Singapore & Malaysian writings

essay by cheryl yow
Post Colonial Writings from
Singapore and Malaysia.

Abraham Isaac, teacher of Latin, philosopher and father,

has, after many years, one young pupil.

 Memories are significant in this novel:

of Rose, his first love; Mercy, his stubborn sister;

of Rani, his beloved wife,

of days of youth and promise, 

of the politics of Singapore in the 50s and 60s.

He had a valuable role to play

as a proud citizen of a new country,

Singapore. 

But now he is old, and the burden of his years

weighs on him heavily.

Distanced from a present devoid of idealism

and obsessed with power and money,

Abraham is estranged

from his strong, successful son.

Descending into the past,

Abraham is led from the promise of youth,

through cynicism born of experience,

to an understanding and reconciliation of his life

and times hard-won in maturity.

Question:
With reference to at least one theoretical essay from your
Offprints Collection, apply the notion of heteroglossia to
Philip Jeyaretnam’s ‘Abraham’s Promise’ and one Malaysian
text.




Heteroglossia refers to the myriad nuances of social
meaning in words associated with the intention of the
speakers. The different voices of heteroglossia
represent the different perspectives of the world
(mostly different voices of conflicting discourses),
each with its own distinct signature of meanings and
values of the particular speaker. Using heteroglossia,
both Philip Jeyaretman’s ‘Abraham’s Promise’
and Lee Kok Liang’s ‘Return to Malaya’ bring
forth the issues of post-colonial situation in
Singapore and Malaya through post-colonial
discourses. These discourses include the discourse
of patriarchy and hegemony, the discourse of
subalternity as well as the discourse of identity; and these
discourses concur with post-colonial theories: Spivak’s
subalternity and epistemic violence, Fanon’s three
psychological phrases, Hall’s notion of identity, Said’s
Orientalism and hegemony as well as Bhabha’s concept
of hybridity and ambivalence.



Heteroglossia - the different voices of Abraham’s Promise
reveals how Abraham, nurtured by patriarchy discourse, takes
on the role of authority and superiority. Hence, he
unwittingly creates a binary division with those close to him:
he, the coloniser while his son and his sister, the colonised.
His adamant disapproval of Victor’s lifestyle and sexual
orientation; his condescending and dismissing attitude toward
Mercy when she cries for help made him lose his sister and
almost lose his son. Mercy, is the representative of the
female subaltern whom Spivak asserts ‘The subaltern as female
cannot be heard.’ Even when asked of her decision to go to
Colombo, she speaks ‘I will stay with you’(AP 289), however
she is not heard. Since then she lost her voice as she feels
abandoned by her family. Decisions were made for her
constantly; assumedly for her own good. When the innocent
accidental tea cup incident becomes a great humiliation,
Abraham asks why did she agree to meet the suitor, ‘Was I
asked?’ is Mercy’s reply (AP 309). Also, when she says that
David looks down on Appa and Abraham, Abraham dismisses her
‘David is a good man’, ‘How do you know?’ she asks (AP 325).
She has clearly no voice.




Abraham assumes the air of superiority by aligning himself
with the coloniser’s religion, culture and language: Latin.
Here, Abraham is in Fanon’s first psychological phrase-
assimilating the coloniser’s language and culture. Abraham
uses the coloniser’s ‘supreme’ heritage to upgrade his status
in the society. In Yeo’s cocktail party in which he feels
intimidated by those self-assured individuals, he uses his
‘intellectual’ knowledge of Latin to gain recognition and
attention. He seems to impose the coloniser’s ideals onto
others (especially his student); in Spivak’s term - he is
‘committing epistemic violence’ - influencing others with the
White European epistemology. In a sense, he is said to
hegemonize others (gaining dominion through control of,
knowledge and culture ).




Hall advocates that identity is not something that is
inherently pre-existing inside of us, instead identity is
constructed externally from the outside: where cultural
values become internalised into our consciousness and we
start to assume that culture. Abraham’s identity is built
mainly around the impression of a Latin teacher. Through the
coloniser ideology he is taught to hate his own skin - as in
Said’s Orientalism, where the coloniser constructs the Other
(the colonised) negatively, thus Abraham acquires a distaste
for his culture. He is ashamed of his Tamil roots- when he
walks through the commercial heart of Indian community, he
‘fears of contamination... unable to shake off the centuries
of caste and tradition’(AP 318). Even at Yeo’s party, when he
is humiliated, Abraham claims ‘ I have spoken.... betraying my
Tamil otherness, most of all my insignificance’.(AP 316)
However, though Abraham is ashamed of his Indian roots he
asserts that he never wanted to be an Englishman –‘I wanted
only to be a Singaporean’ (AP 348). However the identity of a
Singaporean is what Bhabha termed as in the ‘ambivalent’ stage
due to Singapore’s pluralistic society and her heterogeneous
population. Abraham and even Rose with her rich English timbre,
are considered hybrid forms: neither Tamil nor Western, thus
their hybridity render their identities ambivalent .




Various political stances represented through heteroglossia
reveal the rickety situation of the so-called prospect of
Singapore Independence. Self-rule according to Abraham’s
parent means the rule of the majority (Chinese) and Mr
Supramaniam warns that Chinese are different from the Indians
- politics is a very serious matter: it’s about power and
making money. Abraham’s letter to The Straits Times shows his
political stance: all men are equal and all sections of the
society are free to voice their opinions ‘the right to speak
one’s mind’ (AP 321). It is evident that the minority has no
power to speak. Abraham, could be considered a subaltern as
he is from a minority ethnic group and he is being
marginalised because he has no power due to his low
socioeconomic status . Thus he is dismissed unfairly by the
school, merely because he wrote a political commentary. The
voices of his colleagues reminding him that they cannot
support him as they have wives and children, affirm how the
marginalised others have no voice in the political arena.
While Abraham is concerned with the naive notion of equality
and justice; Krishna is more realistic, ‘It’s not a question
of who’s right and wrong....We have to show who’s boss. Only
if we’re feared can we do what has to be done.’ (AP 344). The
supreme power lies with the government – assuming the role of
the coloniser, they control the political arena, the schools
and even the newspaper : ‘for only one position was ever
properly reported. Other viewpoints were ignored or distorted.’
(AP 350). Here is the issue of representation, the newspaper’s
representation is the government’s representation and that is
the only acceptable viewpoint.




Similarly, as in Abraham’s Promise, the application of
heteroglossia in ‘Return to Malaya’ attempts to highlight the
predicament of the marginalised others including the subaltern
female and the ambivalent phase of personal and national
identity. The multi-layering of voices divulge the post-
colonial situation in Malaya which oscillates around Fanon’s
three phrases: between the lingering Western hegemony and
creating a national identity. The political decision of
creating an authentic Malay national identity by discounting
the English language resulted in an economic vacuum. The
different voices of the subaltern reveal their quandary:
lacking in tools and knowledge they are trapped in their
languish existence. Women are displayed through Said’s
Orientalism - the image of sensual ‘sarong-soaked bodies’
and the essentialist image of dependant women who obediently:
‘licked their lips and ‘looked at their masters’(RTM 109).
The subaltern woman who resists ‘Why can’t I talk?’( RTM 112).
She can talk, she can resist, but as Spivak asserts ‘The
subaltern as female cannot be heard’. The subaltern’s children
with ‘lusty lungs’ - depicts their youthful energy, yet lacking
in opportunities, they are unaware of their imminent fate. They
either end up as crafty gamblers in the side-alleys or live
through their parents’ hollow existence. This sets the resigned
tone of the subaltern -‘They could understand sighs’ probably
 because ‘they had been used to losing so many things’(RTM107 ).




The search of a personal or a national identity is in the
ambivalent phase. The persona’s diasporic condition is set in
Fanon’s second phrase where one is compelled to search for
one’s roots: an organic sense of self. The sense of being a
Chinese is ambivalent - the persona’s return from aboard,
inculcated with western values, ideals and modernity, may not
connect with the authentic Malayan scene of ‘Malay women...
wearing coloured sarongs... rattan baskets balanced on their
heads..’ and breast-feeding their babies or bathing in the
river (RTM 109 -110). Additionally, the persona also cannot
connect with the languish subaltern even if the persona is
sympathetic to their plight. Trapped within this ambivalent
position, the persona is unable to find his/her authentic,
organic self since self has become hybridized with western
values and ideals.




The use of heteroglossia in both ‘Return to Malay’ and
‘Abraham’s Promise’ highlights the realism of the issues left
behind by the colonial legacy: the ambivalent phrase of personal
and national identity, the plight of the subaltern and the
marginalised other ; a sense of nostalgia – the lost past and
the rediscovery of self and nationhood. Additionally,
‘Abraham’s Promise’ also bring forth the patriarchy discourse
which rules the family, parallels the way the country rules
its people through its supreme hegemony.

(1369 words)



Bibliography
Ashcroft, Bill, Griffiths, Gareth, and Tiffin, Helen. Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts. London: Routledge, 2000.

Jeyaratnam, Philip. Tigers in Paradise, the collected works of Philip Jeyaratnam, Times Editions- Marshall Cavendish. Singapore: National Linrary board, 2004

Lee, Kok Liang. ‘Return to Malaya’ in Post-Colonial Writings from Singapore and Malaysia, Asia Pacific Version, Anthology. Singapore: SIM University, 2001.

Walder, Dennis, Chitra Sankaran and Ban Kah Choon. Post-Colonial Writings from Singapore and Malaysia (Study Guide). Singapore: SIM University, 2001.

Walder, Dennis., Chitra Sankaran, Rajeev Patke, Thiru Kandiah and Ban Kah Choon. Post-Colonial writings from Singapore and Malaysia (Offprints Collection), Asia Pacific version. Singapore: SIM University, 2001


MARK 85

Tutor Comment:
Cheryl,
This is a very well written essay that discusses
heteroglossia and various po-co issues with much clarity.
You provide ample examples to show the reader how
heteroglossia functions in discussions of hybridity,
patriarchy, subalternity and Otherness, citing theorists,
and explaining some of theory, when needed.

Overall, the essay is a very good attempt at a discussion
of a rather complicated concept.

Thanks,
Regards,
Priti

PS: I wish to thank you for your participation throughout
this course. It was a pleasure to have had you in the
class. Thank you, and good luck in your future endeavours.