To understand the accusations of Ibrahim Ali of Perkasa on the ingratitude of the Chinese voters in Hulu Selangor and Sibu, we need to go back to the reign of Sultan Mansur Shah of 15th century Malacca, treading into the murky legendary realm of Hang Tuah and his comrade-in- arms Hang Jebat.

Poor, innocent Hang Tuah. On a mere whisper, the sultan sentenced him to death without trial. But the victim of tyrannical wrath was secretly saved and hidden away. Thinking Tuah was unfairly executed, Jebat wrecked rebellion against the sultan.

Not unlike a Greek tragedy, the tale tells us that the frightened sultan on learning Tuah was still alive quickly recalled him to deal with Jebat. And Tuah, inundated with gratitude for the ruler’s pardon and blindly obedient to the royal dictate, killed his best friend, ironically the man who rebelled against the tyrant for unjustly persecuting Tuah.

The moral of this sad saga is that the institute of the sultanate has an invincibly strong place in Malay-dom. Justice, fairness, righteousness or logic was no competition to absolute blind obedience to the liege lord and the due gratitude for whatever the ruler wished to bestow on the subject, even if the royal pardon Tuah received was related to a wrong the Sultan perpetuated in the first place.

Thus for centuries the righteous Jebat has been viewed as the archetypical traitor while Tuah was the very epitome of loyalty, until Kassim Ahmad, probably Malaysia’s foremost Malay intellectual, overturned this perception in his doctoral thesis ‘Perwatakan Hikayat Hang Tuah’ (the characters in the story of Hang Tuah).

The ‘gratitude’ of Hang Tuah was not unlike that expected of a subordinate in Europe’s medieval feudalistic system. The dictionary tells us that ‘feudalism’ is:

‘A system of obligations that bound lords and their subjects in Europe during much of the Middle Ages. In theory, the king owned all or most of the land and gave it to his leading nobles in return for their loyalty and military service. The nobles in turn held land that peasants, including serfs, were allowed to farm in return for the peasants' labor and a portion of their produce. Under feudalism, people were born with a permanent position in society.’

Whether material rewards, titled honours or pardons from crimes, all these were the right of the feudal lord to either give or deny. Thus whatever benefits the liege lord deigned to bestow on his subjects, these were met with utmost gratitude, as exemplified by Tuah.

Gratitude. It was feudalistic ‘gratitude’ that Ibrahim Ali of Perkasa had in mind when he lambasted the ‘ungrateful’ Chinese voters for lacking despite the promises of million ringgit grants by the modern-era ‘sultan’, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak should they support the Barisan Nasional (BN) candidates.

Of course, Ibrahim Ali had been posturing in his not unexpected outburst against the Chinese for their ‘ingratitude’. But the accusations in his rants were meant for the heartland and sadly are likely to be believed. Even Najib, urbane as he is, has not been immune to a wee post-election sulking, as indicated by his adumbrating of a re-think about the proposed funding for Sibu’s flood relief infrastructure.

Yes, there is still a prevalent belief in some quarters of the same medieval concept, that the ‘ruler’ (in the modern Malaysian case, the PM) owns all public assets and thus has the prerogative to dispense same as reward to his supporters or offer them as inducement to voters in return for their loyalty and votes. The political reward system is sometimes laughingly referred to in Malay as sehelai kain pelekat. Of course, inflation has caught up with the system, adding several more noughts to make election campaign pork-barrelling run into millions.

Pork-barrelling during elections occurs in virtually every democracy where voters have to be wooed. But what makes the Malaysian version unique has been the ruling party’s expectation that the voters ought to show ‘gratitude’ for receiving what they the public own in the first place. For example, should the Felda families in Hulu Selangor receiving long overdue (and mind you, only part) payment for their sold land feel particularly grateful?

And precisely because members of a political party have come to accept the medieval styled patronage system, a belief buttressed by the likes of Ibrahim Ali, the accusations of Chinese ‘ingratitude’ would find resonance in the heartland.

The adverse perception has been made even worse by a constant reminder of the so-called socio-political ‘contract’ which was pronounced emphatically by crown prince of Kelantan in April 2008 when he stated:’... it is not appropriate for these other ethnic groups to have citizenship, only (later) to seek equality and privileges.’ In other words, instead of showing ‘gratitude’ for their citizenship the Chinese had the nerve to demand to be equals. The voice of the royal house added gravitas to the accusation.

Sadly, we saw as well the involvement of the royalty in Perak, a powerful signal to the loyal heartland. Regardless of the careful dissection of the case by several experts on constitution law experts and the soundness of their assessment, those who have been right would, like Jebat, still be seen as traitors.

There is no doubt a lamentable lack of understanding about the people’s rights under a democracy, the accountability of politicians in their service performance to the public and the meaning of citizenship.

With Umno indoctrination of the heartland to be wary of the fearful avaricous Chinese bogeyman in the last half a century, and now continued by (or farmed out to) Perkasa, we shouldn’t be surprised if Ibrahim Ali’s demagoguery about ungrateful Chinese finds fertile grounds.

Will the ungrateful and less than equal ‘citizens’ then be condemned as traitors too, like Jebat? So, prime minister, I will be ‘grateful’ if you tell us what fares for ‘1Malaysia’?