
Where were you when…?
Most of the time, it's not about geography. It's about memory. About anchoring ourselves to something larger. About remembering not just what happened, but how it made us feel.
For me, one such moment was the night of the 1992 Thomas Cup finals.
Malaysia versus Indonesia. Badminton, of course. It was a Saturday, and I was a 17-year-old schoolboy at the Malay College Kuala Kangsar.
I watched it from the common room of our hostel, surrounded by boys in kain pelikat, clutching pillows, Milo mugs and SPM notes, all eyes fixed on a grainy television screen that struggled to keep up with the speed of the shuttle.
We won. We brought the cup home after 25 years. And for a few beautiful hours, everything else faded—prep class, homesickness, SPM trial stress—replaced by a kind of joy that felt bigger than sport. Bigger than school. Something national, something shared.
That moment, and others like it, become personal chapters in a larger story: the story of how we remember Malaysia.
Another such chapter came in May 2018, when Malaysians went to the polls in what would become one of the most significant general elections in our history.
For the first time, the ruling coalition was changed. Not through force, not through upheaval, but through the quiet, determined power of the vote.
People queued in the heat, some for hours. Some travelled across borders, taking buses and flights home just to mark an X on a ballot. There was tension, yes. But there was also something else: hope.
Hope that this country belonged to its people. That we were no longer just passengers, but co-pilots. That power could change hands peacefully. That we, the rakyat, are the ones responsible in deciding the direction of this country moving forward.
You didn't need to be in Putrajaya or Dataran Merdeka to feel it. You could have been watching from a living room in Penang, or a mamak in Johor Bahru, or a hostel room in Sarawak.
It didn't matter where you were; because the moment definitely reached you. That's what makes these memories powerful. They become shared reference points in the timeline of our lives.
Of course, not every Merdeka memory is tied to politics or spectacle. Sometimes, it's quieter. A flag being raised in your neighbourhood. A conversation over teh tarik about what independence really means.
A late-night drive on empty roads, with patriotic songs playing softly on the radio. These small moments matter too.
Because nationhood is built not just on events, but on experience. It's not just the milestones we remember; it's the way they made us feel connected. Even when we were far apart.
And that's the thread I keep coming back to: our shared experiences.
You and I may have grown up in different towns, spoken different dialects, attended different schools. But the moment the Sidek brothers stepped onto the court, or when the results rolled in after GE14; we were there, in spirit, together.
And yet, these memories, whether personal or collective, are slowly fading.
We live in a time of fast timelines and short attention spans. Moments come and go, swallowed by algorithm and speed.
The things that once glued us together are being replaced by smaller, more personalised stories. Of course they are important, yes, but they are also often disconnected from the whole.
That's why I believe now, more than ever, we need to start recording our stories. Not for history books, but for each other. For the generations who didn't grow up with the Thomas Cup, or the Reformasi years, or who never saw a transfer of power that felt truly earned.
It doesn't have to be big. Just honest. Write about where you were when something mattered. Tell your children what Merdeka meant to your parents. Share with a friend that memory you've always carried but never voiced.
Because if we don't pass these stories on, who will? So this Merdeka, ask someone: 'Where were you when…?' and listen carefully. Then share your own.
Memory, like nationhood, lives best when it is passed from hand to hand. ‒ Aug 14, 2025
Ir Dr Nahrizul Adib Kadri is a professor of biomedical engineering at the Faculty of Engineering, and the Principal of Ibnu Sina Residential College, Universiti Malaya.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
Main image: NST

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

The Star
5 minutes ago
- The Star
Logistics sector is nation's backbone, says Loke
PORT KLANG: It is crucial for everyone to join forces to uphold the nation's logistics sector, which is the backbone of the economy, says Transport Minister Anthony Loke. "Without the logistics sector, trade cannot take place and the economy will be crippled as imports and exports can't be carried out," he said in his short speech at the Kibarkan Jalur Gemilang Komuniti Pelabuhan Klang event in conjunction with National Day on Aug 31 held at the Port Klang Authority Social and Recreational club. Loke said it is the mission of the logistics industry community to ensure Port Klang, currently one of the top ten busiest ports globally, continues to grow and prosper the nation's economy. He said the Port Klang community will continue to enjoy the economic benefits from the various developmental projects initiated there. "Currently, we are planning to ensure the development of Carey Island as the third port can be implemented soon," he said. On a separate matter, Loke said the recent incidents where the Jalur Gemilang was flown upside down must not make people lose focus of the fact that the Jalur Gemilang belongs to the people. Loke said that the flag is also the unifying symbol for all Malaysians regardless of race, religion or political affiliation. "Although there have been several recent incidents involving the Jalur Gemilang, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Jalur Gemilang is our common flag. "National Day should unite Malaysians and remind us that love for the country must be part of our character and daily lives," said Loke. Recently, two incidents of the Jalur Gemilang being displayed upside down courted controversy with Umno Youth chief Datuk Dr Muhamad Akmal Saleh initiating a protest over the matter. The Malaysian flag was first accidentally flown upside down at a primary school in Port Dickson and then at a shop in Kepala Batas, Penang.


Daily Express
35 minutes ago
- Daily Express
Sabah AMK urges respect in response to Zara Qairina tragedy
Published on: Saturday, August 16, 2025 Published on: Sat, Aug 16, 2025 Text Size: Sabah AMK leaders criticise Aliakbar's (inset) call for the public to wear black on National Day and Malaysia Day. KOTA KINABALU: Sabah Angkatan Muda Keadilan (AMK) has criticised Sabah Pas Commissioner Datuk Aliakbar Gulasan's call for the public to wear black during National Day and Malaysia Day as a gesture of solidarity over the death of Zara Qairina. In a statement issued after its leadership meeting today, Sabah AMK said the tragedy should be addressed with empathy and respect rather than turned into a political symbol through protest attire during national celebrations. The movement stressed that National Day and Malaysia Day are sacred occasions to be marked with patriotism, gratitude, and love for the nation, serving as a unifying force for all Malaysians. At the same time, AMK Sabah conveyed its sympathy and solidarity to Zara Qairina's family, acknowledging the deep loss and reiterating the public's desire for justice in the case. The group also urged the public to exercise caution in sharing information online, noting that unverified claims on social media could cause confusion and disrupt the ongoing investigation. Sabah AMK further called on all parties to allow the police to complete their investigation transparently and in accordance with the law, free from undue pressure or speculation. The youth wing expressed confidence that the investigation will reach a fair outcome for Zara Qairina while encouraging Malaysians to uphold the spirit of patriotism during the upcoming national celebrations. * Follow us on our official WhatsApp channel and Telegram for breaking news alerts and key updates! * Do you have access to the Daily Express e-paper and online exclusive news? Check out subscription plans available. Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express's Telegram channel. Daily Express Malaysia

Malay Mail
2 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Let Anwar's application for referral of constitutional questions to Federal Court take its course — Hafiz Hassan
AUGUST 12 — In 'If Anwar's constitutional questions are preposterous, absurd and legal nonsense, let the court say it' I wrote that if the constitutional questions proposed to be referred by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim for a ruling by the Federal Court were preposterous, absurd and legal nonsense, let the court having the ultimate authority say it. The constitutional questions were It was submitted by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim that he was being selectively exposed to litigation in a manner that violates the principle of equal protection, implying that the Prime Minister should receive distinct treatment under the law. — Bernama pic proposed in the civil action commenced by Yusoff Rawther against Anwar in the latter's personal capacity. The civil action was up for trial — the action having been filed at the High Court in July 2021, prior to Anwar's appointment as the Prime Minister in November 2022 with the trial having been fixed on June 6, 2025 — but Anwar, by an application on May 23, 2025, sought to: a) refer constitutional questions to the Federal Court (see below) – touching on whether a sitting Prime Minister enjoys certain immunities or protections from civil litigation relating to pre-office conduct — under O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) and/or Article 128(2) of the Federal Constitution and/or Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA); and b) stay the trial on June 16 pending the Federal Court's determination of those constitutional questions. At the hearing of the application, it was submitted by Anwar's legal team that the continuation of the civil action engages constitutional issues concerning the interpretation and effect of Articles 5, 8, 39, 40, and 43 of the Federal Constitution. It was further suggested that a sitting Prime Minister should be insulated from the burdens of civil litigation, and that the High Court ought to refer these issues for the determination of the Federal Court pursuant to Article 128(2) of the Federal Constitution. Eight questions were listed in the application for referral to the Federal Court. The grounds that were said to be critical constitutional issues were namely: a) Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution — right to life and personal liberty: It was contended by Anwar that being subjected to a civil trial while holding the office of Prime Minister infringes his liberty interests under Article 5(1), on the basis that it imposes undue burden and distraction from the discharge of executive functions; b) Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution — equality before the law: It was submitted by Anwar that he was being selectively exposed to litigation in a manner that violates the principle of equal protection, implying that the Prime Minister should receive distinct treatment under the law; c) Articles 39, 40, and 43 of the Federal Constitution — Executive authority, Yang di-Pertuan Agong to act on advice, and Cabinet: It was argued that the above provisions collectively vest the executive authority of the Federation in the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acting on Cabinet advice, with the Prime Minister at its helm, and that subjecting the Prime Minister to civil litigation while in office undermines or disrupts this constitutional structure; d) doctrine of 'constructive harm': Anwar's counsel introduced this idea — though not anchored on any express constitutional provision, that permitting a Prime Minister to be sued while in office causes 'constructive harm' to the institution of the Executive, and this 'harm' triggered constitutional protection; and e) institutional proportionality: It was argued that the adjudication of politically sensitive private tort claims against the sitting Prime Minister, in the absence of a constitutional scrutiny threshold, violated the principle of institutional proportionality and offended the basic structure of the Federal Constitution by upsetting the functional balance between the Judiciary and the Executive. The application was made notwithstanding that Anwar was ready and willing to proceed with the trial. Anwar does not assert that the action impairs his ability to perform his constitutional functions. He does not also produce any evidence to that effect. It appears that Anwar does not raise immunity as a defence to Yusoff's claim — but I stand corrected on this. What is apparent, however, the application and the grounds are largely exploratory in nature – to test whether the Federal Constitution accords the Prime Minister any form of procedural immunity or protection from civil liability while in office. One may not agree with the proposed constitutional questions — some, even from the legal fraternity, have vilified Anwar and his legal team for the questions — but it was ingenious of Anwar's legal team to have proposed the questions — again, one may not agree with the word 'ingenious'. Be that as it may, High Court Judge Roz Mawar did not buy into Anwar's legal team's arguments, contentions and submissions. After assessing the application and each of the grounds at length, the learned judge said: 'Having considered the application in its entirety, this court is of the view that the constitutional questions framed by the defendant are not real, substantial, or necessary for the disposal of the present suit. The issues raised do not call for the interpretation of any ambiguity in our Federal Constitution, nor do they relate to the validity of any legislation, or the scope of legislative competence under Article 128(2) of our Federal Constitution. 'The principles [are] … clear: that not every question which touches on the Constitution qualifies for referral under Section 84 of the CJA. This court must be satisfied that the constitutional question is both genuine and material to the resolution of the case. The Federal Court is not a forum for speculative or defensive advisory opinions. 'This present application discloses no such question. The suit concerns a personal claim against the defendant for alleged acts occurring prior to his assumption of office. There is no suggestion that the defendant is unable to discharge his constitutional duties, and the defendant has indicated readiness to proceed with trial as scheduled on 16 June 2025. It is this court's considered conclusion that Section 84 of the CJA is not satisfied. This court therefore declines to refer the proposed questions to the Federal Court. 'The application … is hereby dismissed. Cost of RM20,000 is awarded to the plaintiff. Trial to commence on 16 June 2025 as scheduled.' (See Muhammed Yusoff Rawther v Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim [2025] 10 MLJ 689, 690) So, instead of vilifying Anwar's so-called claim of immunity, which may be misplaced – unless Anwar pleads as such in his defence – let's celebrate the learned High Court judge's independence. Her Ladyship decided against Anwar, who may be sued in his personal capacity, but nonetheless the country's prime minister. Anwar has appealed against the decision and has successfully obtained a stay of the trial pending the outcome of his appeal to the Court of Appeal. Let Anwar's application and its grounds be ventilated in the higher court. Let the application take its legal course. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.