What to look out for in our museums — Mustafa K Anuar

MAY 27 — The free admission offered by 19 Malaysian museums to their visitors in conjunction with International Museum Day on May 18 is commendable.

This initiative by the Department of Museums Malaysia aimed to encourage more Malaysians and others to visit our museums and appreciate the nation’s history and heritage.

In line with this main objective, the National Museum had taken measures to revitalise itself by having, for instance, interactive galleries to especially attract the younger generation. 

As a result, it has reportedly managed to clock in 3,000 visitors daily

National Unity Minister Aaron Ago Dagang also hoped that the public would value the role of museums “as institutions of knowledge, catalysts for unity and platforms for nation-building”.

The 19 museums come within the purview of the National Unity Ministry.

To reiterate, artefacts displayed in museums are expected to serve as cultural bridges for members of a wider community, as well as to foster collective identity among Malaysians and a conducive environment for the marginalised.

In some ways, museums are like history books, made “alive” and visually attractive for the interested visitors. They are supposed to be educational as well as entertaining.

To be sure, museums are not a recent feature in Malaysia’s cultural landscape.

The first museum in the country was the Perak Museum that opened its doors in 1883, followed by the Sarawak State Museum in 1886, and later the Selangor Museum in 1906. Many more were set up after Merdeka in 1957.

By 2013, there were 189 museums, the types of which range from history museum, art museum, science and technology museum, war museum, ethnic museum, royal museum, specialised museum to natural history museum.

Apart from the educational aspect, the establishment of museums has also brought about economic spinoffs. Souvenir shops, kopitiams, hawkers, restaurants, among other things, emerge in their midst.

As intimated above, there are indeed good reasons for us to celebrate the growth of museums across the country.

There are, however, issues regarding museums that should not escape our attention.

Museums are generally not neutral repositories of artefacts, as some would like us to believe.

If anything, they’re political institutions to the point that some people regard them as a site of contestation.

For starters, a question begs to be asked: whose historical and cultural narrative informs the curation of a museum’s artefacts and the way they’re displayed? Does a particular dominant group have an upper hand to write or influence the narrative?

Can such curation represent fairly the demographics that the museum claims to project?

If, for instance, a particular museum professes to be one that represents all Malaysians, then one would expect information and artefacts of the diverse groups in our society to be displayed accordingly in the museum.

But then, having a collection of all the artefacts related to the country’s diversity may not necessarily be considered sufficiently inclusive.

The way a particular artefact is displayed and where in the museum it is located can indicate its place in the pecking order of things in the institution.

Take the National Museum. Figurines were displayed in the main hall on the ground floor, supposedly celebrating the diverse ethnic and cultural communities and unity in the country.

However, there is not much information about the minorities compared to the Malay heritage on display elsewhere in the museum. 

Besides, the “Malaysia Today” gallery of the National Museum needs an urgent updating. Time seemed to have stopped after Merdeka and the formation of Malaysia. 

Surely, there’s a place in the museum for important historical incidents or milestones such as the May 13 riots, Rukun Negara and heavy industrialisation policy.  

The prominence given to Malay cultural heritage over that of other ethnic and cultural groups in many museums can be traced back to the implementation of the contentious National Culture Policy (NCP) in 1970, which stressed Malay/indigenous culture.

In the 1970s, there were predictably uneasiness and grievances among non-Malays because of the NCP.  But, at the same time, there was also discontent even among Malays over what constituted “Malay culture”, which in turn had implications on museum curation.

In his study of museums, the late historian Abu Talib Ahmad of Universiti Sains Malaysia noted that the impact of the NCP on museums was further magnified by the Islamisation wave in the 1970s.

As a result, there were attempts made by certain quarters to take cultural elements that were deemed contradictory to Islam and also progress in museums, away from public gaze. In short, a conscious erasure of things “un-Islamic”.

This had an adverse effect of narrowing cultural representations in museums, which prompted certain affected quarters to set up their own museums, such as museums dedicated to Chinese heritage and traditions.

Competition, according to Abu Talib, arose not only between museums but also within museums.

For instance, the Penang State Museum was said to have accorded equal space for Malay and Chinese artefacts, but the display of Peranakan artefacts took precedence over those of non-Peranakan Chinese. The latter were obviously unhappy with the museum’s inclination.

Like history textbooks, there’s a possibility that omission of facts or a contentious interpretation of a historical incident can surface in a museum’s presentation. It would be beneficial to the visitors if the museum concerned could address such issues. 

Perhaps alternative interpretations, for example, could be offered by the museum concerned, particularly for the benefit of inquisitive and critical visitors. 

Visitor attendance may be affected if certain segments of society cannot identify themselves with what are displayed by a particular museum.

Funding is another factor that helps to shape a museum’s policy and orientation.  

Federal and state governments fund and run their respective museums, while private organisations run theirs. They largely have considerable control over the narratives that inform their presentations.

Minorities, particularly those who do not have the resources, are, however, deprived of the opportunity to tell their own stories in museums.

Visitors should not be mere spectators. Critical engagement is needed when they visit a museum, especially if it is a site of contestation.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.