The story of the keris: a case of political (miss) communication issue in multiracial Malaysia

Abstract

During the UMNO (United Malays National Organization) General Assembly in 2005, its youth wing leader Hishammuddin Tun Hussein Onn was shown by the media waving a keris (a type of traditional Malay dagger) as an act that he claimed as action to defend the Malay supremacy and to threaten those who opposed the Malay special rights (stipulated in Article 153 of the Malaysian Constitution). There were mixed reaction from the public to such a notorious act. While delegates from his party commended such an action yet the act has also drawn uproar from other races especially the Chinese and even from the Malay oppositions. A year later, in the following assembly Hishamuddin defended his usage of the keris, which to him was meant "to motivate the Malays" and stressed that the keris "is here to stay". However, the Chinese politicians declared themselves unconvinced by Hishammuddin's explanations. The MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association, a member of the ruling coalition) youth chief, Liow Tiong Lai, affirmed that "If I hold a Chinese sword at a wushu function, it would be different than if I hold one at a political event. This was a political function, so it is seen in a different context. It can create uneasiness." Another analyst stated that "A keris does not make people uncomfortable. It is the gesture and brandishing that makes people uncomfortable". Additionally another Chinese political analyst alleged that "You say the keris is a cultural symbol, but it is a cultural symbol of violence." Nonetheless, Hishamuddin later vowed not to repeat the keris wielding incident and on April 25, 2008 apologized to the people for his misconduct. The unsettling feeling by all parties may have occurred as a result of misinterpretation or miscommunication amongst the communicators from different cultural background. However what is more damaging was the negative publicity that the incident has caused to the ruling political party. The paper addresses the issues of the symbolic interactionism related to the keris incident.