English in Malaysia and Singapore

In Malaysia, circumstances changed for writers in English at a precipitous rate as they were soon pushed to the margins of national culture. In 1966, Han Suyin optimistically defined Malaysian literature as “those writings (drama, novel, short story, play and verse), which by emotion, identification, description, social context and involvement relate to Malaysia… whether written in Malay, Chinese, Tamil or English.” But such an inclusive vision of Malaysian literature proved too ambitious as many nationalists became increasingly vocal in their demand that the Malay language should be the only means of expression of Malaysia's national culture. While writers in English argued that a more appropriate path for building the nation was to work towards a Malaysian identity that would reflect the country's multi-ethnic background, writers in bahasa believed that the future citizenry should be moulded on Malaya's traditional culture and heritage, meaning Malay language and Malay culture.
A National Language Bill was passed in parliament on 3 March 1967 making Malay the national language. However, English could still be used in an official capacity, and teaching and learning other languages would be permitted. These decisions did not go down well with the non-Malay population who became increasingly disillusioned with the way the Alliance Government was running the country. This was reflected in the general elections held on 10 May 1969, in which the Alliance lost many seats in Parliament, from 89 seats won in 1964 to only 66 in 1969. It triggered the smouldering ethnic tensions which exploded into the violent race riots of 13 May 1969. Soon after the riots, Emergency was declared, the Constitution was suspended and power was handed over to the National Operations Council, headed by then Deputy Prime Minister, Abdul Razak (father of the present Prime Minister, NajibTun Razak). This incident marks a watershed in language and literary development in the country, as it further strengthened the position of bahasa as the national language. Amendments were made in the Constitution to phase out all English-medium schools starting in 1970. Further amendments were introduced that made criticising special Malay rights, the privileges of the Malay royalty and the status of BahasaMelayu (renamed Bahasa Malaysia) as the national language, an act of sedition. Literature and cultural policies were also adopted in a similar vein. In the sphere of culture it was decided that the national culture would be built on “Nusantara culture” with suitable elements of “immigrant cultures” in it. Literature was divided into two categories. Since Malay was the national language, literature written in it also became the national literature. Writings in English, Chinese and Tamil were reduced to the status of “sectional literatures.” Later, Ismail Hussein, then President of the Federation of National Writers (Gabungan Penulis Nasional or GAPENA), went on to dismiss literatures in English, Tamil and Chinese as “foreign literatures because they are written in non-indigenous languages” and could not be understood by everyone.
Such developments came as a mortifying blow to literary activities in English in Malaysia. Writers in English felt alienated and marginalised from the mainstream activity of nation building and the formation of national culture. Faced with such an adverse and invidious situation, some of the writers chose silence and others went into “voluntary exile.” In 1969, Shirley Lim left the country for the US, initially for higher studies, but chose not to come back because she felt that the Language Act was “a more effective silencer than tanks and barbed-wire.” Likewise, in 1975 EeTiang Hong left for Australia, believing that it was the only way out for him. He explained:
I left Malaysia then when I could no longer accept, intellectually or emotionally, the official and Malay definition of the Malaysian nation and culture…. I was convinced that I had no place in the new order of things, and not just as a writer but even as an ordinary citizen…. I left the country when I was finally convinced that the terms by which the nation was founded had been tampered with, that the nationalism in whose name Independence was secured, had taken a narrow turn, and that the very meaning of Malaysia had been altered.
Malaysian literature in English is recovering from this experience with the sprouting of young writers in the last fifteen years. The status of English has changed as it is more widely accepted as the language of business and commerce, and some emphasis has been put on the learning of English in “national” schools. This changed attitude to the language has brought encouragement for writers and, as a result, activities have picked up in recent years. Among the “older” writers, Wong Phui Nam, Salleh Ben Joned, K.S. Maniam and KeeThuanChye still remain active, and Shirley Lim continues to write from her exilic home in the US. New writers have also come up, but the gravity of literary activity by Malaysian writers in English seems to have shifted outside the borders of Malaysia. HuzirSulaiman and Farish Noor now live in Singapore, and Rani Manicka and Tash Aw, both of whom were nominated for the Commonwealth Writers Prize for Best First Book, live in the UK. Some of the writers who were born and brought up in Malaya/Malaysia now live in Singapore and identify themselves as Singaporean writers, viz Catherine Lim, Suchen Christine Lim, Kirpal Singh and Leong LiewGeok.
Although there has been an influx of English language writers from Malaysia to Singapore, it has not happened the other way around. This is because the environment for writers in English in Singapore has been relatively more conducive and favourable. In a recent interview with Kee Thuan Chye, I asked how Malaysian literature in English could attain the potency and dynamism achieved by writers in the language in Singapore. His response sums up the contrary circumstances of English writers in the two countries:
Singapore respects literature in any language written by its citizens. By and large, Singapore upholds a meritocratic system. It nominates writers from across the language spectrum for its Cultural Medallion and for the SEA Write Award whereas here in Malaysia, you'd have to be writing in Malay to qualify to become a National Laureate or even be considered for the SEA Write Award, which is actually bestowed by an external body. In fact, year after year, the winning of the SEA Write Award by Malaysians has become a mockery. It's a case of the writers in Malay waiting their turn to be called.
Anger aside, which is fuelled by his “othering” for his choice of medium, Kee is making a point which has defined the literary scenario in the two countries. In Malaysia, there is a national language and, concomitantly, a national literature policy, and any writing that does not come within the purview of this state-authored, official policy is dismissed as being contrary to the nation building enterprise. But on the subject of language, Singapore chose to adopt the policy of “four official languages” – English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil – and allows literary activity to flourish in all these languages, without any concerted effort to either promote or to degrade any of them. Therefore, Singapore has seen several anthologies which have sought to bring together writings in all its languages, either in the original or in translation, so that inclusivity and harmonious co-existence could be enhanced between writers. As opposed to this, when Malaysia's National Laureate and a bilingual writer himself, Muhammad Haji Salleh, published an anthology of what he called An Anthology of Contemporary Malaysian Literature in 1988 (reprinted in 2008), he included only writings by Malay writers and in the Malay language, translated into English.
(The first part of this article appeared last week).

Mohammad A. Quayum, Ph.D, is Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Human Sciences Division, International Islamic University, Malaysia.