By Shamsul Akmar

                  DURING this time of the great Malay political divide, the Malay hikayat or
                  legends have again crept to the forefront to somewhat re-affirm their relevance in
                  the rush to the new millennium.

                  When Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was sacked, supporters likened his
                  circumstance to that of Hang Nadim, the boy-genius of the Singapore Malay
                  sultanate of the past.

                  The sultanate was then said to be under the attack by swordfish and many of
                  the populace were killed until Hang Nadim came up with the idea to put up
                  banana trunks along the beach.

                  The swordfish were wiped out and Hang Nadim, instead of being glorified, was
                  killed because the Ruler, under the influence of courtiers, believed that given his
                  intelligence, the boy would be a threat to him.

                  For Anwar supporters, the Hang Nadim story seems apt to describe the fate of
                  the former deputy prime minister, especially when it occurred when Malaysia
                  was under attack, not by swordfish, but financially and economically.

                  The only twist here is that unlike Hang Nadim, Anwar did not solve the
                  problems of the currency attack.

                  Then, Anwar's detractors used the story of Raja Abdullah of Perak to undermine
                  the ousted leader.

                  They equate Anwar to Raja Abdullah, who, in a desperate bid to secure the
                  Perak throne, had turned to the British for help.

                  Similarly, Anwar is seen as seeking the support of the Americans, in the likes
                  of Vice-President Al Gore and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who in
                  turn, seem to be as supportive as the British were towards Raja Abdullah in the
                  19th century.

                  However, there is also a twist with the Raja Abdullah story as he, after securing
                  the Perak throne, was later seen as one of the earlier day nationalists after
                  being involved in the plot to kill James Birch, the British Resident.

                  Another legend which has come to the fore of late is that of Sang Rajuna Tapa.

                  It surfaced after the revelations by Parti Keadilan Nasional Youth chief Mohd
                  Ezam Mohd Nor that Anwar had kept secret Government documents abroad
                  and would use them against the present leadership.

                  To those who oppose Anwar, this is an act of treachery, equal to that of Sang
                  Rajuna.

                  Legend has it that Raja Iskandar Shah, also of the Singapore Malay Sultanate
                  made Sang Rajuna's daughter one of his consorts and as time progressed, she
                  became his favourite.

                  Envied by the other consorts, they plotted against her and managed to convince
                  Raja Iskandar that she was two-timing him.

                  The Ruler, convinced, impaled Sang Rajuna's daughter along with her accused
                  lover.

                  Humiliated, Sang Rajuna vowed to avenge her daughter by communicating with
                  the Majapahit empire which had ambitions of making Singapore one of its
                  colonies.

                  According to the story, despite having placed the island under siege, the
                  Majapahit army could not secure victory as it could not penetrate the strong
                  fortress surrounding Singapore.

                  Sang Rajuna opened the gates, allowing Majapahit to move in and this marked
                  the beginning of the colonisation of Singapore.

                  While there may be no visible gates to open, detractors of Anwar believe that
                  secret government documents abroad are potential tools of blackmail and
                  capable of making the Government vulnerable to hostile forces.

                  However, for Ezam and other Anwar's advocates, such acts should not be
                  construed as treason or betrayal but should, instead, be deemed a "brave" deed
                  to reform a corrupt, despotic and cruel government.

                  Amid all these, numerous questions emerge as to how Anwar managed to get
                  his hands on the documents.

                  In addition, one will also wonder as to when he started collecting those five or
                  six boxes of documents--whether it was while he was still serving as the Deputy
                  Prime Minister and Finance Minister or after he was sacked.

                  If it was before, then, accusations of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir
                  Mohamad and other leaders involved in a political conspiracy against Anwar
                  sound hollow.

                  On that score, then it was Anwar, during his tenure in the Government, who had
                  been planning and plotting to bring about the downfall of the Prime Minister.

                  However, if the documents were collected after his sacking, then it proves that
                  the Government apparatus, from the civil service to political machinery, are all
                  for Anwar.

                  While these questions will remain unanswered and the opposing forces will put
                  forth arguments to justify their deeds or misdeeds, the dichotomy of the
                  hikayats should not be ignored.

                  In Sang Rajuna for example, the Malays are not left with much choice in how
                  they can reconcile with the moral promoted by the legend.

                  On one side, they have to accept that Raja Iskandar is a cruel ruler who
                  impaled Sang Rajuna's daughter based on accusations made by her enemies.

                  As such, Sang Rajuna should be accepted to have the justifications in
                  attempting to take revenge against the Ruler.

                  Given the circumstances, Sang Rajuna's decision to turn to Majapahit should
                  be understandable as he had to turn to a strong force to fight against Raja
                  Iskandar, an equally powerful institution.

                  On the other hand, surely it is not justified for Sang Rajuna, in pursuing his
                  personal vendetta, to sacrifice the whole Malay kingdom and its populace and
                  subject them to colonisation.

                  That colonisation was the beginning of the downfall of the Malay empire in
                  Singapore and today, the community has no standing whatsoever in the island.

                  At the same time the parallels being drawn between the Sang Rajuna legend
                  and the Anwar saga cut across both the present Malay political divisions.

                  From the start of the crisis, Dr Mahathir had been painted as a ruthless and
                  cruel leader and Anwar a helpless victim by his supporters, in many ways,
                  similar to that of the Sang Rajuna situation.

                  At this juncture, the Malay populace needs to determine whether there is truly a
                  cruel leader, a helpless victim, a plot with foreigners to seek revenge and to
                  secure the "throne" or whether exacting such revenge is justified even at the
                  expense of the nation.

                  The answers for these questions will not come as easy as some of the Malay
                  privileges that had rolled onto their laps.

                  Efforts need to be put in. Reading history and hikayats can be enlightening.