Monday, March 29, 2010

The Japanese Occupation (1942-1945)

In 1942, Singapore officially fell to the hands of the Japanese and this marked the start of a difficult and distressing 3 years and 8 months of Japanese Occupation. This period had especially been trying for the bangsawan troupes. In an interview with an ex- bangsawan performer, Wan had commented that, ‘Arah Bangsawan [had] disbanded and I have to perform odd jobs here and there to earn some pocket money. These are hard times’[1] during the period of the Second World War. The remaining bangsawan troupes were facing much curtailment and had to seek approval from the Japanese authorities to continue performing. Another ex- bangsawan performer, Rahman B. also revealed that his father’s troupe had to obtain the permission in order to continue performing and they were compelled to ‘change the name of their troupe to Ohaiyo Gozaimas Opera and had to perform Japanese propaganda stories that supported the Japanese’[2]. This was an apparent form of cultural propaganda used by aggressors to manipulate the minds of the masses and maintain the prestige of the Japanese Empire. In order to keep bangsawan traditions alive, the troupes had to conform to the strict regulations imposed by the Japanese. To the masses, bangsawan was simply a form of entertainment, something to enjoy in their spare time. However, as seen from the struggles of keeping the troupes and hardships to continue bangsawan performances, bangsawan was the sole source of livelihood for these performers. Furthermore, these ‘performers [had] regarded the troupe of which they are members as a substitute family’[3]. This showed that there was strong cohesion within the bangsawan troupes, and disbanding would not only lose them a job, but a family as well. Seeing the change of bangsawan performances from Malay traditional classics to Japanese propaganda stories, one could observe and imagine the oppression and domination of the cultural arts scene perpetrated by the Japanese military. However, the attitude displayed by these performers portray their determination and the ‘never give up’ attitude from their persistence despite facing harsh treatment from the Japanese authorities.

Furthermore, Japanese officials often harassed the female actresses of bangsawan troupes. This had resulted in many of them abandoning their jobs and returning back to their villages while their husbands stayed on to perform in Singapore. Although female bangsawan performers were known to be empowered and independent with the rise of bangsawan initially, this revealed the inclination of females to depend on their male counterparts in times of needs. This exemplified the gender difference in Singapore society that is patriarchal in nature, where men are the breadwinners and decision-makers of the family. This reflected the conservative attribute of Asian society where the males welded greater responsibilities and power over females both at home and at work place.

Though the Japanese were at war against Singapore, they had been rather lenient towards the Malays as compared to the Chinese. For example, ‘the Military Administration adopted a policy of non-interference in local cultural practices, giving due respect to Islamic and Malay customs’[4], while the Chinese were treated harshly under the Japanese Administration. This might be attributed to the Malays’ non-involvement in communism, and also to their support in driving out colonialism as they felt that the Western colonial powers had ‘failed to ensure the progress of Muslims’[5] while the Japanese government had professed the dubious intention to safeguard Islam. Therefore, bangsawan, being Malay popular theatre, was no doubt controlled but not banished into obscurity by the Japanese, and the performers could continue stage their shows.



[1] Tan, Bangsawan, p. 165.

[2] Tan, Bangsawan, p. 165.

[3] Tan, Bangsawan, p. 69-70.

[4] Ahmad A. T., “Japanese Policy Towards Islam in Malaya During the Occupation”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 33,1 (Feb 2002), p. 107.

[5] Ahmad, “Japanese Policy”, p.111.

No comments:

Post a Comment