After more than 30 years, the issues discussed in Shaharuddin Maaruf’s Concept of A Hero in Malay Society remains as pertinent now as when it was first published in 1984. The title in itself belies the depth of the book. Maaruf does not simply describe the conception of heroes within the Malay world, but uses the discussion around these heroes as a launching pad to critique the values or social philosophy of the Malay elite through the centuries, and up until the current times. It is an attempted diagnosis of the ills plaguing specifically the Malay elite that in turn have had negative repercussions on the Malay masses. The book, according to Maaruf, is “not so much on heroes as on hero worshippers” and “attempts to show how prevalent ideals promoted by the elite impede progress.” He intends it as a reformist work that will aid in the progress of the Malay community. Throughout the book, Maaruf also measures the failures of the Malay elite against the framework of Islamic ethics, which he prescribes as a commonsensical antidote, since it provides a comprehensive and integrated value system for the Malays. To further problematise the dominant values of the elite, Maaruf also compares the feudalism of the Malay elite with authoritarian ethics. The feudalism of the Malay elite, akin to authoritarianism, was an ideology that functioned to keep the masses subservient through the perpetuation of their so-called inferiority. It is noteworthy that the Malay elite held values that were often conflicting to those of the Malay masses, who lived according to values of neighbourliness, cooperation, conformity and perseverance.
The prevalent conception of the hero in Malay society is described by Maaruf as embodying hedonistic, material values and perpetuating feudalism. The archetypes of these heroes are most popularly represented through Hang Tuah and Hang Jebat, as well as contemporary (at the time of publication) capitalistic heroes such as Paul Getty, who was known for a time, for being the richest American who ever lived. Hang Tuah was known for his unconditional loyalty to his King, the strength of which even saw him accept a death sentence for transgressions he did not commit. His ethical framework was one that deemed the good as actions that served his master’s convenience. This blind loyalty was based on the belief that his master was God’s representative on earth. While those who regard Hang Tuah as a hero do so on the pretext of his unwavering loyalty, Maaruf, does not find this worth lauding since it is a loyalty that “superseded ethical considerations”. Maaruf also found it erroneous that Hang Jebat’s anarchic and erotic tendencies were mistaken for altruism. The other conception of hero is the materialistic one, as exemplified through the lauding of figures like Paul Getty. This particular conception of a hero advocates for the pursuit of wealth regardless of the means employed. Ethical conduct and values are thus seen as secondary to accumulating wealth, with the elite advocating a political and fiscal type of capitalism. This is typical of a feudalistic attitude that exploits political and official positions for its own vested interests.
In studying how this conception of the Malay hero took root and spread in society, Maaruf notes that the feudalism of the Malay elite was consolidated and perpetuated under the British colonial rule before it was brought into party politics. Due to the fact that the elite also held control over mass media, this outlook was then disseminated to the masses, heralding an age where children grew up with the message that figures such as Hang Tuah were to be considered as heroes. The fossilisation of figures like Hang Tuah and Hang Jebat as heroes would continue, even to a point where these feudal personalities would be honoured by having places named after them. It is, in a way, a kind of idolatry. Due to the continued perpetuation of this conception of the hero which upholds values that do not inspire ethical conduct and progress, Maaruf believes that Malay society is riddled with the problem of an underdeveloped Malay elite. Summarising the problem, Maaruf finds that the Malay elite “lack respect and appreciation for intellectual and ethical developments and does not regard them as important or necessary for society”. He attributes this by a fundamental absence of an integrated and well-adjusted sense of cultural identity, along with their vested interests that thrive in an atmosphere where intellectual and ethical developments are obstructed. Additionally, he repeats the fact that the values they promoted were those that stood in contrast to the traits of a good leader as enjoined in Islam.
Analysing the concept of the hero as a method of diagnosing the ills of the Malay elite may seem absurd at first. One would presume a less literary approach would be needed for problems rooted very much in reality. But in fact, the hero is a conduit of values the culture and/or society finds laudable. The hero provides a microcosm of what is found noble, what is considered as great achievements and what people aspire to be. Through the analysis of a culture’s hero, one is able to study the values and ideals that motivate the hero-worshippers. In analysing the thinking of four members of the Malay elite, Maaruf identified and subsequently illustrated three distinctive features of their conception of heroes: (a) Deny people the right to judge their leaders in a society, (b) deterioration of moral standards, and (c) glorification of unethical philosophy and deeds. He also spent considerable attention on the book “Revolusi Mental” by the Secretary General of UMNO at the time, which sought to change the mentality of Malays. The book ends up being a justification of feudalism and materialism, advocating for the accumulation of wealth by individuals along with the three aforementioned values. It is not a book that pays attention to the masses or advocates for social reforms, but is instead only interested in protecting and furthering the fortunes of the elite.
This is in contrast to the Islamic and modern conception of leadership, which prioritises the welfare of the people. The conception of the Malay hero perpetuates the idea that does not breed leaders, but privileged individuals. It is probably no accident that these ideals have continued to be perpetuated by the elite when it leaves little space for them and their actions to be criticised by the wider public, the very people they were meant to serve. In fact, this conception of heroes has a weak conception of service. While it may cloak itself in the guise of empowering others, true empowerment cannot be achieved through the vast accumulation of wealth by a select few. If we were to use Islamic ethics as a guide, as Maaruf has throughout the book, we can see that the conception of heroes that is perpetuated by the Malay elite breeds a worldview that does not see beyond the desires of the individual. Morals and values are not objective guides to be followed, but are treated as supplements to be twisted for the higher law of self-interest. Such a worldview is not one that inspires the expansion of the mind and the community. Ironically, the elite are in fact setting the Malay community up for impoverishment when they internalise and perpetuate these ideals.
Diana Rahim is a writer, editor and visual artist currently working in a social services agency. Her writings have been anthologised most recently in Making Kin: Ecofeminist Essays from Singapore, Singa-Pura-Pura: Malay Speculative Fiction in Singapore, and Best New Singapore Short Stories: Volume 5.