IT was International Tiger Day on Monday, and the big news was that the number of wild tigers in Nepal has increased by 63 per cent since 2009, to 198.
There are around 500 in Malaysia, and the WWF wants to double that number by 2020 through its conservation programme and raising awareness of the beautiful felines.
Even if that is achieved, it would still be a third of the number we had at Merdeka, which shockingly is similar to the number of wild tigers estimated in the world today: 3,200.
Unfortunately, the persistent demand for traditional ‘medicines’ has incentivised continued poaching.
There are encouraging signs though: when research showed that forest alongside the Gerik-Jeli highway was being used by tigers, the Perak state government gazetted part of it as permanent forest reserve.
I am sure that with intelligent private sector involvement, prospects for the Malayan tiger can be further enhanced.
Many other animals are prominent in our state symbols.
The coat of arms of Kelantan is supported by muntjacs (kijang), Melaka has its mousedeer (kancil), Pahang uses crossed tusks, and Sarawak uses the hornbill (though the White Rajahs used a beaver).
Sabah’s crest has human arms, though as North Borneo its logo included a lion, while the Straits Settlements featured two.
Royal palaces, regalia and titles also make ample reference to animals, real or mythological.
But references to tigers are in a different league.
Malay legends refer to the mystical powers of tigers and folklore demands that Pak Belang is accorded due respect.
In 1954, a colonial officer wrote about Dato’ Paroi, an alleged weretiger who had a shrine between Seremban and Kuala Pilah, near Bukit Putus, which was itself named after a tiger’s tail that broke off from its body.
Tigers featured on the Johor state crest by the time tiger hunter Archduke Franz Ferdinand received his Darjah Kerabat Johor in 1894.
One appeared on the flag of the Federated Malay States in 1895, and then two supported the coat of arms of the Federation of Malaya, and later Malaysia, the latest edit being the tigers becoming more aggressive when Tun Mahathir was Prime Minister.
Harimau Malaya remains the nickname of our football team (some Borneans forget that Panthera tigris malayensis is Malayan), and tigers feature in the branding of institutions and companies that want to advertise their patriotism.
Tigers are even part of our wartime history.
Imperial Japan’s General Yamashita, who led the Malaya campaign was nicknamed the Tiger of Malaya, and in ‘The Tigers of Trengganu’ written a decade later, the author makes mention of tigers having to share the jungles with communist terrorists.
It was Warriors’ Day on Wednesday and as usual the Royal Malay Regiment, whose regimental crest features two tigers, played a prominent part in the event remembering our heroes who fell while fighting the Japanese and the communists.
The latter period of our history has been in the news again because of a movie, ‘The New Village’, which detractors claim (from the trailer) glorifies communism.
So now there are calls for the film’s release to be reconsidered, despite having been earlier approved by the Film Censorship Board.
The Multimedia and Communications Minister was right to say that the movie should not be judged by the trailer alone, recalling public condemnation of ‘Tanda Putera’.
I have seen the latter, and found that many of the assumptions made about the movie were exaggerated or wrong.
The movie should have been screened as scheduled, and so should ‘The New Village’.
Some might say that such movies should only be released if they portray history ‘correctly’.
Of course, no movie depicting a historical period – from ‘Braveheart’ to ‘The Iron Lady’ – is free from political bias or creative licence.
In other democracies, audiences are deemed mature enough to view these films and accept or reject portrayals based on their own understanding of history.
Therein lies the crux of the problem: our history is so badly taught that a film is deemed a threat to our understanding of it.
Nonetheless, while I of course loathe the MCP scumbags who nearly succeeded in killing my great-grandfather, I would still not support a ban on a movie that glorified the communists.
Why? Because the reason we fought the communists was to ensure – in the words of Bapa Merdeka – a nation founded upon the principles of liberty and justice.
By banning movies that might offend political sensitivities, we capitulate to the vision of our freedom-hating enemies.
It’s not just communists, of course.
As we have seen in recent weeks, racial and religious bigots love using state authoritarianism to impose their own prejudices.
There is indeed a fearful symmetry in forgetting our past and losing our freedom.
Tunku Abidin Muhriz is president of Ideas.