WHY THE SPECIAL DOCUMENTARY ON TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN WAS IGNORED BY THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE NEWSPAPERS. – PART I.
…THEY HATED THE DOCUMENTARY BECAUSE THEY DISCOVERED MY FAMILY HAS A SPECIAL CONNECTION WITH TUNKU’S FAMILY…AND I HAVE RARE PHOTOGRAPHIC MATERIALS ON HIM AND AN EXCLUSIVE TAPE RECORDED INTERVIEW I DID WITH HIM. SO THAT’S NOT GOOD?!
By Mansor Puteh
(WHEN TUNKU WAS NEGOTIATING FOR THE FORMATION OF MALAYSIA IN THE EARLY 1960S, HIS WIFE, MAK ENGKU OR TUN SHARIFAH RODZIAH BARAKHBAH WAS NEGOTIATING WITH MY MOTHER ON THE MARRIAGE OF THEIR CHILDREN.
THE ‘BERSANDING’ CEREMONIES TOOK PLACE AT MY PARENTS’ HOUSE IN BANDAR MELAKA AND ALSO AT THE RESIDENCY. IT HAPPENED IN NOVEMBER, 1963 OR TWO MONTHS AFTER MALAYSIA WAS FORMED.
TUNKU AND MANY MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY CAME TO MY PARENTS’ HOUSE. AND MANY MEMBERS OF MY FAMILY ALSO ATTENDED THE ‘BERSANDING’ AT THE RESIDENCY. THEY WERE ALL GIVEN ACCOMMODATION AT THE THEN ISTANA TETAMU WHICH WAS THE ‘GUEST PALACE’ FOR IMPORTANT LOCAL AND FOREIGN DIGNITARIES.
Such was the respect Tunku had for my family.
And the ‘bersanding’ ceremonies probably gave a huge enjoyment for him after what he had gone through to form the federation of Malaysia.)
Maybe the writers and the papers ignored the documentary on Tunku because they had found a reason not to like him! Why did I want to give them any excuse to do that?
I don’t care much for the Mandarin and Tamil newspapers because they live in a world of their own.
Why did the ministry of home affairs give their publishers the KDN permits in the first place since all they do is to over-promote Hong Kong, India and America?
If someone else had produced such a documentary using rare photos and a taped interview with him, his work would have been given better media coverage.
After all they had also ignored the photo exhibition on Tunku which I put out at the R A Gallery in November, 2008 where a coffee table book with more photos of Tunku and his family were published.
The Sultan of Perak was gracious enough to come to the small private gallery to open the exhibition after I had failed to impress the National Art Gallery or Balai Senilukis Negara (BSLN) to have it.
These and the other matters were not raised in the documentary. But there are there if one cares and is qualified to find them. Unfortunately, many want to see another documentary on Tunku, one which shows him in one dimension only.
Unfortunately, the same writers and their papers are so happy to write and give coverage on unknown characters who are shady that appear in photo exhibitions and documentaries or videos.
I would not have wanted to do it by exposing such details on the weeks preceding the formation of Malaysia and immediately after that for secondary historical activities of the first prime minister, which do not sound to be trite if done stylishly.
If I had deliberately done that, there would be more criticism of my work than there has been. I can then get the credit for having confused them even more.
The only reason why I am writing this review of my own work to produce the documentary is because it has come to my attention on why the newspapers did not find the documentary on Tunku Abdul rah man called ‘Bertahun di Residensi’ or ‘the residency years’ to be interesting.
I found the reason given to be utterly childish and not professional. Any negative sentiment one has on anything that is meant to help promote the image of Tunku must be given credit where it is due, regardless of what materials are used to do so. The ends justify the means, as they say…
What more since the documentary was produced to highlight hidden aspects of the Tunku and his family which no one could find anywhere else?
Is jealousy was the main reason why the English publications ignored the documentary?
That could be the main reason why their writers and editors who did not bother to even mention the production and broadcasting of this special documentary.
It’s as though the documentary did not happen; it was not produced and broadcast.
Unfortunately, the documentary has been produced and broadcast, and despite the reservations some of the writers in these publications have, the documentary exists and it lives. It can be shown on television in the country and elsewhere, again and again.
It was shown in a film festival in Dhaka last March.
And the more those outside of Malaysia knows about Tunku, the more they will want to see this special documentary.
The fact that Tunku was the first secretary-general of the Organization of Islamic Council (OIC) has not been said too often. If this gets to the attention of the right persons, chances are his deeds will start to be remembered by many Muslims.
Being the first prime minister of Bapa Kemerdekaan of Malaysia may not ring a bell in the international community and amongst the Muslim Ummah. But being the first secretary-general of the OIC and its founder can.
Therefore, I can understand the utter contempt the writers have of this documentary. Because they are naïve not to know what it was meant to do and achieve.
It’s not difficult for me not to forgive them because they are not well educated in film. They can never go far in their writing on film.
They thought they had a good and valid reason for not liking the documentary which they thought had personal materials on Tunku and they related to my personal family relationship and connection to his like it is such a bad thing. Why should it be?
Did this bother them? What could anyone in my position do with it?
(Note: All the photos of Tunku and his family taken by Syed Abdullah Barakhbah have been bought by Arkib Negara following the production of the documentary, so they are now in their care and can be accessible to the members of the public.)
I have formal training in journalism and also film. I also studied the documentary and from the materials I had I thought I could come up with an interesting one on Tunku, which no one in the country could do.
I had written better pieces on film and television which were published in all the major Melayu and English newspapers including the NST, and even had a column in the Sunday Star for a while.
So I know what a good and interesting documentary is more than anyone who writes about films in the newspapers in the country. It’s just that I did not have editorial control to chide some articles that were published or sack anyone for having written lousy pieces.
I also have an exclusive tape recording of an interview I did with Tunku in 1986. It was done at his residence in Bukit Tunku which I had not revealed before. I transcribed it and sent a story on it to the Star but they declined to publish it.
I asked Tunku a lot of things which no one had asked him before on his student life at Cambridge and his interests in life and the cinema for which he wrote some screenplays for Shaw Brothers.
Finas and the ministry of information, communication and culture or KPKK like it and immediately approved my proposal to produce the documentary so that the exclusive materials I have on Tunku could be shown in a production and in the style no one had seen before.
If it was on a former American president or an international pop star, surely, such a documentary on him would have been hailed, and the director given due recognition for ‘exposing’ the other side of this character.
Unfortunately, it did not happen with Tunku.
By Mansor Puteh
(WHEN TUNKU WAS NEGOTIATING FOR THE FORMATION OF MALAYSIA IN THE EARLY 1960S, HIS WIFE, MAK ENGKU OR TUN SHARIFAH RODZIAH BARAKHBAH WAS NEGOTIATING WITH MY MOTHER ON THE MARRIAGE OF THEIR CHILDREN.
THE ‘BERSANDING’ CEREMONIES TOOK PLACE AT MY PARENTS’ HOUSE IN BANDAR MELAKA AND ALSO AT THE RESIDENCY. IT HAPPENED IN NOVEMBER, 1963 OR TWO MONTHS AFTER MALAYSIA WAS FORMED.
TUNKU AND MANY MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY CAME TO MY PARENTS’ HOUSE. AND MANY MEMBERS OF MY FAMILY ALSO ATTENDED THE ‘BERSANDING’ AT THE RESIDENCY. THEY WERE ALL GIVEN ACCOMMODATION AT THE THEN ISTANA TETAMU WHICH WAS THE ‘GUEST PALACE’ FOR IMPORTANT LOCAL AND FOREIGN DIGNITARIES.
Such was the respect Tunku had for my family.
And the ‘bersanding’ ceremonies probably gave a huge enjoyment for him after what he had gone through to form the federation of Malaysia.)
Maybe the writers and the papers ignored the documentary on Tunku because they had found a reason not to like him! Why did I want to give them any excuse to do that?
I don’t care much for the Mandarin and Tamil newspapers because they live in a world of their own.
Why did the ministry of home affairs give their publishers the KDN permits in the first place since all they do is to over-promote Hong Kong, India and America?
If someone else had produced such a documentary using rare photos and a taped interview with him, his work would have been given better media coverage.
After all they had also ignored the photo exhibition on Tunku which I put out at the R A Gallery in November, 2008 where a coffee table book with more photos of Tunku and his family were published.
The Sultan of Perak was gracious enough to come to the small private gallery to open the exhibition after I had failed to impress the National Art Gallery or Balai Senilukis Negara (BSLN) to have it.
These and the other matters were not raised in the documentary. But there are there if one cares and is qualified to find them. Unfortunately, many want to see another documentary on Tunku, one which shows him in one dimension only.
Unfortunately, the same writers and their papers are so happy to write and give coverage on unknown characters who are shady that appear in photo exhibitions and documentaries or videos.
I would not have wanted to do it by exposing such details on the weeks preceding the formation of Malaysia and immediately after that for secondary historical activities of the first prime minister, which do not sound to be trite if done stylishly.
If I had deliberately done that, there would be more criticism of my work than there has been. I can then get the credit for having confused them even more.
The only reason why I am writing this review of my own work to produce the documentary is because it has come to my attention on why the newspapers did not find the documentary on Tunku Abdul rah man called ‘Bertahun di Residensi’ or ‘the residency years’ to be interesting.
I found the reason given to be utterly childish and not professional. Any negative sentiment one has on anything that is meant to help promote the image of Tunku must be given credit where it is due, regardless of what materials are used to do so. The ends justify the means, as they say…
What more since the documentary was produced to highlight hidden aspects of the Tunku and his family which no one could find anywhere else?
Is jealousy was the main reason why the English publications ignored the documentary?
That could be the main reason why their writers and editors who did not bother to even mention the production and broadcasting of this special documentary.
It’s as though the documentary did not happen; it was not produced and broadcast.
Unfortunately, the documentary has been produced and broadcast, and despite the reservations some of the writers in these publications have, the documentary exists and it lives. It can be shown on television in the country and elsewhere, again and again.
It was shown in a film festival in Dhaka last March.
And the more those outside of Malaysia knows about Tunku, the more they will want to see this special documentary.
The fact that Tunku was the first secretary-general of the Organization of Islamic Council (OIC) has not been said too often. If this gets to the attention of the right persons, chances are his deeds will start to be remembered by many Muslims.
Being the first prime minister of Bapa Kemerdekaan of Malaysia may not ring a bell in the international community and amongst the Muslim Ummah. But being the first secretary-general of the OIC and its founder can.
Therefore, I can understand the utter contempt the writers have of this documentary. Because they are naïve not to know what it was meant to do and achieve.
It’s not difficult for me not to forgive them because they are not well educated in film. They can never go far in their writing on film.
They thought they had a good and valid reason for not liking the documentary which they thought had personal materials on Tunku and they related to my personal family relationship and connection to his like it is such a bad thing. Why should it be?
Did this bother them? What could anyone in my position do with it?
(Note: All the photos of Tunku and his family taken by Syed Abdullah Barakhbah have been bought by Arkib Negara following the production of the documentary, so they are now in their care and can be accessible to the members of the public.)
I have formal training in journalism and also film. I also studied the documentary and from the materials I had I thought I could come up with an interesting one on Tunku, which no one in the country could do.
I had written better pieces on film and television which were published in all the major Melayu and English newspapers including the NST, and even had a column in the Sunday Star for a while.
So I know what a good and interesting documentary is more than anyone who writes about films in the newspapers in the country. It’s just that I did not have editorial control to chide some articles that were published or sack anyone for having written lousy pieces.
I also have an exclusive tape recording of an interview I did with Tunku in 1986. It was done at his residence in Bukit Tunku which I had not revealed before. I transcribed it and sent a story on it to the Star but they declined to publish it.
I asked Tunku a lot of things which no one had asked him before on his student life at Cambridge and his interests in life and the cinema for which he wrote some screenplays for Shaw Brothers.
Finas and the ministry of information, communication and culture or KPKK like it and immediately approved my proposal to produce the documentary so that the exclusive materials I have on Tunku could be shown in a production and in the style no one had seen before.
If it was on a former American president or an international pop star, surely, such a documentary on him would have been hailed, and the director given due recognition for ‘exposing’ the other side of this character.
Unfortunately, it did not happen with Tunku.
Comments