Surging Disquiet

9 August, 2012

by Syukri Shairi

A play of a tragedy: Rumah Anak Teater presents ‘Beng Hock’. 

“It was so real,” gasped a lady, teary-eyed. The show has just ended, and her voice came out frail, shaken as if she has witnessed the actual event revealing before her eyes. She is, apparently, the former colleague of the persona – the very central theme of the whole play – and like many of the late Teoh Beng Hock’s loved ones, the wound of the calamity remains fresh in their hearts.

‘Beng Hock’, rooting from the initiatives nurtured by Rumah Anak Teater, took a look at a story already dense with interpretations from varying angles: a tale of tragedy, conspiracy, suspicion and even revolt. The play’s attempt to dismiss the most extreme of these angles can be felt, yet for most of the time in ‘Beng Hock’, it is the wittily-driven elements of balance that drive the play.

Three years onwards after the incident, sparks of the controversies are still well and alive. With sentiments deeply revolving around the core content of the play, it is only fair to accept that the effort to translate this memory into a form of a play proved to be challenging.

Director Hariry Jalil related this context well. Setting off with a neat composition, he crafted the play along with producer Faisal Mustaffa’s careful touch – poignancy, it seems, was meant to be a part of the outcome.

However, for the peevish few, the idea to reenact the tragedy that once took place at the Selangor MACC Headquarters in Shah Alam, appeared alarming: the production is alleged to be receiving some scrutiny from certain factions of the authorities upon its initiation. “It’s unsurprising,” noted actor Azrul Azizi, who is playing one of the interrogation officials.

It has been strongly highlighted, nonetheless, that the play holds the Royal Commissions of Inquiry’s report as guideline. Faisal has acknowledged that the production team even ‘refrained from meeting the late Teoh’s family members’, in order to allow the interpretations offered by the play to appear ‘as neutral as possible’.

Despite the objectivities, the play displays no hesitation in allowing the subjective to prosper through silence. The 45-minute play offered a touch radical enough to redefine the space between silence and noise, interlacing anxiety with suggestions of despair.

In essence, it was a journey that witnessed the final ‘fight’ between the silent struggle of Teoh and the interrogation officials, whose ill-intentions are aimed at propagating fear and intimidation.

This fight, a flashback, was told through a fast-forward in time. The play touched down with a young man facing the dilemma of being recently unemployed, sitting on a bench at a park – attracting a stranger to relate a ‘much sadder story, happened 20 years ago’. The stranger, played by Nurbaya Hassan, argued that the young man’s problem is ‘nothing’ to be compared to Beng Hock’s: who lost to his fiancée, and a child in waiting.
Consequently, the mind of this young man, personified by newcomer Shufitri Sukardi, penetrated into the story – placing himself as Teoh, further embracing the fight that the late DAP aide had. Clarifying the backbone of the play, the interrogation scene departed from the brief composure by all parties existent in the beginning of the session, to the spiralling frustrations vividly shown by the officers towards Teoh.

The oft-disturbing wrath of the three officials were seen relenting, from time to time, by the intervention of the much soft-spoken ‘boss’, but not for long. The boss, portrayed by Amirul Effendi, seemed to be providing relief to the already drained out Teoh – it had been eight, long hours of continuous interrogation – through consoling words of diplomacy.

Teoh’s firmness, however, got to all four of them, and what should have been a ‘tease’ led to the infamous fall. Returning to the present-day scene on the park bench, the baffled young man was given a parting reminder by the stranger: above all, he should be grateful that he is still alive.

But the message of the play definitely transcends that. The plot of the play provided a stern warning against complacency, and that Malaysians should do more besides sliding into the comforts of being grateful.

The solemnity reminded the audience of a darker shade of country. The play offered a space for the viewers to ponder about how power abuse is now invading even the most personal space of people – strong verbal accusations towards Teoh, immoral suggestions of his sexual life by the officials, and of course physical abuse, further solidifies this fact. Pray tell, how many more souls will be robbed with such distaste?

‘Beng Hock’ offers the choice to the audience to think about how much power we have in the wretched face of misused power. It refreshes our minds of how the notion of holding on to accountability and credibility stretches beyond the anger of injustice. It re-examines our priorities, pushing the juggle between our wants and needs to its edge – where to place a right mind, in the rage of insanity?

As the play concluded – occupying the gaps of the noises, residing within the silence –‘Beng Hock’ knocks hearts with a surging disquiet; of how the quest to uphold justice is, indeed, real. – The Rocket

‘Beng Hock’, a Rumah Anak Teater production, was staged at KLPac, Sentul Park, from 6 July to 8 July 2012. It was also staged in PenangPac on July 13 and July 14. More information at their Facebook page:

This article was written by on Thursday, August 9, 2012 at 2:47 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply

Other News

The story behind parliamentary written replies

23 July, 2014 0 Comments

By Lu Wei Hoong Early last month, PKR’s Bagan Serai MP N Surendran slammed the institution of Parliament as “a waste of money”, because recent events have shown that it merely acts as a “rubber stamp” for the government of the day. To members of the media who cover the ... Full Article →

Artist Zunar, relentless fighter against tyranny (Part 2)

23 July, 2014 0 Comments

(…continuation from part 1) Since 2009, we still haven’t seen other cartoonists who shine other than yourself. Why is that so? Ok. With regard to this, I can only provide the space and guidance for cartoonists, I wont be able to turn them into successful cartoonists. That is for themselves ... Full Article →

Thank you, veterans! Because of you, DAP prevails

2 April, 2014 0 Comments

On 2 March, Penang Chief Minister and DAP MP for Bagan Lim Guan Eng hosted a private dinner in honor of the Penang state DAP veterans. There are over 120 veterans in the state who have been party members for over 30 years. Of the number, about 70 turned up ... Full Article →

What’s wrong with the Terengganu crisis?

5 June, 2014 0 Comments

by Political Studies for Change (KPRU) Election fever has become a phenomenon in this equatorial country ever since the March 8 political tsunami, which has changed the political landscape, though the political transformation has not completed yet. To a certain extent, each legislature at federal and state level has put a different complexion on politics. The recent Terengganu political crisis and the storming of the Penang state assembly by UMNO members have to do with legislative politics. Legislative politics is different from election politics. From the parliament to legislature assembly in each state, the most frequent question that has been asked by people is about the attendance of members of elected representative, and as for some other incidents that have happened in legislature they have merely formed a part of their memory as people might find them obscure. Obscurity has become a byword for these pieces of memory due to the fact that people might not have the foggiest about these floating debris of memory. The most unforgettable legislative incident to the people goes to the seizure of power in the Perak state, and despite that, people did not necessarily follow on all the details and issues arising from the incident of seizing power in Perak state. This time - the Terengganu crisis is not only a political crisis, but also a ‘legislative crisis’. The lack of pressure from people in Terengganu lies in the insufficient knowledge about legislative which has saved Najib Razak’s shaky hold on power, as well as the dying Terengganu political and legislative crises from the jaws of death. The incident got serious. Media started to report extensively and non-UMNO members in BN also thought that it was a red flag. However, from the Prime Minister Najib’s statement announcing that the Sultan of Terengganu, Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin had consented to the resignation of Ahmad Said as well as the appointment of Ahmad Razif Abd Rahman as the new Terengganu Menteri Besar; to the dramatic twist of events where Ahmad Said and and two other UMNO state assemblymen quited the party and then later returned to the party, there appeared an unification in media reporting of the incident from the preparedness to deal with the incidents from different angles. As stability wins over anything else, water leaves behind no trails in its path. From Najib’s statement on 12th May 2014 to the new Menteri Besar Ahman Razif’s taking of oath of office before Sultan Mizan; and to the former Menteri Besar Ahmad Said’s announcement made at his official residence in Kemaman as to his decision to withdraw his resignation from UMNO, the whole process took shorter than two days. Nonetheless, all of the incidents that have occurred in the midst of the Terengganu crisis must not be dismissed out of hand, particularly when comes to the interpretation of matters involving legislative, which calls for some clarification and so that when similar event takes place in future, people in the particular state would no longer stay static in the face of the crisis. This Terengganu crisis, after Ahmad Said and two other UMNO state assemblymen quited the party, left Barisan Nasional with 14 state seats, against Pakatan Rakyat’s 15 in the assembly, giving an equation of 15:14:3, with 3 being the “independent reps”. On the same day, that is, 13th May, the Terengganu state legal advisor Datuk Azhar Abdul Hamid, when contacted by Bernama, has claimed that despite the fact that the number of BN assemblymen had dropped from 17 to 14, the state assembly Speaker was counted as a representative of the ruling state government, thereby giving an equation of 15:15:3. It was Wesak day, which is also a public holiday. After founding director of think tank Political Studies for Change (KPRU), Ooi Heng and his family offered prayers in a Buddhist temple and after he came across Azhar’s misleading statement, Ooi Heng shared his personal view on Facebook, taking the view that the Speaker shall have the casting vote only when the voting comes down to a tie. After talking to a journalist, Ooi Heng is even convinced that the real reason behind Terengganu state legal advisor making misleading statement was to buy some time for UMNO’s political power, so as to resolve the political and legislative crisis. The Federal Constitution has given exposition on legislative power, which includes both parliament and state assembly, and under which the Speaker’s voting right is also covered. The Federal Constitution is basically modeled on the Westminster parliamentary system. Schedule 8, Paragraph 10 (1B) of the Federal Constitution makes it clear that the Speaker of legislative assembly who is not an elected representative has no voting power. Whereas according to the Article 27 (1B) of the Constitution of Terengganu, non-member of the Assembly elected as Speaker has no voting right. Terengganu assembly speaker, Mohd Zubir Embong, is not an elected representative, as he was appointed as assembly speaker on 16th June 2013 after being defeated in the election for Kuala Terengganu parliamentary seat. Hence, the controversy over the question of whether the speaker’s vote can be counted shall not even arise. In fact, not only does the state assembly follow the Westminster legislative custom, but the parliament of Malaysia is also following the system. The Article 57 (1A) of the Federal Constitution clearly provides that any person elected as Speaker of the House of Representatives who is not a member of the House of Representatives has no voting right. Furthermore, according to the Standing Order 45(1), the speaker shall be entitled to give his deciding ballot only when the voting comes down to a tie where ayes are equal to noes. This deciding ballot can be known as the casting vote, or ‘undi pemutus’ in Malay. The aim of this article is to clear doubts on this legislative incident, and as far as the Speaker’s voting right is concerned, no critical comment is intended to be directed at the roles that both government and the opposition have played in this political power crisis. However, I am of the opinion that despite the misleading statement by the state legal advisor, government and opposition elites should still be held responsible politically for this legislative incident. It is indeed bizarre that both government and opposition have no idea about the legislative procedures in the Terengganu state assembly when most of the assembly members are from UMNO and PAS. In the two days within which the 3 UMNO state assemblymen became ‘independent reps’ (Less than 48 hours), Terengganu state assembly has actually been beset with crisis. While there was likely UMNO fall down in Terengganu, UMNO has nonetheless got themselves some time to stabilise their shaky hold on power. Apart from UMNO taking the lead in this incident, the fact that PAS was being indifferent to the misleading statement will go down in the history of legislative politics. History is bound to repeat when political elite’s political action has not been properly examined. -The Rocket * The views expressed in this article are the personal opinion of the columnist ... Full Article →