I was reading this article with interest. The word that came to my mind was ‘identity’. How do we associate ourselves with one / many places. Are we attached to the land of our birth or by choice. Having lived in Malaysia and Singapore for a number of years, it would be enticing to read into the reactions of audiences with different world views and mind-sets (if this performance was re-created in KL).

The oft discussed topic of bumiputra and non-bumiputra seems like an ongoing saga. I would be interested to read into the apolitical stance of the performance as a new trajectory, or is it performativity?

Thanks, I’ll let Verena and Effendy know. The title definitely sets one thinking, including myself.

Lt Adnan’s death occurred before Singapore’s independence, and that he is remembered as a war hero in both Malaysia and Singapore, makes it a particularly interesting addition to the performance in that it shifts our (the audiences) attention to the past and to the birth of nations, its implications and consequences (that are not always as inevitable as we are sometimes led to believe). The question that was raised in the performance in relation to Lt Adnan is that he was fighting for a piece of land that he does not belong to now, but perhaps that he felt he did then. He definitely did not feel apathetic at that time. While this is not actually in the performance, the point is that apathy arises from the belief that one is not, or cannot be, involved, that one is excluded, often as told by others for reasons of these others. The performance does conflate nationalism with the sense of belonging, or plays on the ambiguity, and asks an uncomfortable question – not simply of whether one can be bumiputra cina, but of the assumptions one has to make for the question to even arise.

I really like the seemingly oxymoronic title and it does cast the definition of bumiputra in a different light, one that exposes the political aspiration and muscle that shapes this concept of land and identity ownership.

the question that is raised with the character is that if you define yourself as part of the land, would you stay and fight?

I find this particular question relevant to the discussion we had on Zedeck’s entry on Ismail Embong. In the very first picture of the post, we see an anachronistic portrayal of a protest movement in which what has come to be known as the non-bumiputra races exist as non-participatory bystanders.

This apathy (which might not be entirely fictive) structured as non-commitment to an independence struggle creates a discourse of ownership through an act of reclamation. You essentially lose your political will by not being part of this confrontation that is perceivably morally authentic.

Was wondering, how did the actions of the character Lt. Adnan bin Saidi resolve this in the performance?