Case Study of the 1965 Malaysia-Indonesia Confrontation. Azahar Harun1, Mohamed ... Korea-South Korea, India-Pakistan, China-Taiwan and Iran-. Iraq are still struggling to ..... Abdullah Hussain (1991). Kamus istimewa peribahasa Melayu.
Anthropomorphism in Political Cartoon: Case Study of the 1965 Malaysia-Indonesia Confrontation Azahar Harun1, Mohamed Razeef Abd Razak2, Ariff Ali 3, Muhammad Nur Firdaus Nasir4, Lili Eliana Mohd Radzuan5 Faculty of Art & Design1,3,4,5 Universiti Teknologi MARA Melaka, Malaysia
Faculty of Art & Design2 Universiti Teknologi MARA Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
Abstract—This research sets out to examine a political cartoon that focuses on the 1965 Malaysia-Indonesia Confrontation or better known as “Ganyang Malaysia”. Created by an anonymous artist, the cartoon represents the late Indonesian President, Sukarno as anthropomorphized “Ayam Jantan” (a rooster) crowing at the hill of the Federation of Malaysia. Using Saussure’s semiotic analysis as research method, we attempt to extract the visual elements and interpret its latent meaning in relation to the issue. The findings suggest that the political cartoon under study possesses a strong metaphor that links to a classic Malay proverb “Bagai ayam sitombong, kokok berderai-derai, ekor bergelimang tahi” (Like a rooster that crows a lot but its tail is smeared with its own droppings) which means a person who likes to boast about himself but could not cater for his family. In relation to this, it is also discovered that the anthropomorphic caricature is not only intended to ridicule the confrontation issue but could also be seen as a protest towards Sukarno's controversial foreign policy.
campaign called “Sweeping Malaysia”. According to an online report, BENDERA has openly declared war and that the group is said to expel Malaysians who reside in the country. In addition to that, BENDERA also claims that Indonesian people are “ready to storm Malaysia even armed with indigenous weapon such as bow and arrow”. This provocative campaign was linked with several issues concerning Indonesia’s sovereignty, which BENDERA claims Malaysia has violated. J. Saravanamuttu (2010) highlights some of the incidents pertaining to BENDERA’s act of protest that includes the issue off illegal workers and migrant; the beating of Indonesian karate contender by alleged Malaysian policemen during the Asian Karate Tournament held in Negeri Sembilan in 2000; the issue of “Tarian Pendet” or the Javenese tradiosional dance and the national anthem “Negaraku” and the claim of Sipadan and Ligitan island in south of Sabah [2]. The feeling of uneasiness among Indonesian people towards Malaysia actually has rooted since the reign of the late president Sukarno. In the following text, we will discuss how the conflict began.
Keywords—anthropomoprhic caricature; political cartoon; semiotic
I.
INTRODUCTION
As far as diplomatic relations is concerned, it could be considered that Malaysia and Indonesia are like siblings. The fact is that there are many commonalities, which both countries share particularly in terms of geography, economy, religion, cultural arts and political history. In spite of this, in reality, this so called “sibling relationship” between Malaysia and Indonesia is not always in the best state. Scholars in psychology note that sibling relationship is much more challenging compared to other kind of relationship (Burhmester & Fuhrmen, 1990, cited in Jan Blacher and Gazi Begum, 2011) [1]. Perhaps this is why countries such as North Korea-South Korea, India-Pakistan, China-Taiwan and IranIraq are still struggling to overcome their differences. In the case of Malaysia-Indonesia relationship, apparently there are many diplomatic issues, which have yet been resolved. Recently, an Indonesian extremist group BENDERA (Benteng Demokrasi Rakyat) had launched a provocative
II.
HISTORY
According to Malaysia history, in July 27, 1963 Indonesia’s president Sukarno had openly protested the formation of new Federation of Malaysia. The president turned outraged when the prime minister of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman rushed to form Malaysia in 1963 before the result of public’s opinion from Sarawak and Sabah was officially released by the United Nation. Tunku’s action was seen as an insult to Indonesia and perhaps also to Sukarno himself. In a public rally, Sukarno vowed in front of his people that by January the first 1965, he will literally crush Malaysia. Thus a campaign called “Ganyang Malaysia” was declared. According to Greg Poulgrain (1998) the protest was driven by Sukarno’s expansion ambition to reclaim territory that was formerly under the Dutch colonial rule [3]. As a result, tension especially at border area between two countries had escalated. Despite Sukarno’s offensive decree, in reality the actual war never did happen. Instead, according to
Polugrain “a small scale skirmish guerrilla tactics” took place in the border area (Sarawak and Johor) but the mission “failed to overturn or disrupt the integration of Sarawak and Sabah into the Federation of Malaysia". Ironically, Indonesian authorities denied any involvement and blamed “enthusiastic idealists” for carrying out the operation independently. The flame of anger which Sukarno had fan through “Ganyang Malaysia” campaign slowly diffuses itself as Indonesia was forced into a major economic crisis. On March 11, 1966 Sukarno signed an executive order transferring his authority to the army led by General Suharto (Gross, 2006) [4]. Under Suharto leadership, Indonesia took a 180-degree turn looking at the economy as the important national policy and silenced the anarchic politics of Sukarno. Then on August 11, 1966, Suharto presided over a peace treaty that was held in Jakarta. The treaty was signed by the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Razak Hussien and Indonesian Foreign Minister, Adam Malik. The signing of the treaty marks the end of the 1965 Malaysia-Indonesia Confrontation. III.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
The provocative “Ganyang Malaysia” campaign launched by Sukarno had captured the attention of the press media from both countries. In The unfinished business between Indonesian and Malaysian: Indonesia media perspective of Konfontasi, Rudi Sukandar (2010) reports that from 1963 until 1964, three influential Indonesian magazines, Harian Medeka, Panjsila Magazine and Antara Weekly Review have aggressively published articles pertaining to the confrontation [5]. Similarly, in Malaysia, several documentaries about the confrontation were also produced by Filem Negara Malaysia (FNM). In relation to this, perhaps the most controversial one was a political cartoon drawn by a local anonymous artist. The cartoon is a black and white hand drawing (14 cm x 16 cm) and it features two representation subjects. The first subject portrays an anthropomorphized creature (half human and half rooster) and the second subject portrays the Federation of Malaysia (see Fig. 1). The cartoon is published in the Encyclopedia of Malaysia: Government and Politics and can also be retrieved from Arkib Negara or the National Archive center.
Aside from the use of anthropomorphic caricature, another important element found in the drawing is a slogan that reads “SA-BELUM SATU JANUARY MALAYSIA AKAN DIGANYANG” which translates: Before January the first, Malaysia will be crushed. The slogan that seems to emerge from the caricature’s mouth significantly marks the turning point for the diplomatic relationship between Malaysia and Indonesia. As far as this study is concerned, surprisingly there has been no research about the political cartoon of the 1965 Malaysia-Indonesia Confrontation thus creates a gap in the history of Malaysian media. Hence, the following questions are posed. 1. What are the signifier and signified components exhibited in this cartoon? 2. What is the significance of “Ayam Jantan” (rooster) in relation to the confrontation issue? In order to answer these questions, the study attempts to encode and decode the meaning embedded in the political cartoon. This will be discussed further in the Method and Analysis section. IV.
METHOD AND ANALYSIS
The method used in this study is referred as Semiotic Analysis, which is founded by a Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure in 1966. In Media Analysis Techniques, Arthur Asa Berger (2005) states that Semiotic analysis concerns the study of sign and interpretation of its latent meaning. Since visual is also a sign that carries meaning, thus semiotic analysis can be applied to anything, in particular those that “involves or are concerned with communication and the transfer of information” (p. 5) [6]. In Semiotics: the Basics, Daniel Chandler (2002) states that Saussure puts emphasis on two divisions of sign, that is, signifier (sound or image) and signified (concept) [7]. Saussure states that these two divisions cannot be separated but depend on each other in order to form meaning. In this sense, the signifier is considered the primary meaning while the signified is the secondary meaning. Saussure theorizes that a visual (symbols, image, illustration) possess a characteristic that contains a signifier which is essential to form the meaning (Berger, 2005) [6]. Before the analysis task could be carried out, first the artifact had to be broken up into individual visual subjects. To execute this task, we had to trace the outline of the drawing using a stylus and a digital tablet. The aim here is to omit the detailing (texture and shading) so that focus could be given on the visual form. Next, an open coding approach is used which is done by indentifying, naming and tagging each of the visual subjects with numeral code. From this process, we were able to extract six (6) different visual subjects (see Fig. 2).
Fig. 1. A political cartoon of the Malaysia-Indonesian Confrontation era
V.
RESULT SAND DISCUSSIONS
Politically, the cartoon is provocative but cynical at the same time. Its main purpose was to deliver message that Indonesia being the so called “Ayam Jantan” should not be underrated and if so, Malaysia will have to face a brutal punishment through its sharp claws and spurs. In another perspective, it was also an attempt to satirize Sukarno’s political view. Regardless of whatever assumptions it may offer, perhaps the most interesting part about the cartoon is how anthropomorphism was exploited by the artist to convey the issue.
Fig. 2. Visual subjects found in the artifact
A. Anthropomorphized Rooster (1) The illustration of an anthropomorphized rooster found in this cartoon signified threat. This is noticed through the depiction of spur and physical form of the fowl. In Indonesia and Malaysia, a rooster is a special fowl and often breed for fighting and gambling. The game is bloody and may end up with serious injury or even death. B. Songkok (Traditional cap) (2) “Songkok” is a traditional cap commonly worn by Indonesian and Malaysian gentleman. Functions as an accessory to complement formal wear, “Songkok” dignifies a person’s status and wealth in the society. Hence the illustration of “Songkok” or traditional found in the drawing thus signifies Sukarno personality. C. Malaysia, Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah (3) The illustration of Malaysia, Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah is portrayed as a hill, which stand firmly on the ground. This formation signified unity and superiority. D. The Sunrise and the year1965 (4) The illustration of sunrise symbolizes hope and the year 1965 printed inside the sun signifies new era. E. Slogan (5) The slogan “SA-BELUM SATU JANUARY MALAYSIA AKAN DI GANYANG” is a propaganda which is meant to ignite patriotism feeling among Indonesians and to intimidate Malaysia. F. Island of Indonesia (6) The illustration of Indonesia (Sumatera, Java, Borneo & Kalimantan), which is represented as patches is dwarfed by the sheer size of Federation of Malaysia (including Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak) thus symbolizes inferiority
The portrayal of Sukarno as half- human and half fowl (anthropomorphic) is straightforwardly incongruous and absurd. Then again the question is why the artists choose to depict a rooster? The truth is, a rooster has a significant symbolic representation in Malay culture. According to Lim Kim Hui (2010) it is common in Malay culture that animals are described as analogy in classic Malay proverbs [8]. Kim Hui observes that among the three hundred and twenty six (n=326) of common animals found in Malay proverbs (Abdullah Hussain, 1991), the fowls are on the top of the list with 54 entries [9]. Kim Hui asserts that fowl and water buffalo are the “closest friends to the paddy farmers” (p.62). This is because, the fowl acts as the alarm clock to wake up the farmer in the early morning whereas the water buffalo is function as a tractor that is useful for plowing the paddy field. Despite the positive values associated with fowl, Kim Sui also argues that there are some negative analogies that are commonly used by the Malay people. Consider the following examples. “Ibu Ayam” which refers to a hen actually means a woman who acts as a go-between for prostitutes; “Bapa Ayam” or rooster refers to an unworthy father; “Hangathangat tahi ayam” (as hot as fowl's droppings) means not doing something whole-heartedly and “Cakar Ayam” or the scratching of chicken means poor handwriting. Most of these examples are meant to compare and associate the characteristic (physical and behavior) of the animals to the real person. As what Wan Abdul Kadir (1993, p.27) puts it “The Malays can understand the behavior of animals around them. That animal behavior is then used as insinuation towards human. One who compared to certain kinds of animal can understand its meaning. This symbolic expression has become part and parcel of the Malay culture inherited for quite some time” [10]. Regarding the image of the rooster as depicted in the political cartoon, the study also found two possible proverbs that reflect the situation. The first is “Ayam Menang Kampung Tegadai” (Rooster wins, but the whole village loose) and the second is “Bagai ayam si tombong, kokok berderai-derai, ekor bergelimang tahi” (Like a rooster that crows a lot but its tail is smeared with its own droppings). In this case, we argue that the second proverb is more suitable to be considered. Despite Sukarno’s menacing image, his act was merely an oral exercise. On the other side, Malaysia, which is featured as a hill stands firmly on the ground. She is an inanimate subject, which means she does not respond to the
crows. There is a Malay proverb, which suits this situation as well for instance, “Anjing menyalak, bukit takkan runtuh” (a dogs barks, hill will not crumble). According to Imran Ho Abdullah (2011), this particular proverb depicts two binary opposition subjects “Anjing” (dog) which is an antagonist (bad person) and “Bukit” (hill) that refer to a protagonist (good person) [11]. In addition to that, we would like to highlight another important subject in the proverb that is the word “menyalak” or barking. Generally, in Malay culture, the word “menyalak” is commonly used as a figure of speech, which refers to someone who makes a loud noise for the sake of attracting attention and annoying others. This kind of act is seen as a worthless effort and the noise produced by the person is often ignored because it lacks truth and credibility. Similarly, the slogan that reads “SA-BELUM SATU JANUARY MALAYSIA AKAN DI GANYANG”, can also be regarded as nothing but an irritating noise. Perhaps the artists intended to show that although the slogan may sound forceful, it will not cause serious damage to the Federation of Malaysia because it comes out from the mouth of a strange looking personality. VI.
CONCLUSION
This study has shown that anthropomorphism has the potential to play an effective role in political cartoon. In the case of 1965 Malaysia-Indonesia Confrontation, we found that the political cartoon is not only rare but is also highly valuable particularly in terms of Malaysian political history and Malay culture. Based on the semiotic analysis findings, we conclude that the use of anthropomorphized rooster and the depiction of Federation of Malaysia as a hill provide a cultural perspective about the confrontation issue. The late Indonesian president, Sukarno is portrayed as a vocal and furious “Ayam Jantan” that is ready for a bloody fight. On the other hand, Malaysia which is depicted as a hill seems to be silent but stands firmly and strong. The sheer size of Federation of Malaysia in comparison to the patches of Indonesia (Sumatera, Java, Borneo and Kalimatan) thus implies that she is not easily intimidated by the war cry uttered by Sukarno. Overall, the incongruity of the anthropomorphic caricature found in the 1965 Malaysian-Indonesian Confrontation political cartoon does not only ridicule Sukarno’s foreign policy but also provokes emotional response and invites cultural as well as intellectual debates. REFERENCES [1]
[2] [3] [4]
Blacher, J. & Begum, G. (2011). Sibling Relationship quality and adjustment: Consideration of Family, Genetics, Cultural Expectations and Disability Type. (ed). Hodapp, R. M In International Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities (pp. 164-189). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. J. Saravanamuttu (2010). Malaysia's Foreign Policy: The First Fifty Years: Alignment, Neutralism and Islamism. Singapore: Institute of South East Asian Studies. Poulgrain, G. (1998). The Genesis of Konfrontasi: Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, 1945-1965. (p.2). NSW: CHP Production. Gross, M.L. (2010) A Muslim archipelago: Islam and politics in Southeast Asia. Center for Strategic Intelligence Research (U.S.).
[5]
Sukandar, R. (2010). The Unfinished Business Between Indonesian and Malaysian: Indonesia media perspective of Konfrantasi. In D. Rendro (Ed.), Beyond Borders: Communication Modernity & History (pp. 397408). Jakarta, Indonesia: STIKOM London School of Public Relation Jakarta. [6] Berger, A, A. (2005). Media analysis and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [7] Chandler, D. (2002). Semiotics: The basics. New York: Routledge. [8] Lim Kim Hui (2010). How Malay proverbs encode and evaluate emotion? A paremiological analysis. Sari-International Journal of the Malays World and Civilization. 28 (1).57-81. [9] Abdullah Hussain (1991). Kamus istimewa peribahasa Melayu. 2nd Edition. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. [10] Wan Abdul Kadir (1993). Beberapa nilai dan world view orang Melayu. Kota Bharu & Petaling Jaya: Masfami Enterprise. [11] Imran Ho Abdullah (2011). Analysis kognitif semantik peribahasa Melayu berasaskan anjing (Canis Familiaris). GEMA online Journal of Language Studies, 11(1), 125-141.
