dunia Kedua digambarkan memakai jam tangan digital Casio, ianya adalah suatu anakronisme.

Filem Titanic yang dibintangi Leonardo diCaprio dan Kate Winslet menceritakan nasib penumpang kapal yang karam pada tahun 1912. Satu adegan filem itu menunjukkan bilik radio kapal di mana pada dinding kelihatan tergantung peta dunia yang memaparkan negara-negara dengan sempadan dan nama mereka mengikut tahun 1997, iaitu tahun filem tersebut diterbitkan.

Arahan “ready, aim, fire” dipopularkan selepas senapang dicipta. Arahan “fire” tidak bertepatan dalam zaman busur dan panah. Filem Gladiator yang dibintangi pemenang piala Oscar, Russell Crowe, memaparkan kesilapan dialog dalam arahan “tembak” ini.

Dalam filem Tanda Putera, pegawai polis tentera (duduk di sebelah kanan) nampak macam memakai tag nama pada pakaian seragamnya. Saya tidak pasti sama ada anggota polis tentera dalam tahun 1969 dikehendaki memakai tag nama.

Setahu saya, yang memperkenalkan ‘punch card’ serta mewajibkan penjawat awam memakai tag nama ialah Dr Mahathir Mohamad ketika beliau menjadi perdana menteri.

Set telefon berwarna merah atas meja

Yang pasti silap dalam filem Tanda Putera ialah pemaparan tulisan Cinanya.

Sebagai contoh bandingan, sebelum sistem baku digunakan untuk bahasa Melayu, abjad BM menggunakan huruf ‘e’ pepet dan ‘e’ taling serta ada perbezaan-perbezaan ejaan yang lain.

Begitu juga keadaannya dengan pemodenan tulisan Cina. Pada sekitar tahun 1969, orang Cina di Malaysia menggunakan huruf Cina tradisi manakala huruf Cina ringkas hanya digunakan semenjak tahun 1981.

Lihat pada adegan rusuhan (bawah) dalam filem Tanda Putera.

Hanzi di sepanduk berbunyi “马来人滚 回乡下” (Orang Melayu balik kampung). Ianya jenis huruf ringkas yang kami gunakan pada masa kini.

Pada tahun 1969, pasti mereka akan memakai tulisan Cina tradisi — “馬來人滾回鄉下”. Maka sepanduk dalam filem Mei 13 tersebut adalah merupakan satu anakronisme.

Ia tak betul zaman, lebih kurang bagaimana dialog seorang watak yang berbunyi “Yo, dude” adalah salah masa dalam sebuah cerita Shakespeare.

马来人死 (Mampus orang Melayu) yang tertera pada sepanduk merah (bawah) ialah tulisan ringkas ‘moden’.

Adegan anakronisme dalam filem Tanda Putera

Berkaitan:

May 13 and Pakatan’s perpetual hysteria

Filem 13 Mei pasti provokasi ala ‘Interlok’

Facebook fury over May 13 film

About these ads

Entry filed under: CINA. Tags: .

Facebook fury over May 13 film ABU bercadang hendak ke jalanan

95 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Joe  |  July 29, 2012 at 4:15 am

    So now we know how to write “orang melayu balik kampung” and “mampus orang melayu” in both traditional and modern script. Thank you for sharing.

    Not quite sure if there is anything good to be gained from the lesson though.

    Reply
  • 2. Malaya  |  July 29, 2012 at 5:49 am

    Itu tidak penting.. yang penting adalah provokasi-provokasi oleh orang Cina terhadap orang Melayu sehingga mencetuskan 13 May 1969 incident. Baca laporan MAGERAN and please digest the report.

    Reply
    • 3. Norlin binti Arshad  |  July 29, 2012 at 10:09 am

      Betullll, tu Malaya!
      Mesej mesej provokasi tu yang penting dan tidak boleh disalahkan kalau Melayu melenting!

      Reply
  • 4. http://platoinparody.blogspot.com/  |  July 29, 2012 at 6:15 am

    In Titanic too they showed a scene where diCaprio and friend were on deck the ship watching white-breasted dolphins swimming in the waters below. This could not be geographically correct: white-breasted dolphins could only be found in the Pacific, and Titanic’s maiden voyage was in the Atlantics.

    And I still Remember Professor McBillicilliphool standing in front of the silver screen in Star War’s premiere showing, flailing his hands wildly and exclaiming “Stop the Movie! Stop the Movie! This is Wrong! Explosions don’t go “Boom” in outer space!”

    But even though nowhere near the stature of the Tamil Vijayasikanth films where he would shoot towards an outgoing bullet to split it in half and thereby enabling three deadly projectiles instead of just two (cos there were three penjahat, see), or hold his head in the path of a stray bullet so that it could enter his head and carve out the brain tumor he had been having and thereafter lived to tell the tale, I do not think these “bloopers” by Suhaimi Baba is anything to be proud of (or unproud of, whichever the case may be). For one, the goofs themselves pale in comparison with the messages and ideas about to be brought forth.

    Even the most scientifically accurate film of all time, Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” would, in a trained eye, have a minor blemish here and there.

    Or it could be this way: the errors in the Chinese writing in the film could be deliberate, planted by the “consultants” or non-malay actors themselves as a sign of inner protest or hidden sabotage to ridicule what was thought to be an attempt to correct the fallacy-laden views of Kia Soong and depart from the view of events AS WANTED to be portrayed by the DAP.

    But seriously, Helen. Songkok?

    Reply
    • 5. Helen Ang  |  July 29, 2012 at 10:20 am

      Re: Explosions being soundless in outer space, the filmmakers apparently learned their lesson from the Star Wars goof-spotting Prof.

      In the sci-fi TV series Firefly (retitled Serenity when it made it to the silver screen) as well as in Battlestar Galactica (the retooled, gritty version made for cable TV in the noughties), spaceships no longer go ‘Boom!’ when they explode.

      About songkok, seriously, I’ve asked a straightforward question. Would a Malay guy really keep his songkok on if he were sitting at a meeting?

      Why doesn’t a Malay guy (or gal) wanna gimme a simple answer?

      It’s a question in the same vein of scrupulous accuracy in portrayal, as with the rest of the discussion on movie goofs on this page.

      Reply
      • 6. Goondoo  |  July 29, 2012 at 10:58 am

        Helen,

        Orang Melayu zaman dulu pakai songkok kalau nak pergi masjid, pergi mesyuarat UMNO, pergi mengajar, pergi pasar, pergi kenduri kendara, pergi berdemo dan juga nak masuk tandas (sunat tutup kepala ketika masuk tandas).

        Songkok tak dipakai bila menoreh, pergi bendang dan pergi kabaret. Pak aji pula pakai kopiah dan bila proses islamisasi berlaku, pakai kopiah dan serban dah jadi pakaian biasa. Songkok pula akan hanya digunakan untuk sembahyang, kematian dan sambutan hari raya.

        LKY waktu dulu tak segan pulak pakai songkok kerana nakkan undi Melayu. Malangnya bila dah menang, orang Melayu dipinggirkan.

        Ahli DAP pun sama juga, dulu berkeras tak nak pakai songkok kerana merasa budaya Melayu adalah inferior, sekarang ni berlumba lumba untuk menunjuk nunjuk budaya Melayu kerana nakkan undi Melayu. Hipokrit… takpalah Nik Aziz pun dah kata, nur Islam dah mula ada dalam hati mereka.

        Nak juga tengok berapa kerat yang dah bersunat (masuk Islam) dari pemimpin DAP yang telah bersongkok dah mudah pula menabur sebutir dua ayat-ayat Al quran.
        __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

        TQ. — Helen

        Reply
      • 7. Norlin binti Arshad  |  July 29, 2012 at 2:54 pm

        Saya tidak adalah pengalaman menghadiri mesyuarat peringkat tinggi tinggi!.

        Kebiasaan kalau orang Melayu yang hadir dengan memakai songkok, songkok akan terus dipakai dalam mesyuarat!

        Tapi kalau mereka hadir mesyuarat tanpa songkok dekat mana pula hendak dicari songkok ketika itu?
        _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

        :) – Helen

        Reply
    • 8. Dave  |  July 29, 2012 at 1:11 pm

      quote: “Or it could be this way: the errors in the Chinese writing in the film could be deliberate, planted by the “consultants” or non-malay actors themselves as a sign of inner protest or hidden sabotage to ridicule what was thought to be an attempt to correct the fallacy-laden views of Kia Soong and depart from the view of events AS WANTED to be portrayed by the DAP.”

      pity the non malay actors or those who took part in this film. besides being blasted for working on the movie, they may now be scapegoated by the other side for the production crew’s mistakes n oversights.

      Reply
  • 9. SEPULUH  |  July 29, 2012 at 7:52 am

    .

    Reply
  • 10. KamarulBaharin Dato Ab Rahman  |  July 29, 2012 at 8:58 am

    ini kekurangan pendalaman atau terlepas pandang oleh penulis script serta pengarah . Yang penting gambaran sebenar serta mesej yang jelas.

    Reply
  • 11. zack  |  July 29, 2012 at 9:16 am

    pandai juga anda menyelongkar kesilapan filem ye? hahaha

    Anda harus jadi pengkritik filem profesional..ada masa depan :DD

    Reply
  • 12. Yaziz  |  July 29, 2012 at 10:02 am

    Mungkin itu bukan tag nama tapi tag nombor polis. Saya masih ingat ayah saya selalu memmakai tag besi nombor polis dia semasa dia dalam uniform.

    Reply
    • 13. Helen Ang  |  July 29, 2012 at 10:25 am

      TQ Yaziz. Perkara ini memang anak polis yang lebih tahu :)

      Lagipun saya tidak dijemput untuk menghadiri pra-tonton. Jadi yang ada cuma gambar (itupun sekadar pandangan sisi) sahaja.

      Tapi cuba teliti gambar sekali lagi. Tag itu nampak hitam dan plastik manakala yang besi itu akan berwarna perak, bukan?

      Reply
  • 14. nagaman  |  July 29, 2012 at 11:55 am

    Aisey definitely Helen and many others here are not movie fans. If u go to the cinema, almost all movies with history backdrop are not accurate ler.
    Because its fiction not matter how you look at it, its not documentary. So they will not do exactly like what the document show. They interprete ler.

    Interpretasi dan expressi mereka sebagai pembikin filem dan bukan pendokumen sejarah. Kalau ikut sejarah betuk betul aniaya la tak jadi filem cereka. Kreatif licence mereka dalam filem cereka sama jugak macam filem hollywood buat macam bollywood buat.

    Adui, macam dah nak cari pasal yang remeh remeh lah pulak. mcam tak gherti tengok wayang. At least budak budak yang tengok wayang tu tau adab nengok wayang. Filem black hawk down, gladiator, john kennedy, filem pasal Iraq dan Vietnam, bukan props saja tak betul, cerita dan fakta sejarah pun tunggang terbalik sebab sengaja.

    Gladiator lagi hebat, roman puak yang kalah perang yang ditunjukan itu, jadi juara. Tapi sebab filem tu besar dari hollywood dan seronok, kita tak tanya pun kenapa fakta, pakaian semua lain.

    So no problem la Tanda Putera, its a good film. Why not enjoy a good film instead of by being picky just to water down the films performance and credibility. I was in the focus group and there were familiar opposition supporters too. They must be friends of the filmmakers. But all clap ,for the film. No one said anything about shouldnt show this , shouldnt show that.

    The team did say in the opening, if they had more money, they would like to do a few things to make it better. For me, no need to do anything more. Its good.

    Reply
    • 15. Helen Ang  |  July 29, 2012 at 12:57 pm

      In the case of the scene depicting LKS, we mustn’t aggravate the negative image esp. if it’s not true. He has said that he was in Sabah on May 13. Since we require passport or travel documents to enter Sabah, I’m presuming LKS can prove his claim.

      Or otherwise, since it’s such a serious charge levelled at him, the Home Ministry or SB or any other authority – if they wanted to – can prove the claim that he was in the area of KL / S’gor MB’s residence on May 13.

      On the matter of my wariness of the film, it’s true (that I’m suspicious). I’ve consistently declared “Aku Cina” and therefore my reaction is to be expected.

      It is the Firsters who need to be asked why they melenting (can’t think of a more appropriate English word at the moment), even at the Chinese actors as “race traitors” and shameful “running dogs” for agreeing to take part in the production.

      Reply
      • 16. Goondoo  |  July 29, 2012 at 1:25 pm

        Helen..

        betul ke cakap LKS tu dia tak ada kat KL masa tu.. Ape kejadah (maaf terkasar bahasa sikit) dia nak pergi Sabah masa tu.. ada perkara ke yang lebih penting kat Sabah ketika itu dari menyambut kemenangan dengan pengikut beliau di Kuala Lumpur.??

        LKS ketua pemuda DAP ketika itu.. dah berbulan sebelum pilihan raya dia meniup api perkauman dan waktu klimax dikatakan tidak ada di KL. Memang dasar penipu. Kalau orang Cina nak cari salah sapa, LKS lah yang menjadi dalangnya

        Reply
        • 17. Helen Ang  |  July 29, 2012 at 1:36 pm

          Fakta menarik, Pak.

          LKS pada waktu itu adalah “DAP organizing secretary” (jawatan yang disandang Teresa Kok hari ini).

          Rupa-rupanya PRU tahun 1969 itu tidak diadakan serentak di semenanjung dan di Sabah & S’wak, bermakna pada tanggal 13 Mei, PRU masih belum dijalankan di Sabah & S’wak (baca kenyataan LKS di sini).

          Seterusnya kenyataan akhbar LKS pada 13 Mei 1969 (sebelum beliau mengetahui tentang kejadian rusuhan):

          Quote:

          “Our victory in the West Malaysian general elections is only the first step and beginning of our political crusade for equality and justice in Malaysia, equality for the races, languages, culture and classes – a Malaysian Malaysia.”

          Selangor State Deadlock

          “The Selangor State is facing a deadlock with the Alliance and the Opposition each having 14 seats. The best way to resolve this deadlock and uncertainly is to have immediate fresh general elections for all Selangor State Government, the most important state throughout the country, and prove to the people of Selangor and Malaysia that our democratic socialist beliefs and principles can serve the people, whether the rural peasants or the urban workers, better than the feudalist-compradore policies of the Alliance.

          “I call on Dato Harun not to cling to power that he and the Selangor Alliance has lost.”

          Unquote

          Reply
          • 18. ikramah  |  December 25, 2012 at 1:33 am

            when u want to start something u dint need to be there =) did George W. Bush must go to Iraq when USA invaded that country… =) u can plan it very carefully and find a good liability so people cant blame u if anything happen…same goes to LKS….i respect others race to but the fact of this tragedy u must admit it =)….now we leave in peace and harmony..this movie jz want to remind some people, even Malays, Chinese or Indians what will happen if u try archived something using a bad ways….

            Reply
      • 19. I hate n'sync  |  July 30, 2012 at 9:03 am

        I find the fixation to pin LKS on the matter, and the rumours of his peeing triggered the events as highly hillarious and amusing.

        Many seem to forget that Harun Idris, the Menteri Besar’s place was where the killing originally started. That’s a fact which got him into a lot of trouble. I have heard (and read) of all kinds of things about our Harun, and how his fall and rise was linked to Tun Razak, Tun Hussein, and Tun Mahathir.
        ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

        This fixation to pin LKS on the matter is a good reason to explain why he has been the first oppo pollie to react and is touchy whenever May 13 is brought up. — Helen

        Reply
  • 20. mh  |  July 29, 2012 at 12:50 pm

    Helen,

    Yang disebelah kanan gambar memakai uniform hijau adalah pegawai tentera, bukan peg polis. Disebelah kiri gambar memakai uniform coklat perang itu adalah pegawai polis.

    Utk pengetahuan helen, sy adalah seorang peg tentera dan semenjak british menjajah tanah melayu lagi, tatacara pemakaian uniform tentera adalah bersama name tag disebelah kanan dan pingat disebelah kiri (petak-petak berwarna warni mengikut warna pingat yg telah dikurniakan) bagi setiap jenis uniform kecuali uniform utk bertempur (sekarang paksian celoreng) tidak perlu memakai pingat tetapi memakai nametag dan disebelah kiri adalah pengenalan unit/pasukan/kor.

    Ya berkenaan tag nombor anggota polis adalah plat besi.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    TQ. — Helen

    Dah betulkan dalam copy.

    Reply
  • 21. Dave  |  July 29, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    also, some of vehicles in the trailer are from the 1970s.

    in one trailer scene, a shop is clearly using a modern box sign which has plastic front written in modern font and backlit with florocent tube light.

    and lets not get started with the historical factual error

    Reply
    • 22. Helen Ang  |  July 29, 2012 at 1:07 pm

      Well, since you’re bringing up vehicles, I noticed the car driving ferrying Allen (Alan Yun’s character) through Kg Baru has a Perak number plate.

      Nothing factually wrong with a Perak car driving through the Malay heartland ground zero except that a little more attention to detail would have made the car plate a ‘B’ alphabet.

      Pardon me … I used to be a copyeditor. Eyes conditioned to cross the ‘t’s and dot the ‘i’s. My seniors from the old school journalism training were even more eagle-eyed.

      Reply
      • 23. Dave  |  July 29, 2012 at 1:55 pm

        i dont think thats a historical error. cars can be sold or brought across state borders. my friend’s neighbor in kl had a morris with perlis r plate.

        even many of the well known period films have obvious errors n anachronisms, or characters or plots that were historically inaccurate. however, most of them were works of fiction or based on history, not passed as fact.

        for example, quentin tarantinos inglorious basterds obviously was fiction. michael bay made pearl harbour as a historical fact movie, but was trashed by critics for inaccuracies, even by veterans of the battle.

        as for tanda putera, the makers are pitching it as a factual historical movie, despite putting the disputed ‘flagpole’ incident among other things…
        _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

        Movie as mascot for political agenda. — Helen

        Reply
        • 24. Helen Ang  |  July 29, 2012 at 2:35 pm

          I didn’t say the Perak plate was “wrong”. I just said it was one of those small details where a ‘B’ plate would have been more seamless. Like if you did a Third Reich period movie, a Volkswagen would be a more accurate car than a Morris to have been used by the ordinary German ‘volk’.

          Here – the only 4.5 minutes of Pearl Harbor worth watching: laden with expensive special effects, aerial dogfights and lots of spectacular explosions.

          Music video (click YouTube) — the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese.

          Reply
  • 25. moimoi  |  July 29, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    We love Chinese but we hate Kit Siang!

    Reply
  • 26. shamshul anuar  |  July 29, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    moimoi,

    Then do not let Kit siang “hijacks” the interest of Chinese community. Because for Kit Siang, Chinese interest means waging war againsts Malays.

    Reply
  • 27. NadZree  |  July 29, 2012 at 5:15 pm

    Helen

    Apa sebenarnya yang saudari persoalkan, unsur sejarah didalam filem seperti yang saudari sebutkan atau sejarah??

    Reply
    • 28. Helen Ang  |  July 29, 2012 at 5:51 pm

      Nampaknya sejarah 13 Mei berlainan bekas dan acuan bagi orang Cina dan orang Melayu masing-masing.

      Saya petik komen Shamshul:

      “When I [Shamshul] was studying in Kelana Jaya way back 25 years ago, a Chinese shopkeeper was telling my American professor on Tun Razak ‘orchestrated’ May 13.”

      Kalau 25 tahun lepas, bermakna tahun 1987 dan waktu itu buku Dr Kua Kia Soong (2007) pun belum dicetak lagi. Nampaknya pada tahun 1987, orang kebanyakan Cina mempercayai bahawa Tun Razak lah yang mengatur rancangan. JUsteru teori ini bukan apa-apa rekaan baru oleh Dr Kua

      Sejarah mengikut orang Cina ialah peristiwa 13 Mei berupa komplot.

      Shamshul juga membayangkan bahawa – “this Kit Siang that the Malays for decades associated with carnage of May 13″ – orang Melayu menganggap LKS ada kaitan dengan letusan 13 Mei (sejarah mengikut cerita orang Melayu).

      Nescaya kedua-dua pihak mempunyai prasangka yang begitu menebal, orang Melayu yang menonton Tanda Putera akan mengiyakan kesahihan filem tersebut manakala orang Cina dijangka akan menidakkannya.

      Namun perangai Cina dan Melayu ibarat tanduk dua serupa. Dulu pun ada kaum Melayu yang memboikot Afdlin Shauki & Adibah Noor kerana pembabitan mereka dalam filem Namewee itu. Sekarang kaum Cina yang marahkan Alan Yun dan Douglas Lim atas penglibatan mereka dalam filem Shuhaimi Baba ini.

      Reply
      • 29. nagaman  |  July 29, 2012 at 6:34 pm

        Helen,

        Dalam filem tak sebut nama Lim Kit Siang pun. Bermakna filemmakers ni tak minat jaja nama Lim Kit Siang. Insiden kencing ada. Insiden kencing bendera ni dari laporan British tapi tak di highlight dalam buku Dr Kua. Insiden ni pun tak ada dalam laporan NOC. Bermakna pengarah ni betul lah bila dia kata dia baca semua dokumen.

        Saya tengok filem ni bertanggung jawab sebab mereka jaga sensitiviti walaupun penonton terpaksa berhadapan dengan kebenaran pahit yang perlu ditelan. Pengarah dah berjaya tunjukan trauma negara ketika itu walaupun dalam 20 saat supaya meresap dalam hati kita apa Tun Razak dan Tun Ismail lakukan untuk negara.

        Saya nampak simpati filem ini untuk Cina MCA yang telah jadi mangsa caturan poltik DAP, Gerakan dan komunis. Tapi dia tidak buat sebagai politikal staement tapi sebagai interpretasi. Itu yang tarik saya pada filem ini. Interpretasi dia beralas dan anak anak muda semua bangsa yang jadi mangsa kebencian perlu di lindungi masa depan mereka supaya harmoni.

        Kalau nak kaji sejarah kena buat dokumentari. Mereka berkarya dan berjaya menembusi tembuk tembuk yang orang politik pun tak boleh buat. Saya tabik sebab mereka berani panggil berbagai fahaman untuk tonton tayangan khas filem mereka.

        Tapi agak kecewa anda putar filem ini sebagai filem poltik anti cina atau anti DAP dengan sangaja cari perkara remeh.

        Anda galakan ajenda nak sabotaj filem ‘Tanda Putera’ ni dengan hanya mengulas trailernya sebagai filem. Saya tengok trailer filem tempatan lain termasuk yg amat popular, jumlah ‘like’ dan ‘dislike’ sekitar 200-800 dalam masa 2-3 bulan. Tapi filem ‘Tanda Putera’ ada ganjil bila ‘dislike’ melonjak 4000 dalam masa singkat. Dan ini di guna untuk tuduh filem ini hentam orang Cina tanpa tonton filem ini.

        Anda juga galakan ‘limiting creative expression’. Jadi kata kata freedom of expression itu hanya double standard la pada anda.

        Reply
        • 30. Helen Ang  |  July 29, 2012 at 7:56 pm

          Dilaporkan bahawa Tanda Putera dibiayai sepenuhnya oleh Finas. Maka dengan itu, ia harus dianggap sebagai sebuah filem kerajaan.

          Memandangkan ia meriwayatkan kisah hidup Tun Razak – yang merupakan ayahanda kepada PM yang merestui pembikinan biopic tersebut – maka kita juga harus menjangka bahawa filem ini, mahu tak mahu, akan mesra kerajaan.

          Oleh kerana saya tidak dijemput menonton Tanda Putera, maka tidak dapat saya mengulas tentang isi kandungannya.

          Jadi terpaksalah saya memetik kupasan “New May 13 movie courts controversy‘ di Malaysiakini (Julai 20).

          Portal itu berkata filem tersebut merupakan “a skewed re-telling of what happened during the 1969 race riots”. Tambah Malaysiakini lagi, gambaran watak Tun Razak berciri “hero-worship”.

          Malaysiakini mengulas:

          (Quote:)

          “Some netizens has also attacked the movie’s storyline for apparently being an attempt at brown-nosing to the powers-that-be and a propaganda piece to drum up support for the ruling coalition.
          Garnering more serious brickbats are snippets from the movie’s official Facebook page which detailed scenes apparently slated to be included in the final cut of the movie.

          “One apparent scene was that of DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang purportedly urinating on a flagpole in front of the then-Selangor menteri besar’s residence.

          ‘Lim Kit Siang telah kencing di bawah tiang bendera Selangor yang terpacak di rumah menteri besar Selangor ketika itu, Harun Idris‘, read the caption of a photo of the actor portraying Lim being manhandled.

          “The photo was posted in the album titled ‘Peristiwa-peristiwa yang dimuatkan di dalam filem ini’.

          “However, the photo and caption has since been removed from the movie’s official page, though Malaysiakini had captured a screenshot of the earlier posting.”

          (Unquote)

          Mengikut laporan Malaysiakini, adegan kencing itu memang ada, serta lelaki yang kencing itu dipaparkan sebagai LKS.

          Berhubung dakwaan Nagaman bahawa saya menggalakkan usaha “limiting creative expression”, huraian-huraian yang saya baca di Internet hasil nukilan para blogger Melayu rata-rata mencanangkan filem tersebut sebagai pengajaran sejarah.

          Sekirannya Tanda Putera itu dijulang sebagai sebuah wadah yang amat berkesan bagi menyalurkan rakaman detik-detik bersejarah, maka ketepatan butirannya dari segi unsur sejarah sebenarnya tidak memberi ruang untuk si pengarah berkarya secara kreatif.

          Yang 4,035 ‘dislikes’ di YouTube itu mencerminkan sentimen orang Cina.

          Sekirannya penerbit Tanda Putera percayai kepada ‘freedom of expression’, mereka akan membuka treler YouTube tersebut supaya umum boleh memberi maklum balas. Ini tidak — “Comments are disabled for this video”.

          Kenapa pula tidak? Kalau tak nak dituduh ‘double standard’, buka sahajalah seksyen timbal-balik supaya 59,415 orang yang menonton treler itu boleh tinggalkan komen.

          Reply
      • 31. Dave  |  July 29, 2012 at 8:25 pm

        i know malays (mostly from pro opposition/pro tunku/socialist/anti bn groups, including one univeristi lecturer) who also claimed the riots were started by the razak faction to embarass the tunku n force him to step down, to stop a change of government in selangor n other states, n to punish the chinese for not voting the alliance.

        so this sentiment or conspracy theory is not specifically limited to one race.

        Reply
        • 32. Helen Ang  |  July 29, 2012 at 8:38 pm

          The Alliance-Opposition wins were apparently 14-14 in the 28-seat S’gor assembly.

          … “to embarrass the Tunku n force him to step down” is believable. After all, Dr M led the movement to embarrass AAB and did indeed successfully force him to step down.

          If the allegation against Tun Razak is so widespread as you say, then the other competing narrative is a very strong strain.

          Tanda Putera by all the accounts we’ve heard so far tells only one side (i.e. the Umno side) of the multi-faceted story.

          Reply
      • 33. Goondoo  |  July 30, 2012 at 12:23 am

        Helen;

        Teori Tun Razak menggunakan tragedi Mei 1969 untuk menurunkan Tunku dari jawatan Perdana Menteri sama dengan teori Dr Kua. Dr Kua adalah ahli DAP dan apapun analisa yang dibawa saya ambil macam ‘a pinch of salt’. Bagi saya Dr Kua cuba untuk alihkan kesalahan daripada dituju kepada pemimpin DAP, taktik diversion.

        JebatMustDie telahpun meranapkan teori Dr Kua ni dalam artikel beliau dengan memperincikan apa yang terjadi sebelum trajedi 13 Mei ini. Tajuk buku Dr Kua amat hebat; Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969 seolah-olah Dr Kua mengambil maklumat dari sumber risikan British sedangkan sumber maklumat Dr Kua datang dari artikel FEER, artikel pemikiran seorang penulis British. Hasil penulisan FEER nilah yang rasa mempengaruhi orang Cina untuk berfikir yang sebenarnya Tun Razak adalah dalang trajedi 13 Mei.

        Saya ambil kupasan JebatMustDie;

        “Now in order to ascertain what really happened that day, we need to study it holistically. Kua Kia Soong had purposely left out vital events preceding May 13. I would have thought a research director with a doctorate would have been more diligent in espousing his hypothesis. One must always begin with the root cause, the trigger, the reaction and finally the aftermath. In a historical event of this magnitude, one must evaluate every event that took place in chronological order before we can decide on the conclusion. One must know the historical background of the mood of the people on that day. Instead, he concluded them before making the research and work on it backwards. That is why the book was written in a manner which denigrated Tun Abdul Razak as a chinese killer and a usurper of Tunku Abdul Rahman. After making this conclusion, he then proceeded in cherry picking excerpts from the so-called ‘declassified’ documents (which were nothing but mere telegrams
        and wired news) of British field reporters to justify his conclusion.”.

        Dipetik dari http://jebatmustdie.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/13-may-1969-analysis-by-jmd.pdf

        Saya percaya approach JebatMustDIe adalah approach yang betul. Beranikah DAP dan juga UMNO menerima kalau satu Royal Comission diadakan untuk menetukan apa yang terjadi sebelum, semasa dan selepas 13hb Mei. Bagi saya, rakyat Malaysia berhak mendapat cerita yang sebenarnya apa yang telah berlaku walaupun ianya mungkin pahit. Selepas Royal Comission tersebut diadakan, mungkin kita perlu bermaafan di antara satu sama lain dan membina hidup yang baru dengan meninggalkan selamanya hantu 13 Mei 1969 (the ghost of 13th Mei 1969)

        Reply
        • 34. Helen Ang  |  July 30, 2012 at 12:44 am

          Agree with you about the mood (atmosphere) of 1969 which has to be taken into account as the riots did not happen in a social vacuum. Do you sense the same worrying mood now? The provocations “Melayu balik kampung” were genuine. The climate now is also provocative, methinks.

          Reply
      • 35. I hate n'sync  |  July 30, 2012 at 9:38 am

        I find the fixation to pin LKS on the matter, and the rumours of his peeing triggered the events as highly hillarious and amusing.

        Many seem to forget that Harun Idris, the Menteri Besar’s place was where the killing originally started. That’s a fact which got him into a lot of trouble. I have heard (and read) of all kinds of things about our Harun, and how his fall and rise was linked to Tun Razak, Tun Hussein, and Tun Mahathir.

        Reply
  • 36. OverseasBumi  |  July 29, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    Helen, judging by the way you respond/challenge most comments on this page, I think you’ve already made up your mind about this film.

    Reply
    • 37. Helen Ang  |  July 29, 2012 at 9:27 pm

      Hahaha. Welcome to the discussion, OB.

      No, I haven’t made up my mind b’cos I haven’t watched it yet. And before I make any judgment, I do make it a point to read (Interlok) or watch (Nasi Lemak) first.

      But I’ve already confessed to be predisposed to be wary of the film, same as Malays would be suspicious of any Namewee production.

      With Namewee, the reason is because of his past acts and persona. With May 13, it’s the subject matter in the hands of a government (read: Umno)-funded Malay director.

      At least I’m honest enough to admit that I’m reacting as a Chinese and furthermore that I’m not colour blind to Shuhaimi Baba’s race or the fact that the cast (presumably the crew as well) is overwhelmingly Malay.

      The Firsters shout from the rooftops that they’re not Chinese and claim that Malaysians don’t have any skin colour but look at their reaction in comparison.

      Reply
  • 38. nagaman  |  July 29, 2012 at 9:38 pm

    There u go Helen , finally u have typified yourself as also harboring prejudicial sentiments.. That is why looking at the facebook comment of chinese against the trailer, not the movie , and condemning it as the movie seems to be organised. Its such a cheap hate campaign unfortunately. Rupa rupa nya you too are part of that orchestrated
    campaign. No wonder you picking at straws. Ridiculous slamming the filmmakers with four letter words and hurling rascist sentiments over a trailer of 1 min 30 . They are quite right in disabling comments because , the comments were obviously being used to attack the movie. At least it made the attackers zero in on the movie facebook . Which is easier to contain, Its a clever move by them as I guess its easier to track the face book commenters.

    Surprisingly even you an experience journalist are also quoting a website reviewing the 1 min . 30 secs trailer., Even Malaysiakini couldnt do any better and also quoted their source as the trailer but pretended they were commenting on the film. The Director was quoted as that there’s nothing to comment and prefer people to discuss after watching the movie. Its a practical comment from filmmakers. How do the whole do you comment on a movie that you have not seen

    That hysteria that you are propogating is really quite undignified as a seasoned journalist. If you dont care about dignity then at least be just.. Now you want to turn the argument around by calling it now a govenrment film. The producers in their opening were proud to say that they are the co owners of the movie, Its therefore not 100% govt funding. Now you are upping the ante by calling it just an umno side of the story ,meaning you are now taking the same DAP line that whether or not Tun Razak or Tun Ismail have given their lives for the country, they are UMNO and the movie need not pay tribute to them la.

    Helen welcome to undressing your true self, a closet chinese chauvinist,. Well there’s nothing wrong with that, really, just dont pretend to be otherwise. Say la from the beginining , its not about the movie , its about the fear that the movie will make the chinese look bad. Take it easy, the filmmakers have more integrity than you people.la.

    Reply
    • 39. Helen Ang  |  July 29, 2012 at 10:13 pm

      (1) Pre-emptive measures

      (a) You have endorsed the film producers disabling the YouTube (trailer clip) comment facility as a “quite right” decision.

      You foresee that DAPsters will be “slamming the filmmakers with four letter words and hurling racist sentiments” if they’re allowed to comment.

      (b) You also observe that in Facebook, “the comments were obviously being used to attack the movie”. And that compared to YouTube, at least Facebook “is easier to contain” as well as to track the commenters.

      To summarize your position, (a) you support blocking, and (b) you support the page administrator’s capability to “contain” or in other words, to restrict.

      So how different is it from my endorsement of the Finas decision to delay release? I said the postponement until after election will help curtail the escalation of the abuse that both sides will be throwing at each other in a vicious circle of reaction, and counter-reaction.

      I’m looking at time factor (timing) and altered circumstances, i.e. now both sides are having election fever, later (post-election), the political temperature will go down.

      Unlike yours, my proposal is much milder as it does not physically interfere (read: censorship) through the imposition of any blocking mechanism such as disabling comments.

      (will continue)

      Reply
    • 40. Helen Ang  |  July 29, 2012 at 10:31 pm

      (2) Bias from the start

      I quoted Malaysiakini as all the other write-ups were pro-establishment (Papagomo, the pro-Umno bloggers, Malay media).

      Why was Harian Metro invited to preview and The Star not? (My assumption as the paper has not carried any story).

      You may be right that Malaysiakini was not invited either but they claimed to have obtained a a copy of the movie’s script. And they reported details like the film was fully funded by Finas. You’re free to refute this detail (about funding) if you can provide the link.

      Your statement: “How do the whole do you comment on a movie that you have not seen?”

      Isn’t that the rationale for preventive measure?

      Let’s take the funeral procession of Lim Soon Seng on 9 May 1969, on the eve of polling day which was 10 May 1969. The first instinct of the police was to disallow the procession (pictured in Tanda Putera as a rally where the Chinese carried the provocative banners and placards).

      Now if the police had been firm and disallowed the 9 May 1969 rally for LSS (the TBH symbol of his time), then there wouldn’t have been the opportunity for those Chinese to publicly display the anti-Malay slogans, correct?

      That’s prevention b’cos the emotional outpouring during the funeral rally could be anticipated.

      Therefore, in the case of the Tanda Putera screening allowed to go ahead on Sept 13, I’m similarly anticipating that there will be a heightened, highly negative emotional outpouring too.

      Yet here you are accusing ME of propagating an “undignified hysteria”.

      You’ve really got your cart and your horse at the wrong ends.

      I’m actually cautioning that if the Malays insist on the screening going ahead, then the hysteria you’re speaking of will be unleashed.

      Postponing the screening is the same decision as if the police in May 1969 had said ‘No’ to the funeral procession — “Don’t do it”. Pre-emptive. Don’t allow the opportunity for the occasion where people will chant slogans (whether it’s the “Melayu balik kampung” placards in 1969 or the stuff they’re spewing in Facebook now).

      Reply
    • 41. Helen Ang  |  July 29, 2012 at 10:49 pm

      (3) Taking sides

      Let’s examine where you have lumped me.

      You’re saying that I’m “taking the same DAP line” and that I’m “a closet Chinese chauvinist” and that “the filmmakers have more integrity than you people” … meaning “us people” the Chinese who are the film’s detractors.

      We’re on one side of the fence and “you people” cheerleading the film are on the other side.

      FYI: On this May 13 business, it’s not the DAP that draws the dividing line. It’s a race dividing line that will transcend our (meaning we Chinese voters) political loyalties as well as our religions (Buddhist, Christian, Taoist, whatever).

      If you think the DAP already has 80-90% Chinese support, then the attitude that you’re displaying will push the remaining 10-20% non-DAP supporters (like me, for instance) into their camp too on this issue.

      And don’t exaggerate by overstating your accusations. Where did I even hint that we shouldn’t pay tribute to Tun Razak & Tun Dr Ismail? I have one year’s worth of postings in this blog. Feel free to search whether I’ve been unduly negative about his son Najib (who is a favourite target of “us people the Chinese chauvinists”).

      [Note: Never blogged about Tun Razak before prior to this.]

      But at least you’ve got one part half right — “it’s not about the movie” (since I haven’t watched it). It’s about the quite predictable people’s reactions, which you can see from scale on the YouTube Like-Dislike bar.

      So why encourage provocation?

      From the comments flooding the Tanda Putera Facebook and the Facebooks of the Chinese actors, you can already see that the Chinese are highly provoked. This provocation will in turn provoke the Malays to feel provoked. And so it goes on spiralling upwards.

      Do you think the temperature will go down or up if the movie is screened in mid-September?

      Reply
    • 42. OverseasBumi  |  July 29, 2012 at 11:15 pm

      Shouldn’t banning contentious websites like Malaysiakini, Mtoday,Minsider and controversial Facebook postings/ blogs etc be considered a form of ‘preventative measure’?

      Shouldn’t Bersih and other political gatherings be banned because of the possibility they may trigger violent reactions from the rest of the public?

      Where do you draw the line?

      I thought ‘your people’ want MORE freedoms, not fewer.

      Reply
      • 43. Helen Ang  |  July 29, 2012 at 11:48 pm

        Are you talking to me, OB?

        I did not advocate banning. I agreed with Finas’ decision to delay the film’s general release (until after GE). Such a simple stance also needs repeating so many times.

        Where do we draw the line?

        mKini, mToday, mInsider has not caused anyone to be killed … as yet. Bersih hasn’t caused anyone to be killed either through physical violence (altho’ there was one death due to health complications).

        The Sedition Act prohibits incitement on certain topics (areas).

        Obviously if the authorities – I count Finas a govt agency as aligned to the powers that be – want to exercise prudence on certain incendiary subjects, then May 13 qualifies due to the high death toll and the fact that it plunged the country into an Emergency.

        Fair enough criterion upon which to draw the discretionary line?

        Reply
      • 44. OverseasBumi  |  July 30, 2012 at 12:33 am

        I know that you didn’t advocate banning this movie nor did you advocate banning Interlok. You didn’t read my post correctly.

        What I meant was I questioned the extent of the ‘preventative measure’ that you seem to advocate.

        If you think that delaying a movie release, redacting certain words/passages from a book or restricting the distribution of controversial media only to certain members of the public would be acceptable forms of ‘preventing’ violent reactions, then of course this flies in the face of the absolutist concept of ‘freedom of speech’, which would not consider sedition as an offense.

        In Malaysia, we can always take the safest route, which is to ban any form of potentially controversial speech, like we did before.

        I think artists like Shuhaimi Baba should not back down. They should fully support freedom of speech. Shuhaimi should sue to have the film released on time. That way it shows she sticks to her product and would not be cowed by the minority or political forces in this country. Her voice should not be curtailed

        BTW, who is to say this movie would be the trigger that causes violence?

        Minsider/Mtoday/FMT and all the bullshit opposition media have already created the atmosphere of distrust and hatred.

        You haven’t been so innocent, and neither have any of the commenters on this site. We all contribute to further polarise the political discourse. I think no one on this site can claim to have made a substantive change in the political atmosphere for the better.

        Hel, take for example your bringing up the topic of TBH as if he is the buddhist messiah or something. Who is he? Why don’t you equally mention Ahmad Sarbani who also died at the hands of MACC. You show bias in the way you report things, so it’s no surprise that people use your reminders of the TBH , bersih, NEP and many other controversial issues to feed their racial tendencies or political inclinations.

        Even if you portray those issues in a way that favors your malay readers, you will no doubt feed the hatred among those who have already decided they hate you. Those ppl (Dave,sshn, and godfather etc) only come to your site to re-affirm that hatred and leave a few narky comments.

        Reply
        • 45. Helen Ang  |  July 30, 2012 at 1:14 am

          (1) To clarify for you, since Interlok has never been posted as an article topic in my blog, I do not recommend redacting anything from that novel. It was Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka that watered down the Student Edition (2010) whose copyright belongs to DBP and not to Abdullah Hussain.

          My position is that Indian students are a social group vulnerable to bullying, and in tandem, I don’t assess that our teachers are up to the task of handling it even-handedly (think Namewee’s ‘Suck Banana’ headmistress or the other principal in Bukit Selambau).

          Therefore, keep Interlok out of schools — before its removal, it was a text in the compulsory BM language (not optional Sastera Arts) paper.

          (2) My theory (until contrary info comes our way): Shuhaimi Baba deferred to Finas b’cos Finas is the financial backer of the movie. She wouldn’t sue lah since Finas is the one that had coughed up the bulk of the cash/capital.

          (3) This movie has already triggered verbal abuse.

          (4) I’m perfectly aware that not only is our political discourse polarized but we are too. What I seek is not the Firster “we’re national unity” but rather an environment where we (Chinese) can be left alone undisturbed in our polarized quarters and maintain our separate Chinese schools unmolested.

          My writings are consonant with my objectives.

          (5) I’ve not returned Dave and Sshsn any of their hatred, you know, or haven’t you noticed? As for Godfather, he simply exceeded my level of tolerance.

          Reply
      • 46. I hate n'sync  |  July 30, 2012 at 2:23 am

        I thought it was important, to have this space where we might disagree, but not to avoid the matter altogether.

        I could easily point out that the Doc Ismail were close friends of the Kuok brothers, and he kept in touch with them throughout the years he was in and out of service. Did the movie highlighted that?

        Are we justified to claim that the movie is flawed? Of course, all movies are, just in degrees. The same applies to our take on other issues. OB claimed that it only serves to sharpen our divide rather than to narrow them. I think that’s untrue. Knowing what bugs the other side of the divide is already serving a purpose of bridging the differences among us. Despite our disagreements, we share more similarity than differences. We are not movers and shakers of public opinion. There are others who own bigger pipes and organs. The point we are making, indulging ourselves in all these petty squabbles, is that we are able to talk through our disagreements, and that MORE dialogue, and not LESS is the solution.

        Reply
    • 47. Suman Sumbing  |  July 29, 2012 at 11:54 pm

      Nagaman,

      Your tirade and suspicions against Helen is uncalled for. Helen is neither undignified, nor a closet chinese chauvinist as you allege. In fact, Helen is as much an ordinary law-abiding Malaysian chinese as you are a malay one, which I certainly would hope so. If you have been reading Helen for quite sometime, you should know that by now. Some of the things Helen stand for defy the ordinary norm of what being a chinese staying in Malaysia is all about. She sometimes pass as being firm, staunch, even belligerent on things she is passionate about, but we must admit that she had had her fair share too of the mudslinging and calumny brought to her for putting to task those whom she thinks are very far from the true Malaysian spirit, and in this case that would always mean the DAP generals up there. Can you, dear Sir, claim half as much achievement?

      Now lets get to the matter. Its about the new film, Tanda Putera, in which a purported less-than-20-percent is devoted to the portrayals of the May 13th event. Now I, being a malay, find the film long overdue, together with all the interesting urban legends surrounding it, of which Lim Kit Siang’s alleged peeing-on-flagpole is shown (and later deleted). I think the whole event is accurate (the event, not necessarily the peeing) but Helen thinks it is not: the general chinese idea is that their people did NOT start the riot. And here’s what I think: no chinese living in Malaysia in their right mind would take it standing up when presented with the axiom that THE CHINESE started May 13th.

      But hey wait a minute. She is damn right too. Why are we lumping “all chinese” as the culprit? I dont remember my childhood friend Leong asah parang rioting in May 13th? Tun Tan Siew Sin, Tun Sambanthan and all our non-malay founding fathers: were they there too bukak-seluar-tunjuk-**** on top of the parading trucks? Why do we hear some makciks and pakciks hiding chinese youths in their houses on that fateful day, or policemen protecting some chinese youngsters from being lynched by the malay mob?

      It’s clear from this, folks, that some parties have managed to fuse the word “Chinese” and “DAP” together in one impregnable symbiotic catch-phrase aimed at making the public believe that criticising the DAP is criticising the entire chinese community.

      Folks, all DAP are chinese but not all chinese are DAP. Well okay there’s Karpal and the recent Aspan but these are really colourful hems that make the skirt less boring. May 13th was all about a rally celebrating the victory of 2 chinese-based parties in the polls. And there really was no problem with THAT, except that they got a little bit too happy, would like to show what was REALLY terbuku in their hearts, shouted an obscenity or two and before you know it a few overzealous folks unzipped flies and did some extra-urinal peeings. The rest, as they say, is history.

      Helen DID say before that she is reacting as a chinese. And does one expect otherwise? I, on the other hand, reacted as a malay. Neither me nor Helen had watched anything beyond what the trailer portrays and I do not think moving towards a more tolerant society require that one loses one’s malay-ness or chinese-ness.

      But what IS required though is the realization that May 13th was one black history due to the Suspicions and Apprehensiveness of 2 groups of people occupying the same space (read: country) at the same time. But isn’t it wonderful this virtual entity we call cyberspace provide us with the opportunities to improve on reducing these suspicions and apprehensions?

      Suman Sumbing

      Reply
      • 48. I hate n'sync  |  July 30, 2012 at 2:59 am

        Well said Suman. May the 13th was political upstaging that turned into communal tragedy. The irony is that there are a lot of people who insist on a parallel path – some delight in promising that eventuality, others relish in ignoring the possibility.

        Reply
      • 49. MalaysianinNewYork  |  July 30, 2012 at 7:06 am

        I ditto the comment of Suman Sumbing.

        Reply
  • 50. lousy.engineer  |  July 29, 2012 at 10:21 pm

    MalaysiaKini has a news on this with a screenshot, purportedly from the movie.

    From the screenshot, the people were carrying placards presumably during that tragic day. Are some of those placards bearing Mao ZeDong’s portrait? If yes, what does Mao has to do with it?

    Reply
    • 51. Helen Ang  |  July 29, 2012 at 11:34 pm

      The placard bearing the hanzi 血債血還 in the photo (still shot from Tanda Putera) that you linked is historically correct.

      However, in the ‘real’ pictures (I have 5 samples, not exhaustive but still representative of the banners) of the rally that I’m comparing with, I do not see any Mao Zedong portraits carried by the crowd.

      Could this be another instance of the creative license (same as the Botak Chin link pointed out by Vish in earlier comment) taken by the film director?

      Reply
  • 52. nagaman  |  July 29, 2012 at 11:33 pm

    Oh Helen…if you r not so defensive ,like so many on the anti tanda putera band wagon, its easier to think straight. The list of media people who turned up was interesting. We heard the PR people asking if star and chinese paper reporters had turned up. Apparently these two are quite selective. Apparently chinese press hardly turn up when invited. You cant take it out on the filmmakers. It was an interesting experience for some of us to know how filmmakers deal with these things.

    Look at the pattern of provocation by chinese hysteria attack on the the filmmakers. I would say they exercised restrain when responding. Would you rather see the 4 letter words comments and the race attacks on the trailer if they were not disabled? Complete with swear words in chinese? Its a reasonable step. Its shameful to see the hysteria and cyber squad hitting the movie facebook.

    My research on may 13 is as limited as some of you, but I can at least say that there were placards and photos of Mao tse tung by the crowd rally prior may 13 1969 .- , on record- complete with singing communist song about him. But why not,? At that time China was still home to many chinese here. The rally prior election was used to make the MCA look like traitors.. Sounds familiar .
    The British report also actually identified the DAP supporter who peed at the flag as Lim Kit Siang.

    So one can assume that the filmmakers have more information and preferred delicate balance . They could have been naughty and take a rascist stand. In their text they are r co investors they want people with differing opinions to be able to agree to disagree and respect each others’ views. .If you are scared to tell the chinese hysteria squad to be fair then, dont turn the argument around and downplay the filmmakers role as Investors and co -producers. That is so below the belt.

    At the PC they too did not object to the delay in the film screening although they were honest that they were disappointed. On a personal note, , its truly refreshing to see they are in control , professional and matured in their handling of the issues arising compared to their executioners .

    Reply
    • 53. Helen Ang  |  July 30, 2012 at 12:21 am

      Oh Nagaman, on the contrary it is you who is being defensive of the film makers.

      Listen to yourself talk, okay?

      You said:

      (1) “Look at the pattern of provocation by Chinese hysteria attack on the filmmakers.”

      (2) “Would [people] rather see the 4 letter words comments and the race attacks on the trailer if they were not disabled?”

      (3) “Complete with swear words in Chinese. Its a reasonable step [to disable the YouTube comments]. It’s shameful to see the hysteria and cyber squad hitting the movie Facebook.”

      So, if the film was allowed to screen beginning mid-Sept, do you think:

      (1) “the pattern of provocation by Chinese hysteria attack” will increase or decrease?

      (2) Would the “4 letter words comments and the race attacks” (from both sides) increase or decrease?

      (3) If you can unequivocally state that “It’s a reasonable step [to disable the YouTube comments] to prevent the “swear words in Chinese” and to restrict “the hysteria and cyber squads”,

      then isn’t the Finas postponement equally a “reasonable step” to forestall the “swear words in Chinese” (and reciprocal swear words in Kelantanese/loghat utara/Minang/other Malay dialects)?

      So if you can support Reasonable Step A (disable YoutTube comment], why do you object to Reasonable Step B (delay) both of which is for the same preventive purpose?

      *** *** ***

      About the funding of the film, I quoted Malaysiakini as a media that reported the film was “fully funded” by Finas. I’m sure accurate info is out there somewhere and I’ve already in our previous exchange invited you to share your info source to counter Malaysiakini.

      I do not have any personal stake in whether Malaysiakini is corroborated or refuted as it’s not my reputation but their accuracy in reporting. Hence I asked you to provide the url link b’cos since you’re being so defensive of the filmmakers, might as well you debunk Malaysiakini.

      Just give us the link so that we can have a look at the investment capital figures for ourselves.

      Same with the Mao Zedong portraits. If you can, pls provide us with the archive links so that we can view. I’m not disputing you but am open to your research.

      If you will share your online sources, then we can all carry the discussion forward.

      Currently the debate is lopsided b’cos you’re the privileged individual invited by the filmmakers to their special screening whereas the rest of us are merely privy to a one-and-half minute trailer.

      Reply
  • 54. abgmok  |  July 30, 2012 at 12:10 am

    Ini filem bukan dokumentarilah.

    Reply
  • 55. mh  |  July 30, 2012 at 12:11 am

    Memang perarakan pada ketika itu ada orang cina yg memegang gambar mao zedong..banner yg mencaci orang melayu dan membawa replika penyapu besar degan kata-kata kesat supaya melayu get lost, out.

    Komunis pada ketika itu memang sedang bermaharajalela di hutan dengan perjuangan mereka, menimbulkan chaos di kampung-kampung, menyerang balai polis dan membunuh manager-manager estet getah berbangsa inggeris pada ketika itu.

    Anasir subversif komunis turut meresap sebagai salah satu punca insiden 13 mei 69 yang inginkan kekacauan dalam pentadbiran negara berlaku. Kesempatan ini digunakan sepenuhnya oleh komunis dalam membakar isu perkauman sehingga menimbulkan huru hara.

    Reply
    • 56. Helen Ang  |  July 30, 2012 at 12:28 am

      Thanks mh. I know the info is out there. Pls help, if you can, by providing links so that we can focus together. Your input as an army man is appreciated :) — Helen

      Reply
  • 57. I hate n'sync  |  July 30, 2012 at 12:25 am

    I have my say based on the things I’ve seen so far on Tanda Putera and the promotional materials and efforts.

    Lets give the movie a chance.

    It most probably won’t be popular or accurate. It might not go down well among some, and not just the Chinese because I know for a fact nobody is proud about May the 13th, even the Malays. Only some very sick or demented people can celebrate race riots, murder and indiscriminate killing. We remember the day to learn the lessons, remember the effort of those who rebuild the nation from its ashes (from the police to the army to the NOC to the average joes and janes).

    I think Helen’s position is consistent, she was against Interlok too. I wasn’t. I think it boils down on how much faith we have got on the masses. Is Tanda Putera slanted – sure, definitely, why not? But I think it is a poor choice to highlight the tragedy in a movie about friendship between two great men. Nevertheless, I say why not. If Kua could slant his book to sell it to his audience, a creative work of fiction like a movie can hardly be chastised for the same.

    Reply
    • 58. salhas  |  July 30, 2012 at 2:48 am

      Malaysia’s one country that has no place for works of art.

      Reply
  • 59. nagaman  |  July 30, 2012 at 7:14 am

    Helen, I have no stand whether the Tanda Putera movie should be delayed or not. Delayed or not, some chinese who’s not giving it a chance will not change their stand. Since the filmmakers accepted the delayed screening who are we to say otherwise.

    The links and documents are everywhere, readily available. Easiest is go to “Jebat Must Die”. Some documents there. I’m too lazy to do links. I form my opinion of your biasness because you exhibited and trumpeted your prejudice with your article heading – of wrong historical fact from the May 13 movie. When in truth, you were nitpicking and provided wrong info yourself. As for Chinese writing, it would be the same problem with jawi, sanskrit. Hollywood has shown Its a common thing.

    Like most investment, these people will lose their money. That was the concern of some of their producer friends who were at the screening and when the delay was announced. There was alarm all round from them saying ‘die la, lingkup la dia orang’ (they will go broke). No one even think about how this will affect them, as we are so busy pontificating our views.

    But I stand corrected if you are fair. Helen I hereby forward my apologies. I am defending the filmmakers, yes, as they had openly declared their stand. That they want Malaysians not to be afraid of their history, the trauma happened, like many more – to share what they know about Razak and Ismail as true heroes – so that the new generation would always be mindful in protecting the peace and harmony we inherited – that we can live together peacefully and differ in political views. I share their view that Malaysia, truly, have come a long way.

    If they can take the trouble to put the above in a movie and invest in it, my defending them is a tiny gesture.

    Reply
    • 60. Helen Ang  |  July 30, 2012 at 7:43 am

      In principle, if you’re “TOO LAZY to do links” – an excuse which you’re giving now for not backing up your claim – then in the first place, don’t be so rajin to come all guns blazing and spraying bullets.

      In the second place, do not divert by pointing me to JMD’s blog. I never asked you to provide links for general material (aside from your other Mao Zedong claim) pertaining to peristiwa 13 Mei.

      I had specifically requested only that you gave a source where we can see the breakdown on the financial investors of the movie. Malaysiakini had reported that the film was “fully funded” by Finas to which you countered that my quoting the portal was a cheap shot to diminish the producers’ own capital they had put into the movie.

      In turn, I had asked you to refute the Malaysiakini report, that’s all.

      Therefore, all that was wanted was for you to provide a link to any “About Us” kind of page or press interview where the filmmakers acknowledged details of investments (which is the practice of some established NGOs and charities wrt their received funding).

      It’s not really necessary that filmmakers – who are neither NGOs nor charities – to do this. But since you made a concrete claim that Shuhaimi Baba and Kavita Sidhu had put in their own money, I merely asked for a link to some online page/article reporting it. This is called ‘verification’.

      I really dislike readers who are ever ready to throw a whole slew of accusations, and then cop out when asked to substantiate by giving the excuse “too lazy to do links” or (this reference is to another reader not too long ago) “can’t be bothered to do search”.

      Reply
  • 61. nagaman  |  July 30, 2012 at 8:49 am

    Thats why Helen as you claim you are an experienced journalist, you first of all and most of all should not be lazy to check your facts before coming out with your own statement that the may13 movie fact is flawed.

    Had you bothered to check your own facts , you will that they are easily accessible, as some of your journo friends are also using them, as reference. There’s also international files thats been made public on the internet by british officers who made their own reports, released in response to Dr. Kua’ own statement. I dare say you will have to put in some leg work though but at least your statements will have added value.
    Say waht you like but I wont be posting them for you, but the pictures of Mao tse tung being used at rally ,are also on the net long before the movie was made, thats for sure. Seek and ye shall find.

    The movie world have its own dictates and investors take first introduction and credit line in the beginning of the film. Plain and simple as its a universal practice. But ok as you have not seen the film , i wont fault you on that. You pre judge the film and now expect them to also follow NGO dictate that they declare their investment. What la…Dont turn tricks just to be one up on an issue.

    Reply
    • 62. Helen Ang  |  July 30, 2012 at 9:41 am

      Can you read or do you simply fail to process what you’ve read?

      You accuse: “What la … now expect them to also follow NGO dictate that they declare their investment”.

      I wrote above (copypaste, again, for your benefit):

      “… which is the practice of some established NGOs and charities wrt their received funding. It’s not really necessary that filmmakers – who are neither NGOs nor charities – to do this. …”

      And after dragging the JebatMustDie non-sequitar into our discussion, now apropos of nothing you drag in “international files” vis-a-vis British officers vis-a-vis Dr Kua.

      The topic of this posting is ‘anachronism’. It’s stated clearly in the first word of the first paragraph.

      In the main, this posting discusses out-of-period historical details in movies, with my giving the examples of Titanic and Gladiator.

      The Chinese script in Tanda Putera is out-of-period. It is worth pointing this out to non-Chinese readers unfamiliar with hanzi.

      You are the one “turning tricks” by sidetracking the debate dragging in the kitchen sink. Of course there are 1,001 diverse facts regarding May 13. If I were an expert with all the details of May 13 at my fingertips, then the subject would have been a full-blown thesis to gain myself a doctorate in political science.

      This posting is 353 words. Like your filmmakers, I also choose to focus on one theme — it’s called framing the dialogue. In this case, I talk about Chinese writing for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the evolution of hanzi in Malaysia.

      Therefore your insinuation that I didn’t check my facts (what May 13 facts are you disputing with me, please point out) is a hit below the belt.

      I do not claim to be a May 13 expert and I am hampered by time constraints that deter me from checking out every divergent sub-topic thread which various readers bring up. If you want to assert a fact, then you provide the url link or citation — that’s only fair.

      You are twisting yourself into knots just to defend your admission that you were “TOO LAZY to do links”.

      Reply
    • 63. MalaysianinNewYork  |  July 30, 2012 at 10:38 am

      Nagaman, macam manalah bro? Typical Malaysian BS. Can’t derive the facts from your own but relying on everyone else like your Jebat Must Die who is no historian, please show us factual history, don’t be lazy mah.

      Then you say “The movie world have (has) its own dictates and investors take first introduction and credit line in the beginning of the film. Plain and simple as its a universal practice”. What is universal practice? Distort facts and truth, sure if that is what you want in Malaysia. Did you watch the Passion of Christ? At least in that story Gibson did his research which was difficult to refute so it become a blockbuster although it was Anti-Semitic.

      You keep talking about investment, what investment when FINAS financed the whole movie. Can you please show me prove that FINAS did not finance this movie?

      You also state that “There’s also international files that’s been made public on the internet by British officers who made their own reports, released in response to Dr. Kua’ own statement Please oblige me as a fellow Malaysian and show me those files, or is it just another temberang.

      Brother, janganlah argue for the sake of arguing. Nobody is against the film, but rather whether it speaks the truth or manipulated to fit the politicians agenda in the current precarious state of the nation for how to garner the vote count rather than creating a unity amongst the current day Malaysians without the 1 Malaysian or Malaysia First agenda.

      Reply
  • 64. karim  |  July 30, 2012 at 10:31 am

    Helen,

    Your blog is one of the better ones.

    On the subject of this movie and its depiction of May 13th incident, what needs to be cleared up are just a few things, viz :

    i. FINAS has funded many films before, which do not mean these films were govt films. We have to get this straight. (If this Putera film is govt film then why is it not just released straight away). This is an example of suspicious character of Chinese (that Malays are thought to be always scheming, and racist).

    ii. Are the incidents of May 13th depicted in the film true or not. If true the lessons need to be conveyed, that is dont do such provocations again. It’s in fact better that everybody now acknowledge those provocations in 1969 were totally unacceptable.and be forcefully condemned.

    iii. To say Tun Razak conspired to bring down Tunku and resorted to May 13th is totally unacceptable. Understand Malays better. Traditional Malays have a strong sense of loyalty toward their leader (only in recent times – Mahathir and Anwar sought to bring down their leaders). Tun Razak was not after power. He phoned Gerakan Lim Chong Yew among others and asked for advice what should he do to restore peace. Chong Yew told him “do whatever you think is best Tun”. Tun Razak brought back democracy but made sure sensitive issues be shielded from arguments. I think this is the kind of message the film Putera is seeking to bring to the public. Tun Razak was an honourable man. So,,also was Tun Dr. Ismail. To say that Tun Razak planned May 13th is to suggest the racial provocations of May 13th by the Chinese were a small matter and irrelevant altogether ! That is being highly irresponsible.

    Thank you.

    Reply
    • 65. Helen Ang  |  July 30, 2012 at 11:08 am

      Karim,

      (i) I’m relieved that Finas – likely on the advice of the govt – has decided to be cautious.

      Exploitation of the film cuts both ways (a) Umno can use it to unite Malays against the Chinese bogey in order to regain Malay votes, and (b) as a DAP tool to finish off MCA, b’cos May 13 reflects the latter’s failure both in 1969 election where they were rejected by Chinese voters, and the breakdown of the Alliance consociationalism formula.

      If both sides play politics with May 13 celluloid as part of their election campaign, I shudder at the ensuing flame wars.

      (iii) I’ve never said “Tun Razak conspired to bring down Tunku and resorted to May 13th”. I think Tunku failed to feel the pulse of Malay frustration (that Harun, Mahathir and the rest who were closer to the grassroots were aware).

      Some points to ponder:

      (a) TR was DPM for 13 years (1957-1970) and he did not try to unseat or usurp Tunku’s position during that time. Maybe you’re correct both to surmise that “traditional Malays have a strong sense of loyalty toward their leader” and “Tun Razak was not after power”.

      (b) “Tun Razak brought back democracy”. True.

      He kept the NOC only two years and restored Parliament in 1971. He could have held on to power indefinitely with his vast authority as NOC chief but he didn’t.

      Also, he was willing to form BN to share power with the previously opposition parties. In the 1974 election, BN was returned with 60.7% of the votes, meaning that TR received a relatively popular mandate (compare in 2004, BN under AAB got 63.9%, and 2008 BN got 50.3%).

      (c) “Tun Razak was an honourable man. So, also was Tun Dr. Ismail.”

      :) They’ve never been tainted with any corruption allegations. That speaks well of them and their reputation, esp. since with NOC they held a lot of power in their hands.

      (d) “To say that Tun Razak planned May 13th is to suggest the racial provocations of May 13th by the Chinese were a small matter and irrelevant altogether!”

      Agree that the provocative social climate was independent of any purported planning by TR. Hence its relevance to us today. It makes you think: Didn’t those who carried the ‘Balik kampung’ banners realise that the Malays (or anyone else for that matter) would react to such provocation?

      I see the same obliviousness – lack of awareness that provocation begets retaliation – occurring now as well.

      Reply
    • 66. MalaysianinNewYork  |  July 30, 2012 at 12:02 pm

      Karim, FINAS came into existence in 1980. Prior to that during the P. Ramlee era, most films were funded by the Malaysian Indians. Just to name a few producer and directors S. Ramanathan, K.R. Seetharama Sastry, Phani Majumdar, D. Ghoss. L. Krishnan and K. M. Bashker.

      If it is left for me to guess for the love of cinematography not an agenda based purpose. Please enlighten me how FINAS has gone beyond race, religion and culture to promote cinematography for aspiring Malaysian irrespective of their origin unless it is politically expedient.

      On your 2nd point, why is this even a factor, if May 13, 1969 is nothing but FINAS decides to play a role to justify and enhance that there is a division that is based on race and religion in Malaysia through artistic talents, how does that justify your position. We could have made film on Interlok.

      On your 3rd point, you are very subjective in concluding based on what we cyber bloggers state, not one of conviction for what Malaysia has been or their opinion why this hurried movie is nothing but a propaganda for whomsoever it should serve.

      What is it you want? Movies or the underlying agenda to ensure one’s survival while we can trample over fellow Malaysians who are more than able, willing and ready to contribute beyond a race, religion or origin factor for the community.

      Karim, life is like a voyage without a destination, until and when you are ready to deal with the reality and truth that concerns humanity. This is responsibility not a politically made opportunity through FINAS.

      Reply
  • 67. shamshul anuar  |  July 30, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    Helen,

    Tunku in his memoir did mention on one incident, a diplomatic chat actually.

    a visiting Australian dignitary asked Tunku when he would want to resigh and let Tun Razak assumed the premiership. It was a rude question from a foreigner whose standing( not Australian PM) to ask a sovereign nation leader such a question.

    tunku laughed. But wrote that he noticed Tun razak’s face change. Naturally a person in 2nd position would want to be the leader. Nothing peculiar about that.

    But what many fail to realize is that patient is not only the virtue here. The more important characteristics is “qada and Qadar”. Literally means God’s will. Or more precisely accepting God’s will.

    “dapat syukurlah. Kalau tak dapat tak apa lah”, as my father had described it.

    This is the position of Tun Razak. This is the attitude.

    As for May 13, Helen , it was very unfortunate event. But the event made Tunku realised his time was over. He graciously resigned.

    To blame Tun Razak like what DAP consistently painting is an insult. He ,like, Tunku was caught off guard.

    Tunku did mention in his book “before and after May 13″ about huge tide of money suddenly aviailable, resulting closing one bAnk originated from china.

    What I wrote was a collection of insight from those who witnessed the carnage. Ordinary Malays and ordinary Chinese were killed as they were caught in the middle. A Malay actress was killed in one street in KL.

    Likewise, a Chinese who was on motorcycle was also beheaded/. And who among elder generations can forget how many Malays were burnt alive in a cinema right in the heart of Kuala lumpur.

    As i said earlier, Malays in Kg Baru “hilang sabar” when someone urinated in full views of ladies in Menteri Besar’s house in Kg Baru. an act considered ultimate insult for showing genitalia in view of ladies.

    HELEN,

    Being a Malay to rule the land is already a sin to many especially Western Press. As such, I am not surprise that Tun Razak was made a scape goat.

    All these “lebai’ and Haji told me Kit siang was there. according to them he was there right in heart of Kg Baru, shouting and inciting .

    The truth hurts.

    Reply
    • 68. MalaysianinNewYork  |  July 30, 2012 at 12:26 pm

      Shamsul, the truth is now, not what happened then. What is your truth now. Can you deal with truth now and make amend so that we don’t need to indulge what it should be and how it should be as long the rakyat malaysia prosper amongst them as malaysians with humanity and reality intact for one another irrespective of our orgin. Boleh tak when we can voice beyond the origin as Malaysians!!!

      Reply
  • 69. nagaman  |  July 30, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    I dont choose to debate this film. This blog bragged about brownie points by nit picking on faults that later show that your observations are also flawed . Helen claimed that its becasue of your long experience as a journalist that gave you the hawk eyes to spot such mistakes. So I am merely emphasizing that your hawk eyes can give added value by going thru reports yourself .
    But If you are too busy and swarmed , hell then dont.. If Jebat Must Die is not good enough, then read the books and publication he highlighted , which are also availble in some chapters or in full, also accessible on the internet. If that may be questionable , buy the publication then

    Reply
    • 70. Helen Ang  |  July 30, 2012 at 12:42 pm

      Now you turn around and declare “I dont choose to debate this film”. Then why did you come here and comment to begin with?

      You simply cannot accept a factual criticism that a mistake historical-wise is pointed out about the depiction of Chinese writing.

      Granted, I was not able to distinguish between a police and army uniform. It was pointed out to me. I thanked the person who highlighted my error and immediately made the correction.

      Unlike you. Nak tegakkan benang basah by blathering about “giving added value by going thru (JMD’s) reports”. Why bring him into the discussion?

      We’re talking about anachronisms (see first word, first paragraph). The whole posting is about anachronisms in movies, incl. Hollywood blockbusters. It is you who cannot stay within topic and nitpicking.

      There are dozens of angles to May 13. This is my blog for me to choose my topic. You are in no position to dictate to me how I should spend my limited time to read what (to pander to your sidetracking) and how I should spend my money buying what publications when you’re “too lazy” to even provide a url link for further discussion.

      This posting is 353 words. It is my prerogative what detail I choose to expend these words on.

      Reply
  • 71. nagaman  |  July 30, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    MalaysianinNewYork, aiseyman,… thats why I say you people must read up yourself and dont be lazy, dont expect people to put links for you. To discuss a movie , got to know about films also la. How important the opening credits are and what it means as universal movie practice.

    Reading is important bro, because you will not make this mistake – when you said that during P.Ramlee and Pre P Ramlee days- Indians funded the local films in Malaysia. Wrong and thats another distortion of facts. They were funded by the Chinese . Directed by P Ramlee, L Krishnan and some Malay Directors, when P Ramlee moved to KL. In Singapore , the early movies were directed by Indian Directors (names you mentioned) and P Ramlee as well as several Malay Directors in the later 50s.

    Reply
  • 72. MalaysianinNewYork  |  July 30, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    Really!!!, please enlighten me. jangan jadi Melayu baku nagaman, cuma cerita sahaja. Tell me the facts and show me the facts and i will gladly agree as as a Malaysian.

    Reply
  • 73. nagaman  |  July 30, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    Heh heh MalaysianinNewYork, what part dont you understand? Check your facts. Chinese financed the movie industry . After the Chinese left for Hongkong , the Malays funded the industry- before FINAS.

    Reply
    • 74. MalaysianinNewYork  |  July 30, 2012 at 1:44 pm

      Please show me prove, not just airy talk,

      Reply
  • 75. MalaysianinNewYork  |  July 30, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    Ini macam mana. Takdeh songkok, takdeh tudung tapi melayu tak. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udGd8mx0jJM&feature=related. Inilah Melayu tulen. Boleh faham tak. P. Ramlee is classic for humanity sebagai seorang Malaysian.

    Reply
  • 76. nagaman  |  July 30, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    Heh heh, I dont know about songkok, bro, Malay Deputy PM always wear songkok when the PM wears songkok- like Tunku and Tun Razak. Songkok is adab. movie is a movie.

    Reply
  • 77. shamshul anuar  |  July 30, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    Malaysian in New York,

    The truth now is actually staring at you. Only you cant accept it.

    For a start, let us follow the rest of the world. Meaning all schoolchildren study under one roof. That move alone will take away prejudice.

    Let us not kid ourselves by saying it will threaten Chinese or Indian character.

    You based in New York. Do you see any Chinese school fully funded by Federal govt ?

    Reply
    • 78. MalaysianinNewYork  |  July 31, 2012 at 9:34 am

      Shamsul, what you have stated is a miniscule comparison. Do you know not a few but hundreds of laws that protects the minority to ensure they have their share of the cake in US in their development in the socio-economic state of its citizenry. Less than 1,000 Chinese school, even lesser Tamil schools that is being subsidized by the government is a drop in the ocean as that was the fabric of the nation then.

      Imagine this in the context of the Islamic schools and how freely the funds are available for them in Malaysia. I am not against the funding, but the direction and the balance that we need to achieve.

      Our discussion in the present day should move beyond what I have done for you, or what you have done for but what and how we can work together to ensure all of us can share the piece of cake in Malaysia.

      Look, just how you have to fight for your Malay brethrens, so will the rest of them but a sense of Malaysian creeps into us when we are all one irrespective of our origin. I am sure you would not want a Non-Malay Malaysians suffer like how you feel for your Malay brethrens.

      I feel the same way too but there must be moderation in approaching this rather than a tit for tat attitude that seems to engulf our minds rather than being rational in charting the Malaysia we want.

      Reply
  • 79. Norida  |  July 30, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    “Many seem to forget that Harun Idris, the Menteri Besar’s place was where the killing originally started.”

    I was a 17-yr old living across the road from the MB’s (Dato Harun’s) residence in Kampung Baru (Jalan Raja Muda) on May 13/69. To the best of my recollection, there was no killing at his place. It was where the Malays gathered before proceeding towards Chow Kit. I understand from neighbors that the killing started in the vicinity of the present Jalan Doraisamy/Jalan Campbell (outer border of Kampung Baru).

    Reply
    • 80. I hate n'sync  |  July 31, 2012 at 10:07 am

      We have several accounts of the matter by different individuals (Malayan intelligence officers, historians and the NOC report). They could ALL be wrong of course, but the MB’s residence was the center of the storm. Hamzah Abu Samah and Tun Sambanthan initially rejected the earlier NOC draft because it exonerated Harun Idris. Hanif’s version was also challenged by other Malay intelligence at that time, and this was included in Ooi’s book on Tun Dr. Ismail. In fact, it was well known that Tun originally wanted Harun Idris arrested “for murder”. Was there any rioting and killings prior to the planned UMNO procession?

      Since many of you will never accept anything except the official version, read to see what the NOC report stated about the MB’s place being the flashpoint.

      To quote:

      Haji Ahmad Razali made the following statement to the Police:

      “On the morning of 12th May, 1969 I intimated to the Y.B. Menteri Besar, Dato’ Harun, that the UMNO Youth of Kampong Bahru was desirous of holding an UMNO procession with a view to showing… The Menteri Besar agreed to the proposal to organise an UMNO victory procession but warned me that the procession must be conducted in a legal, peaceful and orderly manner. (pg. 38)

      “On getting the Menteri Besar’s agreement I told members of the UMNO Youth Kampong Bahru that they should rally as much support as they could as otherwise there was no point in organising a procession. They agreed to my proposal that the procession be held on the evening of May 13, 1969, to commence at 1930 hours. The assembly point was the Menteri Besar’s residence” (pg. 39).

      Dato’ Harun related how his Political Secretary Haji Ahmad Razali, subsequently visited and informed him that a group of UMNO supporters who had arrived at his house had expressed their strong desire to hold a victory procession. Dato’ Harun invited them to his residence and, in his statement, continued, “In the beginning I tried to discourage them from holding a victory procession by stating that something untoward might happen. However, after I was given the assurance that the procession would be held in a peaceful and orderly manner and that a Police permit would be obtained for it, I agreed to their suggestion about holding the procession. In order to lend respectability to it and ensure that the participants behave themselves, I agreed to take part and lead the procession. As I felt that I should advise the crowd before the procession commenced, I told them that the participants should assemble in my compound…. (pg. 40 & 41).

      —–

      The NOC report at this point began to describe the rationale for why the “Malay would-be participants” carried krises and parangs, “anticipating a need to defend themselves should they be attacked during the procession” (p. 44). The official report tried to shift the blame of the rampage on supposed news at 6.30 pm (delivered on a scooter) that some Gombak Malays being attacked by some Chinese in Setapak on their way to Kampong Bharu. The incident was a fight near Alhambra Theatre at about 6 pm.

      —–

      “Neither the Malays nor the non-Malays involved in Setapak were originally armed. However, when bottles and stones started to rain on both groups, the Malays tried to obtain weapons from the various shop-houses but the majority were denied these by the shopkeepers who quickly closed their shutters.” (p. 48)

      As Chinese and Indian hooligans rushed to their houses for weapons,… by then, armed Chinese and Indian youths had positioned themselves. While a number of Malay scooterists rode their way through to carry the news to Kampong Bharu, the majority of the Malays doubled back to Gombak to arm themselves. By the time they returned to Setapak it was close to 7.00 pm and a Troop of FRU under ASP Low Yew Hong were ready in front of the Chung Hwa Chinese School to disperse them with tear gas. (p. 48 – 49)

      —–

      Tensions were high in Setapak, no doubt, and it is more obviously a gang/turf fight. It was dispersed and several persons were injured, but the only death came later for a victim at the General Hospital. The NOC reported highlighted this fact by stating that some MCA Chinese in Setapak joined the Malay groups thinking the UMNO procession an Alliance procession. That is why the “Chinese and Indian hooligans at the Len Seng Bus depot hit out at the Chinese scooterists” (p. 49).

      The key point as summarized by the NOC report on events leading to the mass rioting:

      THE ESTABLISHED FACT IS THAT SOME MALAYS WHILE PROCEEDING TO THE ASSEMBLY POINT ON FOOT AND SCOOTERS (as the local bus service had apparently stopped) WERE TAUNTED IN SETAPAK BY GROUPS OF CHINESE AND INDIANS, AND THIS DEVELOPED RAPIDLY INTO STONE AND BOTTLE-THROWING INCIDENTS BETWEEN OPPOSING GROUPS TEN TO FIFTEEN MINUTES BEFORE THE OUTBREAK OF VIOLENCE IN KAMPONG BHARU. IT WAS THE NEWS OF THIS FIGHT THAT SPARKED OFF THE CLASHES IN AND AROUND KAMPONG BHARU. THE TAUNTS AND INSULTS OF THE PREVIOUS TWO DAYS HAD ONLY SERVED TO GENERATE THE EXPLOSIVE ATMOSPHERE.

      ——

      The word used to describe it was “pandemonium broke along Jalan Raja Muda”.

      ——

      According to Haji Ahmad Razali, “At about 1840 hours, someone rushed to me to say that there was already trouble outside. I rushed out and saw that right in front of my house along Jalan Raja Muda, a van was burning.” According to his enquiries, the occupants were two Chinese who had been killed on the spot. (p. 51)

      By about 1850 hours I saw about two hundred to three hundred Malays leaving the compound of the Menteri Besar’s residence and moving towards Jalan TUanku Abdul Rahman. It was clear to me that they were out to clash with the Chinese. Our calls to them to stop went unheard.” (p. 52).

      ——

      The rest was history.

      There is nothing to be proud of the violence, whether it came from the Malays, Chinese or Indians. It is the mob mentality at work.

      Reply
      • 81. Helen Ang  |  July 31, 2012 at 11:22 am

        Keyword relevant to present — “mob mentality”.

        Reply
  • 82. shamshul anuar  |  July 31, 2012 at 12:09 am

    Norida,
    Who said there was killing at his residence.

    Reply
    • 83. Norida  |  July 31, 2012 at 4:54 am

      See comment No. 34 above (I hate n’sync – Julai 30, 2012 at 9:38 am)

      Reply
      • 84. I hate n'sync  |  July 31, 2012 at 11:53 am

        Kediaman rasmi Menteri Besar Selangor at Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, was the place where at least three confirmed deaths at the initial outbreak of the rampage. All intelligence and accounts points to taunts that inflamed the mob and they killed two on scooters and one van driver. Almost all sources agreed that deaths on May 13th first occured in the vicinity, with others being more cautious and said that it could not be pinpointed in accuracy when it started. The where wasn’t debated at all, the original trigger might be from elsewhere nearby, but the killings started from Jalan Raja Muda and from there it spread.

        The NOC report is available online, like JMD, I agree that Harun Idris didn’t plan this and certainly wanted no riots, but the crowd came with weapons to his residence (as noted by official accounts), and like Bersih 3.0, all it takes is a small trigger to unleash the violence.

        Reply
  • 85. shamshul anuar  |  July 31, 2012 at 9:24 am

    Norida,

    The best way to absolve one’s own mistake is to blame someone’s else. Malays did gather at Datok Haron’s residence but only to response on provocation by DAP and Gerakan.

    Reply
    • 86. I hate n'sync  |  July 31, 2012 at 11:37 am

      You are interested in the blaming, I am only pointing out facts. All the events leading to May the 13th showed that it was a political upstaging turned sour, degenerating into communal clashes. By who you might say, otak udang of all races like yourself -lah. Everyone in the riots believed in their own hyped rumours of victimisation and took law and justice into their own hands.

      Reply
  • 87. shamshul anuar  |  July 31, 2012 at 6:15 pm

    I hate Nsync,

    You mean that there were ghosts than proceeding in the heart of Kampung Baru, showing a “penyapu’ to Malays, spitting on malays .

    Are you saying ghosts burnt down a cinema killing many Malays inside? Are you going to blame Dato Haron for the “ghosts” that burnt down a cinema or showing “penyapu” to Malay folks in Kg Baru

    Reply
    • 88. I hate n'sync  |  July 31, 2012 at 7:28 pm

      Dear Shamshul,

      Who’s denying DAP and Gerakan went on an outrageous “parade”? Takkan-lah nampak penyapu terus mengamuk, macam Khir Toyo bagi penyapu kat penjawat awam-kan?

      Yes, there was a lot of taunting and jeering and uncouth behaviour, but I suppose in your small and petty mind, it makes the retaliating murdering of innocent civilians ok.

      As for your claims of cinemas being burnt and killing Malays, where do we start to enumerate the horrors? You have evidence or is it another one of your lebais about LKS who apparated in Kampung Baru from Borneo on 13th May?

      Reply
      • 89. Goondoo  |  July 31, 2012 at 9:30 pm

        How nice … takkan tunjuk penyapu dah nak mengamuk.. Cuba test theory u… go to Batu Caves and say to the Indians the “P” words… tengok whether you will be still alive or not…

        Tiada bangsa yang ada maruah rela bangsa mereka di hina begitu… hinggakan sanggup bergadai nyawa…

        Kalau tak percaya test lah lepas PRU13 ni…

        Reply
  • 90. shamshul anuar  |  July 31, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    I hate Nsync,

    You mean to say Dato Haron invited Gerakan and DAP to have procession in the middle of Kg Baru?

    Reply
  • 91. shamshul anuar  |  July 31, 2012 at 8:39 pm

    I hate Nsync,

    What is it with you actually? I was just narrating what these “lebai” and Haji told me. And you start the blame game.

    You dismissed other views with rudeness. All of them told me they saw Kit Siang in Kg Baru. That was what they told me.

    If you care to read (if only) you would find me saying ordinary Malays and Chinese caught in the middle when one useless politicians who think they own the world showed penyapu to Malay folks in Kg Baru.

    Surely I had a point when a Gerakan leader later apologized for the provocation on Kg Baru. But it was too late.

    But there was a burnt cinema. That was a fact. But as the victims were Malays, it was not “real” for you.

    As for claim someone in Sabah. Well believe what you wish to believe. I am not blaming Chinese on this carnage. Rather they like Malays were caught in the middle.

    Reply
  • 92. I hate n'sync  |  August 1, 2012 at 8:56 am

    But there was a burnt cinema. That was a fact. But as the victims were Malays, it was not “real” for you.

    – Shamshul

    I’ve read a lot of reports about May 13th. I have read that AFTER the sparks went off in Jalan Raja Muda, violence escalated with retaliations and blind rampage. We have first hand accounts of assault on movie goers, but what was it about the details that fascinates you?

    Isn’t all these evidence that innocent people were murdered (decapitated, etc.), be it at the hands of stupid Malays, stupid Chinese or stupid Indians? And idiots like you and moronic goondoo are promising the same violence, AGAIN, over politics – turning wins and losses in the ballot into communal clashes.

    I don’t support DAP, PKR or PAS, but it doesn’t mean that I think it justifies any violence against others for their political preferences.

    Reply
    • 93. Goondoo  |  August 1, 2012 at 9:01 pm

      i hate,

      you say i promise violence…any evidence bro…i say in the context of what you said, kalau u tunjuk penyapu dalam kontext nak menghalau orang melayu, tengoklah apa yang akan jadi..ini behaviour orang biasa yang akan marah dan mengamuk bila maruah dicabar, tak kisahlah jika orang tu melayu, cina atau india…kalau dalam kontext biasa, tiada siapapun yang akan ambil peduli.

      the problem orang cina masih tak nak belajar, in 1945, in batu kikir, the bintang 3, captured and killed many malays. they kidnapped an ustaz…the malays retaliated and many chinese were killed.. in 1969, you taunted the malays.. the malays responded and 100s of chinese get killed..

      after many years staying, takkan tak faham adat n tatasusila kehidupan disini…
      kena hormatlah..kalau biadap. ..kena penampar baru padan muka… saya nasihat supaya awak boleh faham.. tapi kalau tak nak faham, buat tak faham sebab awak rasa dah besar kepala… tunggulah bila orang melayu dah mengamuk, dah tak guna bila nasi dah jadi bubur.

      sejarah patut mengajar kita supaya jadi lebih bijak.

      Reply
  • 94. shamshul anuar  |  August 1, 2012 at 4:57 pm

    I hate nsync,

    Exactly which part of my writing that you fail to understand. Where in my writing that I promote violence or bloodshed.

    “…What was it about the details that …”. Now. Do not be rude my friend.

    You are right about turning losses and winning into communal clashes. Perhaps you should ask DAP on this. Why the need to bring “penyapu” to Kg Baru?

    Reply
  • 95. persatuanbujangterlajakmalaysia  |  January 27, 2013 at 3:15 am

    budak yg buat cerita nie mcm x cukup akal je.ada ke tag nama diperkenalkan pada zaman mahathir..bodoh sungguh..sejak zaman penjajah lagi dah ada dah sengallll…

    Reply

Dijemput memberi komen anda

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


My blog, my like

Helen Ang

Smell the flowers

Recent Posts

CLICK ON IMAGE TO READ

Look who got TS Muhyiddin's autograph

'Apo Kono ei Jang' in Sarah's blog

'5 Maps that will help you understand the MH17 crash' in Alizul's blog

Pengunjung

  • 4,885,393 hits

Kalender

July 2012
M T W T F S S
« Jun   Aug »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Archives

Feeds


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 341 other followers

%d bloggers like this: