Raja Bersiong or the Fanged King

ABSTRACT

Raja Bersiong, the Fanged King, is a cannibal monarch in the Kedah epic literature Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa (HMM). By looking closely into the character of Raja Bersiong, this article examines the underlying ambition of the Kedah Sultanate in commissioning the HMM as a rhetorical statement of power, presumably around the early 19th century. By the late 18th century, Siamese predation had greatly destabilised Kedah. Lacking military capacity to deny Siamese suzerainty, Kedah plunged into double-dealing: through writing, the HMM downplays Siamese power by masking Kedah’s subordinate status to Siam as a relation of kin, and by considering Siam as an offshoot of Kedah’s royal legacy. Adopting an approach informed by Hendrik Maier, this article interprets the HMM as an ambiguous text that alludes to the diplomatic desperation of a small state. Such critical lens enables a more complex understanding of court writing as a historical source. In the face of geopolitical insecurity, Raja Bersiong figures as the abject, the symbolic surrogate for Siam to be expelled from Kedah, embodying a dialectics between Kedah and Siam, self and other, civility and savagery.

KEYWORDS:

• abject
• ambiguity
• Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa
• Kedah
• Raja Bersiong
• Siam

Acknowledgements

The writing of this article began as a thought experiment to generate alternative ways of conceptualising diplomacy and international relations, for this I am thankful to Amedeo Policante for his encouragement. Parts of this article have been presented at the 10th Singapore Graduate Forum on Southeast Asian Studies, 24–26 June 2015, Asia Research Institute, Singapore, and the Inter-Asia Cultural Studies Conference, 7–8 August 2015, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia.

Note on contributor

Tan Zi Hao recently completed his PhD at the Department of Southeast Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. His doctoral research examines animal imagery in the Islamic art of Cirebon, West Java. His research interest includes the historiography of Malay court literature, cultural politics, and language ideologies in Malaysia. In addition to research, he is also a conceptual artist. Email: [email protected]

Notes

1 This article uses Siti Hawa Haji Salleh’s (1970) rendition of the HMM text, which is based on three manuscripts, namely, R.J. Wilkinson’s copy (written by Muhammad Yusuf bin Nasru’l-din, dated 1898), A.J. Sturrock’s copy (undated) published in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Straits Branch (No. 72) in 1916, and Ms. Maxwell 21 (dated 1884).

2 Raja Bersiong has indeed achieved wider circulation than the HMM narrative as a whole. Two major films titled Raja Bersiong, were produced in 1963 and 1968 respectively, the latter of which was written by Malaysia’s first prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman (1903–1990). Theatre and television studios have had their own take on the legend (Muhd. Nur Iman Ramli 2017: 149–156). The character returned to the screen in 2019 as an antagonist in the animated feature film Upin dan Ipin: Keris Siamang Tunggal. Beyond the entertainment industry, news and hearsay either speculating or debunking the discovery of relics related to Raja Bersiong occasionally find their way into national newspapers. Mnemonic monuments of fangs pointing skyward are equally popular in Mukim Siong, literally the ‘Fang Town’, in Kedah.

3 Amin Sweeney (1990: 1005) made a biting comment on traditional philology in his encouraging review of Maier’s book: ‘This monograph, based on the author’s Leiden dissertation, is the most refreshing and innovative Dutch study of Malay literature to appear in years. Is this perhaps why it was not published by the Koninklijk Instituut? For it is refreshing precisely because it wrestles free of the pull of traditional philological doctrines, which are, after all, simply one more set of conventions.’

4 This episode on Raja Bersiong is a summary of the second chapter of Siti Hawa Haji Salleh’s Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa (HMM 1970: 46–66).

5 The minister advises the king to change his diet, but he refuses. The particular dish is described as ‘sautéed vegetable curry with spinach stems and leaves’ – gulai léchék yang bertumis, yaitu batang bayam juga dengan daunnya (HMM 1970: 50).

6 The name ‘Kampar’ brings to mind the Sumatran state of the same name. According to the chronicle, the character is from ‘Seri Gunung Lédang’ (HMM 1970: 52), but it is probable that his name points to a Sumatran origin given Sumatra’s reputation for shape-shifting weretigers. In Malay Sketches, British colonial administrator Frank Swettenham (1895: 200) observed among the Malays an ‘almost universal belief’ in the Sumatran origin of weretigers, where select people are able to assume ‘at will the form of a tiger’, possessing ‘the gift of this strange power of metamorphosis’. Hugh Clifford (1897: 65), another colonial administrator, wrote that ‘the native of the little state of Korinchi in Sumatra, was caught naked in a tiger trap, and thereafter purchased his liberty at the price of the buffaloes he had slain, while he marauded in the likeness of a beast’.

7 For a summary of the narrative, see Low (1839: 345–348).

8 Adapun hendak mengetahui akan dia itu tiadalah boléh manusia ketahui, melainkan dengan margasatwa juga (HMM 1970: 62).

9 Conflict between Kedah and the Bugis of Selangor had had a long history since the 17th century. In an attempt to overthrow his brother Sultan Dhiauddin Mukarram Shah I, Dato Padang Seri Jana hired the Bugis as raiders to unleash chaos in Kedah in 1681 (Bonney 1971: 21; Winstedt 1920: 176).

10 Francis Light often dramatised the urgency of the situation as the East India Company remained indifferent to his proposal of taking advantage of the strategic coast of Kedah and the Penang island. His letters written to the Madras firm in 1771 contained such evidence. ‘Should the Dutch have it they would possess the entire command of the whole streights [sic]’, writes Light to De Souza of Madras, ‘for on the coast of Kedah is a river capable of receiving their largest ships at the half flood defended from all weathers by Poolo Pinang’ (Francis Light’s letter to De Souza in 1771; cited in Clodd 1948: 10).

11 Prince Damrong’s description of Kedah’s diplomatic quagmire replicates a rather aloof Siamese perspective as he noted that Kedah ‘began to regret’ befriending the British, who continued to occupy Penang, having realised that Siam ‘meant him no harm’ (Damrong 1993: 2). A similar sentiment was made by King Rama III (Kobkua 1986: 45). A British source, needless to say, stated otherwise (Winstedt 1920: 33).

12 Al-Tarikh Salasilah Negeri Kedah shows that Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin was in fact reluctant to attack Perak (Muhammad Hassan 1968: 143). It was not without some persuasion from Raja Bendahara, that the Sultan eventually gave the permission to initiate the attack. ‘I have no alternative left but to invade Perak before a Siamese army comes’, Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin lamented in a letter delivered to the governor of Penang (Kobkua 1999: 87).

13 See in particular, Article XIII, which reinforced Kedah’s vassalage to Siam (Maxwell and Gibson 1924: 80–81).

14 Maka terbukalah pintu hatinya [Raja Merong Mahawangsa] gemar dan suka ia beristeri akan anak Raja Gergasi, karena puteri itu kechil lagi baik rupa parasnya dan asal bundanya daripada raksaksa. Maka jadi tiadalah suka ayah-bundanya Raja Merong Mahawangsa akan dia beristeri akan tuan puteri itu (HMM 1970: 5).

15 rupanya terlalu amat baik parasnya, lagi tubuhnya putih kuning, rendah montél sifat tubuhnya (HMM 1970: 45).

16 Tiada sama bangsanya dengan kita, kalau2 siapa tahu akhirnya beroléh anak dengan perempuan itu menurut hawa nafsu kaumnya, yaitu gergasi, masuk fitnah makannya itu (HMM 1970: 45).

17 Despite his Orientalism, James Low (1849: 269, n. 13) was surprisingly acute: ‘As our author [of the HMM] was a Mahometan, he and the people were doubtless ashamed of this cannibal propensity in one of the Rájás of their country, and therefore invented the story of his having tushes like Girgassi to account for it’.

18 Nang Su Taman and Nang Miri are the few named female gergasi in the HMM. But they are described as leaders of the group, and their physical appearance is never part of the description (HMM 1970: 36–37). This detail is therefore not quite an exception to the rule but an affirmation that the unnamed female gergasi are always perceived to be the absolute embodiment of lust and passion, a threatening body that contains all that is corruptible.

19 Nang Miri is also the name of an ogress in Phra Rot Meri. See Low (1839: 345–348) and Newbold (1839: 330–331).

20 Phra Chesim is the chief of the gergasi (penghulu gergasi), but in fact, he is described as a Malay (anak Melayu) who weds Nang Su Taman, a gergasi (HMM 1970: 36–37). He is the chief commanded by Raja Merong Mahapudisat to defend Siam against any potential rebels (HMM 1970: 37). In A.J. Sturrock’s edition, which constitutes Siti Hawa Haji Salleh’s rendition of the HMM, the character is curiously spelled as ‘Phra Che Siam’ (Sturrock 1916: 61–62).

21 Tunku Kudin recaptured Kedah from Siam in 1831 but his victory was fleeting. For a thorough account on his subsequent influence and motivations in Kedah by the late 19th century, see Gullick (1987).

22 Malay prejudice against the Sam-Sam people over their religious laxity persisted until the 20th century. They were perceived as a ‘criminal class that robbed the society of its law and order’ (Kobkua 1994: 147).

23 orang Siam bangsa kafir, tiada tahu cara bahasa (Mohd. Taib Osman 1961: 53).

24 Maka pada tatkala itu segala binatang tiada boléh berkata-kata kepada zaman itu, karena yang bernama Nabi Muhammad rasulu’Llahu salla’Llahu ‘alayhi wasallam itu sudah didzahirkan Allah subhanahu wa Ta‘ala kedalam dunia ini (HMM 1970: 48).