马六甲文化旅游之－－苏丹宫廷文化构造马来种族身份认同感 （马来西亚）
Final project for Race and Ethnicity in Southeast Asian
Construct Malayness in Melaka’s cultural tourism
Introduction
Melaka is now marked not only as a city with diverse cultures, but also promoted for its historical significance where we witness the “birth of the nation”. Marketed by the slogan “where it all began”, Melaka is believed to capture the essence of Malayness with all the traditional Malay culture and life that is represented in touristic objects, among which a nostalgic Sultanate court culture is recalled. As much splendid as the traditional Malay culture is displayed in touristic presentation, we should be alert that such Malayness is more than a primordial one. Everything labeled “Malay” could be constructed by and webbed with intricate powers where different regimes of representations are likely to limit or essentialize our understanding of Malayness. Therefore, when being exposed to the colorful touristic representations, contextualized understanding of how certain Malayness is generated and for what purpose need to be pondered over.
In this paper, I will first provide a critical review on the concept of “cultural diversity” that is often used officially to characterize Malaysian society. It is against the backdrop of “cultural diversity” that we see Melaka successfully markets its ethnic heritage of Chinese, Malay, Indian and Peranakan cultures. What should be noted here is the way the cultural differences are conceptually stressed through touristic representations in a way that class struggle is apt to be overlooked under the disguise of “cultural diversity”. Second, among various ethnic representations in tourism, I will focus on the aspect of the construction of Malayness in which an overemphasis on Sultan culture is likely to ossify Malay culture into the past. I will try to trace the operating power from a nationalist discourse by reviewing Melaka in specific social and political contexts. Third, it is by a close look into the essentialist regime of representation that we come to understand how variations, deviations and differences are overlooked.
Malayness as a cultural identity, though can be rooted in certain primordial sense, is never value free as multiple touristic representations are usually embedded with intricate power constructions. Realizing what is going on behind the ostensible Malayness in the “multicultural” Melaka will not only help us to critically understand the Malay world that is showcased, but also encourage us to see the living Malay culture on the ground, stripping off all the possible ethnic stereotypes.
Why should there be “cultural diversity” in Melaka?
“Melaka should be seen in the context of the extraordinary country of which it is part. This is a unique multiethnic, multireligious, multicultural society, a microcosm of the future global world” (“Introduction to Malaysia”). Highlighted in the must-have tourist guidebook, this opening sentence set the tone for every tourist who is looking for the authentic Malaysian culture. As much attractive as the touristic promotion is, one cannot help asking why should this be so? In this part, I am very much enlightened by Kahn’s critical review of Malaysian “cultural diversity” which he sees is a misleading concept that is naturalized through the construction of cultural differences.
To begin with, a short scan of Melaka’s history will be helpful to understand the precursor of its constructed cultural difference. Melaka was originally a fishing village until the coming of Parameswara in the late 14th century, a prince from Sumatra who ran from Majapahit Empire and found refugee in this port, naming it “Malacca”. Due to its geographic significance, Melaka became a prosperous Sultan under Parameswara who promoted trading with the Chinese. The Melaka sultan ruled over the greatest empire in Malaysian history when the region witnessed the emergence of Peranakan Chinese settlement brought about by the flourishing trade. In 1509, the Portuguese ended Melaka’s sultanate by colonizing the region, leaving behind the heritage site such as the fortress of A’ Famosa, Catholic churches and more importantly, Eurasian community that is still present today. In 1641, the Dutch defeated the Portuguese and took control of Melaka, building a lot of European churches and architectures. In the 19th century, however, Melaka fell into the hand of the British who began to bring in large amount of labors from China and India who form a large portion of Chinese community and Indian community in today’s Melaka.
In the Guide to Melaka, the layout of the guidebook self-evidently informs the tourists that there are distinct communities congregate communally in different parts of Melaka, thus generating unique aura of Chinese culture, Malay culture Indian culture, and the Portuguese culture. For example, one can experience the Chinese culture in Jonker Street (Chinatown) that is largely dominated by Chinese temples, antique shops and Chinese food stalls. One of the most outstanding features that differentiate Chinatown from other communities is its dominant Chinese population, not only engaging in the production of Chinese art, such as antique shops and galleries, but also represent the living Chinese livelihoods such as trading business, clans associations and traditional architectures housing ordinary local Chinese’s household. Take another example of Malay community: special efforts are made to exoticize Malay traditional kampung in the east of the state and the Tanjung Kling district where tourists are supposed to experience authentic Malay way of living. Moreover, in Lonely Planet, one feels much tempted by the description of Villa Sentosa—a living museum where tourists are expected not only to visit the old kampung house, but also get to know the local Malay family (266).
A first glimpse of Melaka’s touristic representation may render a sense of excitement of the cultural differences that tourists used to take for granted. Yet given it a second thought, one will discover that such difference is deeply entangled with ethnicity. In the first place, it is the recognition of the distinctiveness of Chinese culture and Malay culture upon which that the differences between ethnic Chinese and ethnic Malays are based. Kahn states “culture is an intellectual construct. It exists, in other words, only in the mind of the observer (161).” In the light of Kahn, tourists usually take the position of the “observer” who understand, for example, Chinese and Malay cultures in a superficial way, essentialzing Chinese culture as static Chinatown and Malay culture as kampung, and more importantly, reducing all cultures to unrelated separate cubes. Yet the reality that there are not only Malay mosques in Chinatown, but also various Malays’ livelihoods are present is ignored. Likewise, tourists are blind from the fact that most middle class Malays live in newly constructed apartments, driving Toyota and having western food like any urban dwellers. Therefore, Kahn concludes that “to take it as axiomatic that Malaysian society is somehow made up of discrete and highly different groups…instead of a group of human beings who in all essential characteristics are the same is, therefore, more problematic than first appears” (163).
On top of that, by regarding ethnic difference as something primordial, the latent class struggle is more often than not overshadowed and undervalued. For tourists, the overwhelming signs of “cultural diversity” imply a harmonious society where people from different ethnic groups live together happily while maintaining their own distinctiveness. However, one will discover the reality is more complicated than appeared after talking to the locals for several minutes. When I was in Melaka, the conversation with a local Chinese taxi driver impressed me very much. The taxi driver not only took pride in the Chinese cultural heritage, but also displayed defiant attitude towards Malays’ touristic sites. When I said I would like to go to some places with Malay characteristics, he said to me: “there is nothing to see except for the kampung, we Chinese live in urban cities while they still live in rural kampungs, you should go to places such as Bukit Cina where we memorize the great Cheng Ho (Chinese historical figure who pioneered to explore Southeast Asia).” He further commented that though Malays occupy important positions in politics, we Chinese still dominate Melaka’s economy, working hard to enjoy city life while Malays are just being indulgent in government’s affirmative policies. We can sense that not only the taxi driver’s pride in Chinese’s self-made spirit is evident, but also there is a concealed class tension among different ethnic groups that might become more perilous under the disguise of “cultural diversity” promoted by Melaka’s tourism industry.
Constituting traditional Malayness in social political contexts
What makes Melaka touristic representation interesting is its role in the construction of Malaysian identity that basically roots in a nostalgic glorious past. In this part, I will first review the social contexts that give rise to the leveling of Sultanate past in touristic promotion. Not surprisingly, one will find the guidebook to Melaka gives priority to various public and private museums and theme parks that render an exotic aura of Malay Sultan court culture, such as the Melaka Sultanate Palace and the Mini Malaysia. The delicate construction of these museums is not a random one, but is tangled with dominant social political discourses since 1970s. The New Economic Policy promoted economic opportunities for the bumiputera (sons of the soil or the ethnic Malays). With this affirmative policy favoring ethnic Malays, the promotion of Malayness by Melaka’s touristic heritage was thus embedded in a national discourse. Worden (2010) reviewed a state-sponsored conference in 1971 on national culture, saying “stress on Malay traditional culture thus emphasized the antiquity and local specificity of the bumiputera over other Malaysians such as those of Chinese or Indian origin. Malaysian culture in this sense became Malay culture” (201). Furthermore, Worden (2010) holds that the 15th century Sultanate of Melaka was a symbol of prosperity and glory where Malay values not only rooted, but also transcended European powers (202). Therefore, different from Indonesia that sees its feudal tradition as a source of embarrassment, “in Malaysia Melakan feudal past was thus harnessed to a nationalism that promoted the symbolic powers of the Sultans and monarchy” (Worden, 2010, 203).
In spite of the prevalent national discourse, the construction of Malayness in Sultan tradition is also a response to the wider social changes. Kahn (1992) observes that the consumers of these Sultan images are overwhelmingly part of a growing Malay middle class. Resulting from the New Economic Policy, the emerging Malay middle class is urban-based, modernized while still maintaining some connections with the village life where they come from. So a sense of anti-modern nostalgia is generated to facilitate the promotion of tradition Malay culture (164-165). For example, the guidebook describes Mini Malaysian Park as a perfect view for traditional Malay houses, restaurants serving traditional cuisine and shops selling local handicrafts. Cultural performances such as traditional Malay dances and games are also held regularly (142-143). When I visited Mini Malaysia, I was surprised to find out the neighboring luxurious resorts and hotels in kampung style catering for mostly Malay tourists. My taxi driver also informed me that Mini Malaysia is only one portion of the whole touristic construction in Ayer Keroh, together with Crocodile Park, Melaka Zoo and Melaka Butterfly and Reptile Park, aiming at mainly domesticate consumers for short vacation. Likewise, Kahn’s observation shares some similarities with mine, saying that “the ratios were overwhelmingly Malays as opposed to western, Chinese and Indian…visitors were mostly middle class urban dwelling Malays…they come in cars, in small family groups, mostly in Malay/westernized dress” (169).
The essentialist regime of representation in Sultanate museums
It is particular significant to notice that while we discussed the “cultural diversity” in Melaka’s touristic representation, we should be aware that the difference stressed here is an essentialist one in that the Sultanate past is constructed as an unchanged essence of Malay identity that ignores real variations. For example, in the Melaka Sultanate Palace, the splendid royal life and rituals are overwhelming reproduced and exhibited in a courtly delicate manner. Though the guidebook states “the museum depicts the unique blend of cultures in Melaka at that time,” the stress is so predominantly placed on courtly culture as if it would speak for all Malay values regardless of ordinary Malay people’s life at that time. The implicit motivation, as far as I see, is to reclaim a sense of national pride pertaining the Malaysian national identity in the present times. The problem inherent with this construction is that it includes people yet meanwhile exclude, marginalize and oppress the others, such as the Chinese, Indians and the Eurasians who do not share the Malay Sultanate pride. Siapera (2010) further explains in “Self-Representations of Cultural Diversity” that “in this manner, this part of the regime effectively sets up ‘us’ and ‘them’ distinction in which ‘outsiders’ have no right to speak for, or even in connection with, the ‘insider’ community, as they are not ‘authentic’ bearers of the community’s identity” (151).
In the light of essentializing ethnicity, it is important to go deeper into the talk of “authenticity”. In what sense can we count a cultural presentation is authentic, rather than essentialized and even, is there any authentic representation anyway, in other words, authenticity defined by whom? In the Melaka Sultanate Palace, there displayed a classic story about two historical figures in Malay history, one is Hang Tuah who is seen as a representation of loyalty for rajas by killing his rebellion friend Hang Jebat. Hang Jebat, on the other hand, was seen as a bad rebel to the raja, but now is redefined as a righteous person who stands for justice, which is in accordance with the heroic spirit advocated by the post-independence nationalist discourse. In this manner, we see how the past is interpreted and reinterpreted for different purposes in the same way as ethnicity. In the same logic, culture is merely authentic in a sense it is constructed by members who represent the community (Siapera, 2010, 155). Furthermore, I also notice that there are complicated power struggles underway in dealing with colonial representations. As Worden observes “the strong image of a glorious Malay pre-colonial past conditions the representation of subsequent periods of Melaka’s history” (209). For example, the ways that Portuguese, Dutch and British are represented are quite contrasting. Worden reveals that the Portuguese are depicted negatively as exploiters while the Dutch are presented approvingly. The underlying reason for this, according to Worden is that Portuguese were believed to lead to the destruction of the Sultanate while the Dutch were said to allied with the Malay ruler of Johor (209-210). Therefore, one will ask to what extent can we believe the representation of Melaka history, is there authentic presentation in any sense? In the light of Saipera, authenticity becomes a security guard who defends those in power and excludes those follow a different route.
Conclusion
Melaka’s fame as a “touristic historic city” thus is a product of Malaysia’s cultural policy and historical construction. The way Malayness is constructed by Malay tradition and nostalgic Sultanate past is deeply intertwined with the nationalist discourse. As much successful as the construction of national identity is, we should be sensitive to the underlying perils that may contribute to an essentialist modal of understanding the Malay world. It is only by seeing how this Malayness is represented in tourism that we will be able to strip off the ethnic markers to truly make sense of Malay ethnicity.
Having reviewed how Malaysian national identity is constructed on the basis of Melaka’s historicity, it is important to note that there is the other side of the story in the discourse of modernization. During the trip in Melaka, I was surprised to see the shopping centers, resorts and recreation facilities being made to meet the demands of tourism. While still holds significance, I can sense that there is a shift of priority in Melaka’s tourism that placed interest in making Melaka a cosmopolitan with historical significance, for example, Mahathir called for “a new culture which is relevant to the present business climate”. The Malay host of the hostel I stayed also talked to me like this: “Malay culture here is almost ruined, it’s all done, if you want to see something Malay, go to the eastern part of Malaysia, I usually go there to experience the rural life, which is not yet polluted by tourism yet.” As much disappointed as I felt hearing this comment, the question remains how we understand Malayness, whether in a traditional sense or a modernized sense, needs to be contextualized critically.
Construct Malayness in Melaka’s cultural tourism
Introduction
Melaka is now marked not only as a city with diverse cultures, but also promoted for its historical significance where we witness the “birth of the nation”. Marketed by the slogan “where it all began”, Melaka is believed to capture the essence of Malayness with all the traditional Malay culture and life that is represented in touristic objects, among which a nostalgic Sultanate court culture is recalled. As much splendid as the traditional Malay culture is displayed in touristic presentation, we should be alert that such Malayness is more than a primordial one. Everything labeled “Malay” could be constructed by and webbed with intricate powers where different regimes of representations are likely to limit or essentialize our understanding of Malayness. Therefore, when being exposed to the colorful touristic representations, contextualized understanding of how certain Malayness is generated and for what purpose need to be pondered over.
In this paper, I will first provide a critical review on the concept of “cultural diversity” that is often used officially to characterize Malaysian society. It is against the backdrop of “cultural diversity” that we see Melaka successfully markets its ethnic heritage of Chinese, Malay, Indian and Peranakan cultures. What should be noted here is the way the cultural differences are conceptually stressed through touristic representations in a way that class struggle is apt to be overlooked under the disguise of “cultural diversity”. Second, among various ethnic representations in tourism, I will focus on the aspect of the construction of Malayness in which an overemphasis on Sultan culture is likely to ossify Malay culture into the past. I will try to trace the operating power from a nationalist discourse by reviewing Melaka in specific social and political contexts. Third, it is by a close look into the essentialist regime of representation that we come to understand how variations, deviations and differences are overlooked.
Malayness as a cultural identity, though can be rooted in certain primordial sense, is never value free as multiple touristic representations are usually embedded with intricate power constructions. Realizing what is going on behind the ostensible Malayness in the “multicultural” Melaka will not only help us to critically understand the Malay world that is showcased, but also encourage us to see the living Malay culture on the ground, stripping off all the possible ethnic stereotypes.
Why should there be “cultural diversity” in Melaka?
“Melaka should be seen in the context of the extraordinary country of which it is part. This is a unique multiethnic, multireligious, multicultural society, a microcosm of the future global world” (“Introduction to Malaysia”). Highlighted in the must-have tourist guidebook, this opening sentence set the tone for every tourist who is looking for the authentic Malaysian culture. As much attractive as the touristic promotion is, one cannot help asking why should this be so? In this part, I am very much enlightened by Kahn’s critical review of Malaysian “cultural diversity” which he sees is a misleading concept that is naturalized through the construction of cultural differences.
To begin with, a short scan of Melaka’s history will be helpful to understand the precursor of its constructed cultural difference. Melaka was originally a fishing village until the coming of Parameswara in the late 14th century, a prince from Sumatra who ran from Majapahit Empire and found refugee in this port, naming it “Malacca”. Due to its geographic significance, Melaka became a prosperous Sultan under Parameswara who promoted trading with the Chinese. The Melaka sultan ruled over the greatest empire in Malaysian history when the region witnessed the emergence of Peranakan Chinese settlement brought about by the flourishing trade. In 1509, the Portuguese ended Melaka’s sultanate by colonizing the region, leaving behind the heritage site such as the fortress of A’ Famosa, Catholic churches and more importantly, Eurasian community that is still present today. In 1641, the Dutch defeated the Portuguese and took control of Melaka, building a lot of European churches and architectures. In the 19th century, however, Melaka fell into the hand of the British who began to bring in large amount of labors from China and India who form a large portion of Chinese community and Indian community in today’s Melaka.
In the Guide to Melaka, the layout of the guidebook self-evidently informs the tourists that there are distinct communities congregate communally in different parts of Melaka, thus generating unique aura of Chinese culture, Malay culture Indian culture, and the Portuguese culture. For example, one can experience the Chinese culture in Jonker Street (Chinatown) that is largely dominated by Chinese temples, antique shops and Chinese food stalls. One of the most outstanding features that differentiate Chinatown from other communities is its dominant Chinese population, not only engaging in the production of Chinese art, such as antique shops and galleries, but also represent the living Chinese livelihoods such as trading business, clans associations and traditional architectures housing ordinary local Chinese’s household. Take another example of Malay community: special efforts are made to exoticize Malay traditional kampung in the east of the state and the Tanjung Kling district where tourists are supposed to experience authentic Malay way of living. Moreover, in Lonely Planet, one feels much tempted by the description of Villa Sentosa—a living museum where tourists are expected not only to visit the old kampung house, but also get to know the local Malay family (266).
A first glimpse of Melaka’s touristic representation may render a sense of excitement of the cultural differences that tourists used to take for granted. Yet given it a second thought, one will discover that such difference is deeply entangled with ethnicity. In the first place, it is the recognition of the distinctiveness of Chinese culture and Malay culture upon which that the differences between ethnic Chinese and ethnic Malays are based. Kahn states “culture is an intellectual construct. It exists, in other words, only in the mind of the observer (161).” In the light of Kahn, tourists usually take the position of the “observer” who understand, for example, Chinese and Malay cultures in a superficial way, essentialzing Chinese culture as static Chinatown and Malay culture as kampung, and more importantly, reducing all cultures to unrelated separate cubes. Yet the reality that there are not only Malay mosques in Chinatown, but also various Malays’ livelihoods are present is ignored. Likewise, tourists are blind from the fact that most middle class Malays live in newly constructed apartments, driving Toyota and having western food like any urban dwellers. Therefore, Kahn concludes that “to take it as axiomatic that Malaysian society is somehow made up of discrete and highly different groups…instead of a group of human beings who in all essential characteristics are the same is, therefore, more problematic than first appears” (163).
On top of that, by regarding ethnic difference as something primordial, the latent class struggle is more often than not overshadowed and undervalued. For tourists, the overwhelming signs of “cultural diversity” imply a harmonious society where people from different ethnic groups live together happily while maintaining their own distinctiveness. However, one will discover the reality is more complicated than appeared after talking to the locals for several minutes. When I was in Melaka, the conversation with a local Chinese taxi driver impressed me very much. The taxi driver not only took pride in the Chinese cultural heritage, but also displayed defiant attitude towards Malays’ touristic sites. When I said I would like to go to some places with Malay characteristics, he said to me: “there is nothing to see except for the kampung, we Chinese live in urban cities while they still live in rural kampungs, you should go to places such as Bukit Cina where we memorize the great Cheng Ho (Chinese historical figure who pioneered to explore Southeast Asia).” He further commented that though Malays occupy important positions in politics, we Chinese still dominate Melaka’s economy, working hard to enjoy city life while Malays are just being indulgent in government’s affirmative policies. We can sense that not only the taxi driver’s pride in Chinese’s self-made spirit is evident, but also there is a concealed class tension among different ethnic groups that might become more perilous under the disguise of “cultural diversity” promoted by Melaka’s tourism industry.
Constituting traditional Malayness in social political contexts
What makes Melaka touristic representation interesting is its role in the construction of Malaysian identity that basically roots in a nostalgic glorious past. In this part, I will first review the social contexts that give rise to the leveling of Sultanate past in touristic promotion. Not surprisingly, one will find the guidebook to Melaka gives priority to various public and private museums and theme parks that render an exotic aura of Malay Sultan court culture, such as the Melaka Sultanate Palace and the Mini Malaysia. The delicate construction of these museums is not a random one, but is tangled with dominant social political discourses since 1970s. The New Economic Policy promoted economic opportunities for the bumiputera (sons of the soil or the ethnic Malays). With this affirmative policy favoring ethnic Malays, the promotion of Malayness by Melaka’s touristic heritage was thus embedded in a national discourse. Worden (2010) reviewed a state-sponsored conference in 1971 on national culture, saying “stress on Malay traditional culture thus emphasized the antiquity and local specificity of the bumiputera over other Malaysians such as those of Chinese or Indian origin. Malaysian culture in this sense became Malay culture” (201). Furthermore, Worden (2010) holds that the 15th century Sultanate of Melaka was a symbol of prosperity and glory where Malay values not only rooted, but also transcended European powers (202). Therefore, different from Indonesia that sees its feudal tradition as a source of embarrassment, “in Malaysia Melakan feudal past was thus harnessed to a nationalism that promoted the symbolic powers of the Sultans and monarchy” (Worden, 2010, 203).
In spite of the prevalent national discourse, the construction of Malayness in Sultan tradition is also a response to the wider social changes. Kahn (1992) observes that the consumers of these Sultan images are overwhelmingly part of a growing Malay middle class. Resulting from the New Economic Policy, the emerging Malay middle class is urban-based, modernized while still maintaining some connections with the village life where they come from. So a sense of anti-modern nostalgia is generated to facilitate the promotion of tradition Malay culture (164-165). For example, the guidebook describes Mini Malaysian Park as a perfect view for traditional Malay houses, restaurants serving traditional cuisine and shops selling local handicrafts. Cultural performances such as traditional Malay dances and games are also held regularly (142-143). When I visited Mini Malaysia, I was surprised to find out the neighboring luxurious resorts and hotels in kampung style catering for mostly Malay tourists. My taxi driver also informed me that Mini Malaysia is only one portion of the whole touristic construction in Ayer Keroh, together with Crocodile Park, Melaka Zoo and Melaka Butterfly and Reptile Park, aiming at mainly domesticate consumers for short vacation. Likewise, Kahn’s observation shares some similarities with mine, saying that “the ratios were overwhelmingly Malays as opposed to western, Chinese and Indian…visitors were mostly middle class urban dwelling Malays…they come in cars, in small family groups, mostly in Malay/westernized dress” (169).
The essentialist regime of representation in Sultanate museums
It is particular significant to notice that while we discussed the “cultural diversity” in Melaka’s touristic representation, we should be aware that the difference stressed here is an essentialist one in that the Sultanate past is constructed as an unchanged essence of Malay identity that ignores real variations. For example, in the Melaka Sultanate Palace, the splendid royal life and rituals are overwhelming reproduced and exhibited in a courtly delicate manner. Though the guidebook states “the museum depicts the unique blend of cultures in Melaka at that time,” the stress is so predominantly placed on courtly culture as if it would speak for all Malay values regardless of ordinary Malay people’s life at that time. The implicit motivation, as far as I see, is to reclaim a sense of national pride pertaining the Malaysian national identity in the present times. The problem inherent with this construction is that it includes people yet meanwhile exclude, marginalize and oppress the others, such as the Chinese, Indians and the Eurasians who do not share the Malay Sultanate pride. Siapera (2010) further explains in “Self-Representations of Cultural Diversity” that “in this manner, this part of the regime effectively sets up ‘us’ and ‘them’ distinction in which ‘outsiders’ have no right to speak for, or even in connection with, the ‘insider’ community, as they are not ‘authentic’ bearers of the community’s identity” (151).
In the light of essentializing ethnicity, it is important to go deeper into the talk of “authenticity”. In what sense can we count a cultural presentation is authentic, rather than essentialized and even, is there any authentic representation anyway, in other words, authenticity defined by whom? In the Melaka Sultanate Palace, there displayed a classic story about two historical figures in Malay history, one is Hang Tuah who is seen as a representation of loyalty for rajas by killing his rebellion friend Hang Jebat. Hang Jebat, on the other hand, was seen as a bad rebel to the raja, but now is redefined as a righteous person who stands for justice, which is in accordance with the heroic spirit advocated by the post-independence nationalist discourse. In this manner, we see how the past is interpreted and reinterpreted for different purposes in the same way as ethnicity. In the same logic, culture is merely authentic in a sense it is constructed by members who represent the community (Siapera, 2010, 155). Furthermore, I also notice that there are complicated power struggles underway in dealing with colonial representations. As Worden observes “the strong image of a glorious Malay pre-colonial past conditions the representation of subsequent periods of Melaka’s history” (209). For example, the ways that Portuguese, Dutch and British are represented are quite contrasting. Worden reveals that the Portuguese are depicted negatively as exploiters while the Dutch are presented approvingly. The underlying reason for this, according to Worden is that Portuguese were believed to lead to the destruction of the Sultanate while the Dutch were said to allied with the Malay ruler of Johor (209-210). Therefore, one will ask to what extent can we believe the representation of Melaka history, is there authentic presentation in any sense? In the light of Saipera, authenticity becomes a security guard who defends those in power and excludes those follow a different route.
Conclusion
Melaka’s fame as a “touristic historic city” thus is a product of Malaysia’s cultural policy and historical construction. The way Malayness is constructed by Malay tradition and nostalgic Sultanate past is deeply intertwined with the nationalist discourse. As much successful as the construction of national identity is, we should be sensitive to the underlying perils that may contribute to an essentialist modal of understanding the Malay world. It is only by seeing how this Malayness is represented in tourism that we will be able to strip off the ethnic markers to truly make sense of Malay ethnicity.
Having reviewed how Malaysian national identity is constructed on the basis of Melaka’s historicity, it is important to note that there is the other side of the story in the discourse of modernization. During the trip in Melaka, I was surprised to see the shopping centers, resorts and recreation facilities being made to meet the demands of tourism. While still holds significance, I can sense that there is a shift of priority in Melaka’s tourism that placed interest in making Melaka a cosmopolitan with historical significance, for example, Mahathir called for “a new culture which is relevant to the present business climate”. The Malay host of the hostel I stayed also talked to me like this: “Malay culture here is almost ruined, it’s all done, if you want to see something Malay, go to the eastern part of Malaysia, I usually go there to experience the rural life, which is not yet polluted by tourism yet.” As much disappointed as I felt hearing this comment, the question remains how we understand Malayness, whether in a traditional sense or a modernized sense, needs to be contextualized critically.
