And we lived happily ever after

The Sun
by Maha Balakrishnan

RECENTLY, I asked five people to tell me the ending to The Little Mermaid by Hans Christian Andersen. These five people, all adults, and some of whom recall reading the book when they were children, were sure that the ending was a happy one, and that the prince falls in love and lives happily ever after with the mermaid princess.

Actually, the story did not end that way. The ending is not one that children have come to expect of fairy tales. At the end of the book, the mermaid princess does not get the prince and sail off into the sunset.

When Disney made the movie The Little Mermaid, they modified the story, creating clearly defined "bad guys" and "good guys" and a heroine who was unequivocally good, and choosing to have an ending that ascribed to the popular understanding of what is "happily ever after". It would certainly be an easier sell for the public – happily-ever-afters are so uncomplicated, while stories where the princess does not get the prince are much more difficult to explain to your child, because it would mean explaining about life, about different routes to happiness and about compromise.

The Disney movie is now accompanied by the Disney storybook carrying its version of the tale, and a lot of lucrative merchandise. The Disney version has now become the "true" story in most people’s minds. The original tale lies almost forgotten, even by those who had once known it.

And thus a pretty and simple story takes the place of a more complex tale in our collective memory.

The loss is ours. Hans Christian Andersen’s The Little Mermaid has the capacity to teach us about sacrifice, and about choosing goodness and what is morally and ethically right over personal desires, even over one’s own life.

It can teach us that there are not only two categories of people – good guys and bad guys; princesses and witches; "Us" and "Non-Us". Most of the time, there is just one category of people, who can alternate between "good" and "bad" according to the choices they make.

In the original tale, the mermaid princess is far from perfect, a little selfish and very nearly bad, before she redeems herself. And there is a second princess who is a heroine in her own right and who gets the prince in the end. Yes, two princesses, one prince. No clearly defined good guys and bad guys. No clearly defined person who is entitled to a happy ending and another who is not. There are just good deeds and sacrifice, a respect for the right to life, liberty and free will, and taking responsibility for your own actions.

Both the princesses played a role in saving the prince’s life. As much as you might want to hate the other princess, as much as you try to convince yourself that she is not entitled to a happily-ever-after with the prince, there is no clear deserving victor in that battle, and you come away with the realisation that it was never really about the prince. The original story has far more to teach us about real life and the pursuit of happiness than Disney’s pretty tale.

Recently, some people alleged that The Rakyat Guides booklets published by the MyConstitution Campaign were a "new constitution" or a means of drafting a new constitution.

Are The Rakyat Guides a "new constitution", or merely a summary of key provisions of the original constitution? Read The Rakyat Guides, read the constitution or any textbook on it, and you will have your answer.

What is more interesting, however, is how this allegation could have come about or gained any traction with the public. Is this due to a lack of knowledge of what the constitution says? More alarmingly, is it due to a complete misconception of what the constitution says?

Are some people under the impression that the constitution provides a happily-ever-after, and now have to discover that it in fact provides questions for discussion and debate as much as it does answers?

Have we, as a society or in different pockets of society, brought into being a myth of what the constitution says and does not say, until we do not recognise the actual document?

Do you know how much your understanding of the constitution matches reality?

When I read The Little Mermaid as a child, I came away with a sense that it was unfinished. Something needed to be added to it or taken away from it. But I realise now that it wasn’t the story that needed to be changed or corrected; it was my perception of what the story should be.

When you read the Federal Constitution you might find that it contains far more or less than you had thought it did. You might find that it contains something different from what you have been told or were given to understand by others. Is it time perhaps, to change – or correct – your perceptions?

And here’s something interesting I came across when I was writing this article: Hans Christian Andersen himself apparently changed the ending of The Little Mermaid from what he originally penned. Our constitution too, has been changed from what was originally drafted. What other lessons could we have learned from the original ending, and what prompted him to make those changes?

Equally, what could we learn from the original provisions that were in our constitution, and what prompted the changes that have been made to it?

Our constitution – what it was and what it is – has more to tell us about the truth of who we are than any fairy tale or political myth. Isn’t it time you learned the true story?

Maha Balakrishnan is the co-deputy chairperson of the Constitutional Law Committee (ConstiLC), Bar Council Malaysia (www.malaysianbar.org.my/constitutional_law_committee). The views expressed in this article are personal to the writer and may not necessarily represent the position of the Bar Council. The Rakyat Guides are available at the Bar Council and all offices of the State Bar Committees. You can also download the same at www.perlembagaanku.com