WHY THE SPECIAL DOCUMENTARY ON TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN WAS IGNORED BY THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE NEWSPAPERS. – PART II.
…WILL TUNKU AGAIN IS IGNORED IF SOMEONE COMES WITH A SIMILAR DOCUMENTARY ON ANOTHER COLLETION OF PERSONAL PHOTOS OF HIM AND HIS FAMILY?
By Mansor Puteh
(NOTE: FILMS AND VIDEOS ON THE COMMUNISTS AND MELAYU LEFT GET WIDER COVERAGE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE NEWSPAPERS.
THE ONLY DOCUMENTARY ON TUNKU WAS SABOTAGED. EVEN A FILM ON A FORMER STRIPTEASE DANCER BEING MADE IN SINGAPURA IS GIVEN A LOT OF ATTENTION BY AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE PAPER IN MALAYSIA.)
IN FACT, ANYTHING THAT HAS A LEFTIST SWING WILL GET THE WIDE COVERAGE, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS ON HOW TO CHALLENGE THE MELAYU EXISTENCE AND THEIR HISTORY IN THE COUNTRY.
There are small screenings of these videos which could get wide publicity. There are strong reasons to prove that the media has been taken on a long road to prop up the left and anti-Melayu and anti-Malaysia sentiments in Malaysia.
The production of the documentary on Tunku has managed to reveal all this and more…
Our writers are in a daze; they are confused when they saw the documentary, because it did not fit into their thinking of things. Tunku meant something else to them. I did not show that to them in my documentary.
They only wanted a one-dimensional image of Tunku, while my aim and that of Finas’ was to produce a documentary to show the other side of him.
I could have also given personal anecdotes on Tunku and appeared in many of the scenes, but I didn’t. I also did not profile my family in it.
I gave Tunku all the attention. I also gave those who knew him a platform for them to tell the other side of tTunku, which no one would bother to do.
What’s wrong with that? After all, they had earlier written glowingly on the book on food which Tunku had liked.
They also often wrote interviews with Tunku’s former staff such as his driver and gardener. They had stories which they could write themselves, so that is why they were found to be interesting because the writers could claim literary credit for writing the report for them>
Don’t they know anything on Tunku was and is still interesting? Or, have they started to find him not so anymore? It is barely twenty years since Tunku died on 6 December, 1990.
It was supposed to be the most interesting documentary on Tunku Abdul Rahman, our first prime minister and Bapa Kemerdekaan which contains materials not many had seen before.
As the producer and director I took great pains to discover the three places in England where Tunku had lodged at.
Unfortunately, not many writers could see these.
Only Utusan Malaysia and the Malay Mail gave prominence to the production of this documentary. They were doing a great service to Tunku Abdul Rahman. They were not doing me a favor as the director.
They would do the same promotions of the documentary if it was done by someone else.
In fact, if there is another person who has personal materials on Tunku and is doing another special documentary on him, I’m sure these papers will also give him due recognition.
And it was only the Malay Mail which bothered to release the story which they put on the front-page on Tunku’s safe which had been left for more than thirty years in the Residency. Rais Yatim got someone to prise open it where they found some forty-four items in it. They have been described as ‘national treasures’.
I gave the lead to the New Straits Times and the Star but they declined to carry it. But they and the other papers including RTM, gave prominence on the opening of the safe.
Finas liked the documentary so much that they insisted that the names of two of their executives be given special credits for the production. This happened while we were dealing with some issues they raised for which all were explained.
So no wonder the final version of the documentary is almost the same as the first version.
Two Berita Harian writers criticized the production of my documentary. And they were later given recognition with the Anugerah Wartawan Hiburan by Finas recently.
The forty-eight-minute documentary was shown on TV1 on 7 March without any promotions by the station. The television listing was for another program called ‘Sehati Sejiwa’. But the documentary was shown instead.
I was in Nottingham, England that day. I had a day earlier shown the same documentary to the Malaysian students of the University of Nottingham and discuss it with them.
I later visited Cambridge University and gave the library of St. Catharine’s College a DVD of the documentary that they are keeping. In fact, it is exactly one year ago today that I was there.
I also visited the owners of the two houses in Cambridge where Tunku had lodged at in 1919 and 1920s when he studied at the university.
There is another building in Barkston Garden in London where Tunku had lodged at in the 1940s.
These are facts that were disclosed in the documentary. They are on the places where Tunku had lodged at. And they are Malaysia’s heritage buildings in England.
The three buildings therefore, must be given due recognition being the heritage buildings of Malaysia in England. And special commemorative plaques are placed on the walls of those buildings.
And the English Heritage organization must be informed of this so they can also place the ‘Blue Plaques’ on them too.
There can never be other buildings in England which can also be described as Malaysia’s heritage buildings in the country other than these three.
Unfortunately, the writers do not see it that way. They missed this fact and the many others that are abundant in the documentary.
And they could not see the photos of Tunku that I had shown in the documentary to know how he behaved with his family and how those who were close to him reminiscence about him.
Yet, the newspapers found the documentary uninteresting.
The truth is that not many writers can see these. One has to be formally trained in film and knows the documentary tradition and style, and also a strong interest in the history of the country and on Tunku himself.
Most likely they ignored the documentary because they did not want their readers and the whole country to know of the special family connection I had with Tunku’s family through the marriage of Syed Abdullah and my sister, Rokiah binti Puteh.
These were probably the reasons why the newspapers did not bother to write on the production and broadcasting of the documentary.
This is fine, if they say they are doing Tunku a service so that the public does not know him better.
But wasn’t this exactly what the documentary was all about? That it was not meant to be an official one which RTM and Filem Negara Malaysia (FNM) can do anytime?
Finas and the ministry of information, communication and culture (KPKK) were excited with the prospect of seeing such a documentary that has unseen and personal photos and other materials on Tunku which could enlighten the Malaysian public on who he was like in private and amongst close family members and friends?
It is therefore wrong on the part of the writers to try and look for another documentary on Tunku to write on? Chances are they won’t be able to find one anytime soon. And they have missed the boat.
Even the other English language newspapers had also ignored this documentary. It is probably for the same reason, that they were confused as to what it was all about.
The fact is the New Straits Times had on 29 and 30 August, 2005 published some of the personal family photos of Tunku for their special Merdeka Day special and tribute to Tunku for that year.
And in doing to, they must have upstaged the other papers who did not know how on earth the NST could get into their possession such intimate photos of Tunku and his family.
And it could only happen because I thought of them first so I told them about the existence of the photos taken by Syed Abdullah who is Tunku’s nephew whom he and Mak Engku or Tun Sharifah Rodziah had adopted. Syed Abdullah happens to be my brother-in-law.
I was dealing with the senior editors of the NST and had given them the photos three days before they were published. Yet, they did not even found it interesting to do a write-up or brief interview with the photographer to allow their readers to know who had taken the photos.
In fact I was also not given due recognition for exposing the photos to the NST then who their readers did not know who had provided them with the photos and the story behind them.
Yet, five years later, the same paper had found these photos which are in the documentary to be uninteresting.
Lastly, what can the NST and the other publications do to promote Tunku?
By Mansor Puteh
(NOTE: FILMS AND VIDEOS ON THE COMMUNISTS AND MELAYU LEFT GET WIDER COVERAGE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE NEWSPAPERS.
THE ONLY DOCUMENTARY ON TUNKU WAS SABOTAGED. EVEN A FILM ON A FORMER STRIPTEASE DANCER BEING MADE IN SINGAPURA IS GIVEN A LOT OF ATTENTION BY AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE PAPER IN MALAYSIA.)
IN FACT, ANYTHING THAT HAS A LEFTIST SWING WILL GET THE WIDE COVERAGE, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS ON HOW TO CHALLENGE THE MELAYU EXISTENCE AND THEIR HISTORY IN THE COUNTRY.
There are small screenings of these videos which could get wide publicity. There are strong reasons to prove that the media has been taken on a long road to prop up the left and anti-Melayu and anti-Malaysia sentiments in Malaysia.
The production of the documentary on Tunku has managed to reveal all this and more…
Our writers are in a daze; they are confused when they saw the documentary, because it did not fit into their thinking of things. Tunku meant something else to them. I did not show that to them in my documentary.
They only wanted a one-dimensional image of Tunku, while my aim and that of Finas’ was to produce a documentary to show the other side of him.
I could have also given personal anecdotes on Tunku and appeared in many of the scenes, but I didn’t. I also did not profile my family in it.
I gave Tunku all the attention. I also gave those who knew him a platform for them to tell the other side of tTunku, which no one would bother to do.
What’s wrong with that? After all, they had earlier written glowingly on the book on food which Tunku had liked.
They also often wrote interviews with Tunku’s former staff such as his driver and gardener. They had stories which they could write themselves, so that is why they were found to be interesting because the writers could claim literary credit for writing the report for them>
Don’t they know anything on Tunku was and is still interesting? Or, have they started to find him not so anymore? It is barely twenty years since Tunku died on 6 December, 1990.
It was supposed to be the most interesting documentary on Tunku Abdul Rahman, our first prime minister and Bapa Kemerdekaan which contains materials not many had seen before.
As the producer and director I took great pains to discover the three places in England where Tunku had lodged at.
Unfortunately, not many writers could see these.
Only Utusan Malaysia and the Malay Mail gave prominence to the production of this documentary. They were doing a great service to Tunku Abdul Rahman. They were not doing me a favor as the director.
They would do the same promotions of the documentary if it was done by someone else.
In fact, if there is another person who has personal materials on Tunku and is doing another special documentary on him, I’m sure these papers will also give him due recognition.
And it was only the Malay Mail which bothered to release the story which they put on the front-page on Tunku’s safe which had been left for more than thirty years in the Residency. Rais Yatim got someone to prise open it where they found some forty-four items in it. They have been described as ‘national treasures’.
I gave the lead to the New Straits Times and the Star but they declined to carry it. But they and the other papers including RTM, gave prominence on the opening of the safe.
Finas liked the documentary so much that they insisted that the names of two of their executives be given special credits for the production. This happened while we were dealing with some issues they raised for which all were explained.
So no wonder the final version of the documentary is almost the same as the first version.
Two Berita Harian writers criticized the production of my documentary. And they were later given recognition with the Anugerah Wartawan Hiburan by Finas recently.
The forty-eight-minute documentary was shown on TV1 on 7 March without any promotions by the station. The television listing was for another program called ‘Sehati Sejiwa’. But the documentary was shown instead.
I was in Nottingham, England that day. I had a day earlier shown the same documentary to the Malaysian students of the University of Nottingham and discuss it with them.
I later visited Cambridge University and gave the library of St. Catharine’s College a DVD of the documentary that they are keeping. In fact, it is exactly one year ago today that I was there.
I also visited the owners of the two houses in Cambridge where Tunku had lodged at in 1919 and 1920s when he studied at the university.
There is another building in Barkston Garden in London where Tunku had lodged at in the 1940s.
These are facts that were disclosed in the documentary. They are on the places where Tunku had lodged at. And they are Malaysia’s heritage buildings in England.
The three buildings therefore, must be given due recognition being the heritage buildings of Malaysia in England. And special commemorative plaques are placed on the walls of those buildings.
And the English Heritage organization must be informed of this so they can also place the ‘Blue Plaques’ on them too.
There can never be other buildings in England which can also be described as Malaysia’s heritage buildings in the country other than these three.
Unfortunately, the writers do not see it that way. They missed this fact and the many others that are abundant in the documentary.
And they could not see the photos of Tunku that I had shown in the documentary to know how he behaved with his family and how those who were close to him reminiscence about him.
Yet, the newspapers found the documentary uninteresting.
The truth is that not many writers can see these. One has to be formally trained in film and knows the documentary tradition and style, and also a strong interest in the history of the country and on Tunku himself.
Most likely they ignored the documentary because they did not want their readers and the whole country to know of the special family connection I had with Tunku’s family through the marriage of Syed Abdullah and my sister, Rokiah binti Puteh.
These were probably the reasons why the newspapers did not bother to write on the production and broadcasting of the documentary.
This is fine, if they say they are doing Tunku a service so that the public does not know him better.
But wasn’t this exactly what the documentary was all about? That it was not meant to be an official one which RTM and Filem Negara Malaysia (FNM) can do anytime?
Finas and the ministry of information, communication and culture (KPKK) were excited with the prospect of seeing such a documentary that has unseen and personal photos and other materials on Tunku which could enlighten the Malaysian public on who he was like in private and amongst close family members and friends?
It is therefore wrong on the part of the writers to try and look for another documentary on Tunku to write on? Chances are they won’t be able to find one anytime soon. And they have missed the boat.
Even the other English language newspapers had also ignored this documentary. It is probably for the same reason, that they were confused as to what it was all about.
The fact is the New Straits Times had on 29 and 30 August, 2005 published some of the personal family photos of Tunku for their special Merdeka Day special and tribute to Tunku for that year.
And in doing to, they must have upstaged the other papers who did not know how on earth the NST could get into their possession such intimate photos of Tunku and his family.
And it could only happen because I thought of them first so I told them about the existence of the photos taken by Syed Abdullah who is Tunku’s nephew whom he and Mak Engku or Tun Sharifah Rodziah had adopted. Syed Abdullah happens to be my brother-in-law.
I was dealing with the senior editors of the NST and had given them the photos three days before they were published. Yet, they did not even found it interesting to do a write-up or brief interview with the photographer to allow their readers to know who had taken the photos.
In fact I was also not given due recognition for exposing the photos to the NST then who their readers did not know who had provided them with the photos and the story behind them.
Yet, five years later, the same paper had found these photos which are in the documentary to be uninteresting.
Lastly, what can the NST and the other publications do to promote Tunku?
Comments