AUGUST 5 — Around this time 61 years ago, British writer and politician Lord Altrincham wrote a scathing rebuke about the country’s monarchy, especially Queen Elizabeth II, for being out-of-touch in a post-World War II era.

While a bulk of his criticism focused on the mannerism of the Queen, he also felt the institution needed to be more egalitarian, less sheltered and exclusive.

Predictably, his view was hardly popular. In fact, it caused a public furore as the opinion, published in his own National and English Review, was picked up by other publications — most of them attacking him, but ostensibly giving his words more reach.

Right after he was leaving a TV station  where he had been invited to share his views in the influential news programme Impact, he was slapped by a royalist.

Advertisement

Altrincham insisted that he made the remarks because he himself was a royalist, a strong believer in the constitutional monarchy. “It is too precious an institution to be neglected,” he was quoted saying.

Despite the initial uproar, his remarks received cautious support among some. And in the end, some of his recommended reforms in making the institution more relevant were even accepted by the Royal Household, after a meeting with the Queen’s private secretary, Martin Charteris.

“You did a great service to the monarchy, and I’m glad to say so publicly,” Charteris was quoted saying several decades later. By this time, Altrincham himself had disclaimed his baron title for a more egalitarian life, becoming known simply as John Grigg.

Advertisement

Selangor Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah assented recently to the proposal to raise the marriage age to 18 for all Muslims in the state. — Picture by Bernama
Selangor Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah assented recently to the proposal to raise the marriage age to 18 for all Muslims in the state. — Picture by Bernama

The institution is now much beloved by the majority of its society, and it makes more and more way for egalitarianism, as evident in the wedding of the Duke of Sussex with American actor Meghan Markle.

But then again, in the United Kingdom the monarchy has existed for a millennia, has gone through countless kings and queens valorous and murderous, was abolished and restored, and whose popularity has waxed and waned over the course of history.

In comparison, when the monarchy faced Altrincham’s criticism, Malaysia had just found its Independence, and constitutional monarchy was just taking birth.

But there is no reason that such a frank and nuanced public discourse about the role of a constitutional monarch cannot happen after just six decades.

In such a system, the monarchy has the opportunity to listen to the public. The Selangor Sultan did so recently, by assenting to the proposal to raise the marriage age to 18 for all Muslims.

The recent article by activist Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, which questioned Anwar Ibrahim’s deference to monarchy, touched a raw nerve. But it has also found brave support, by those who felt that there is no better time to talk about the issue than in this new political climate.

Similarly, there is no better time to talk about and recognise the working class’ struggle and the role of local leftist movements in fighting for freedom, that inevitably led to the Anglophile elite class securing Independence for the masses.

So shallow our understanding of the matter, that any public discourse tends to veer towards the communists -- pathetically our own version of the satirical Godwin’s Law (that any online discussion that goes on long enough will lead to someone comparing it to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis).

What is obvious, as brought up by amateur historian Fahmi Reza and Fadiah again in a recent public forum, is that the country’s history textbooks have long not only ignored, but discarded the discourse.

Never having the chance to see the pages myself, it was illuminating when Twitter user @cocorello posted some pages of an old history textbook written by one M. Thambirajah first published in 1979.

Ten pages were dedicated to leftists AMCJA-PUTERA, the Hartal of 1947, the history of the Communist Party of Malaya (PKM), and subsequently the Malayan Emergency. For example, why was the conflict called an “emergency”, and not a war?

A poignant paragraph mentioned that the violence perpetrated by PKM made it lose public support, and in 1951 the party had directed its members to halt all violence and terrorism. But it was far too late.

There is no question that everybody abhors PKM’s savagery and brutality during the bloody period of the Emergency. But erasing our history will not heal the country’s collective trauma.

In an Utusan Malaysia report, one of the textbook writers where history has been whitewashed, Ramlah Adam, admitted that they did so due to the policy of the Education Ministry which places “unity” as a priority.

“We cannot bring up the details of a dark event that the country faced openly since it has the potential to complicate the interracial relationship here,” she said.

To say so is an insult to our students, and a reflection of our flawed education system where participants lack judgment and critical thinking.

The current generation no longer suffers from the trauma experienced by those who lived during the period. They are detached, and perhaps apathetic to it. The only way to learn a lesson from the Emergency is to dissect it, and not to feed our students with whitewashed propaganda.

In fact, the Emergency was not the first time Malayan citizens were faced with trauma. There was the Japanese Occupation, and British colonialism.

Why can’t we move on from the Emergency, particularly the communists? Perhaps we are too afraid. To reconcile would mean to forget the Alliance and Umno. Resolution would mean the Malays losing one more card that can be used to attack the ethnic Chinese.

This may be the start of our own “renaissance”, where more and more people are eager and willing to talk, review, dissect, debate, study various issues with no more shackles holding us back.

Of course, some fear this. Because an enlightened Malaysia would mean the shadows that they cast over the public for so long will be flooded by light.

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.