What’s new at Perdana Library: January & February 2012
March 29, 2012 in Articles, Books etc, Perdana Library, PLF News, Resource Centre
Click here to read the book synopsis.
You are browsing the Blog for malaysian politics.
NST – COMMENT: Defining the legacy
March 5, 2012 in Articles, Spotlight, Tun Dr. Mahathir
The Prime Ministership of Dr Mahathir was a period of general high economic growth
March 4, 2012 | By James Campbell
In setting its own path and policies, at times in contradiction to the received wisdom of neoliberalism and so-called international institutions, Malaysia is a source of pride
RECENTLY as reported in Bernama, former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was quoted as saying in a lecture titled Malaysia Moving Forward: Political, Social And Economic Approaches that “Malaysia should not rely heavily on Western ideology but instead come up with its own system” (Malaysia Capable of Having Own Unique System — Tun Mahathir, www.bernama.com/bernama/v6/newsindex.php?id=648426).
Dr Mahathir’s speech was widely reported in the media. The arguments he made, seem to this writer, still prescient and relevant to debates on Malaysian economic, social and political policy.
Often criticised in the West for policies that did not acquiesce to Western interests, especially in the economic realm, the reality is that the Prime Ministership of Dr Mahathir was a period of general high economic growth and, on the whole, social stability.
It seems that the basis of this growth and stability was a recognition that Malaysia must develop policies that suit and benefit its interest and advance the cause of development with due consideration of the specific nature of Malaysian society and economic needs.
The classic example of how this principle was enacted in the economic realm was in regard to Malaysia’s response to the Asian economic crisis.
Malaysia went against the advice and opinions of neoliberal orthodoxy and the result was that it was spared the worst of this crisis.
The crisis of 1997-1998 was not, as is often argued, a result of excessive cronyism (pointing this out in no way justifies such practices).
The crisis was far more importantly a result of “systemic factors exacerbated by financial liberalization” (K. S. Jomo, Mahathir’s Flawed Economic Policy Legacy, www.jomoks.org/research/
other/rp003.htm, page 5).
Jomo makes the point clearly in regard to the Malaysian response to the 1997-1998 East Asian Crisis. He writes: “It has become popular to blame the 1997-98 East Asian crises on cronyism and other related abuses in the region.
“However, despite the obvious popular appeal of such attribution, it lacks sound analytical and empirical bases, although these problems undoubtedly exacerbated the region’s problems and compromised policy responses to them.
“Failure to recognise the true roots of the crises runs the risk of not learning lessons from the calamity. Policy responses failed to address the deteriorating situation and even exacerbated the downturn.
“Even now, it is not generally acknowledged that the crises were due to systemic factors exacerbated by financial liberalisation.”
Pointing to the fact that a large part of Malaysia’s ability to weather economic storms has been its willingness to flout neoliberal orthodoxy and buck the trend of advice from authorities such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank is, I guess, not news to anyone.
However, it does point to the continued significance of the sentiment expressed in Dr Mahathir’s speech.
In previous columns, I have argued that a balanced approach to Malaysian social, economic and educational policy requires an understanding of the nature and problems that can stem from horizontal inequality and the need to balance Malaysia’s desire to compete on the world educational stage with the need to ensure that educational institutions do not return to a situation where they exacerbate horizontal inequality and social division.
Getting the balance right, as I have argued previously, is the key. For example, there are good reasons to address some of the negative consequences of policies designed to redress horizontal inequality.
However, arguing this policy position which is captured neatly in the New Economic Model’s recognition of the need to affirm “market friendly affirmative action” is not the equivalent of accepting the neoliberal prescription for Malaysia, whether it be in the economic field or the educational one.
The relevance of Dr Mahathir’s comments cited above points to the continued importance within public policy of getting the properequilibrium between states and markets.
The capability of nation states to pursue policies that are distinctive and balance the pressure of global economic realities with national needs and aspirations is critical.
This issue of balance and the need to be able to articulate economic and social policies based on important national considerations is, of course, not limited to Malaysia.
The need for developing countries to pursue policies that address their unique requirements entails recognising that not all the ideas for economic and social reform that stem from so called international bodies are necessarily good for developing countries.
In this column, I have tried to argue that the principal of pragmatically assessing the suitability of foreign ideas to the Malaysian context ensures that we do not blindly accept everything that Western and international institutions suggest.
As always, there is a need to advance the specific agenda of Malaysia’s national interest. This principle of ensuring that we do not simply swallow uncritically the prescriptions of international financial bodies is also of significance to developing nations as a whole.
The fact that Malaysia has provided leadership in articulating this balance and in insisting on setting its own path and policies, at times in contradiction to the received wisdom of neoliberalism and so-called international institutions, is something that can genuinely be a source of pride. This legacy is an important one.
The leadership role that Malaysia has taken in showing that economic independence and national intent can still be articulated even within an international system dominated by finance capital and global financial agencies is no small matter.
Its significance will not fade.
The Star – Social class comes into play
January 3, 2012 in PLF News
*Photo from theempressofdress.blogspot.com
January 3, 2012 | By KARIM RASLAN
While race remains an issue in the Malaysian political discourse, the matter of social class is now becoming a key determining factor.
FOR the last 50 years, Malaysian politics has been defined by race. From the Malayan Union controversy of 1946 to the riots of 1969, Malay fears over non-Malay economic might have been at the heart of the Alliance’s (and later Barisan Nasional’s) electoral calculations.
But times have changed and while race continues to simmer, a new long-forgotten issue – social class – is fast becoming a key determining factor.
Moreover, the public is increasingly sceptical of those who promote Malay rights. They view such figures in much the same way as small-town Midwesterners look on the antics of K-Street lobbyists in Washington; and just as with Americans, there is mounting outrage with every successive incidence of establishment corruption and abuse of power.
In this respect, Malaysia is merely following global trends as demonstrators across the world – from New York and Madrid to Cairo and Damascus – take to the streets to express their frustration and alienation with prevailing economic policies.
Still, it’s critical that we understand how and why this has happened because the forces at work are not one-off or temporary.
Instead, they are irreversible and overwhelming.
Technology is the key catalyst. By observing how the media has been buffeted by these changes, we can begin to learn in turn how “race” has slipped from the forefront of Malaysian political discourse.
So, let’s return to the years immediately after the 1969 riots. At that stage, news distribution was a highly-centralised business. The industry was top-down, capital-intensive and easily subject to political controls.
Printing presses, TV and radio stations were located in specific places and the channels linking them to audiences were similarly defined and determined.
This, along with a vast expansion of the government apparatus (from operational ministries to agencies and state-owned enterprises) allowed ideologues to set in motion a series of policies intended to unify and homogenise the Malay community.
In the process, a once-diverse and disparate Malay/Muslim world — don’t forget the Malays were a predominantly maritime and littoral people – was forcibly melded into one, with the aristocratic “bangsawan” ethos of Umno at its core.
Muslims of Indian, Javanese, Acehnese and Hadramauti origin were encouraged to do away with their specific cultural practices as Malay-ness, as defined by Kuala Lumpur-based ideologues, became paramount.
Geographical differences were likewise ironed out in order to present a united voice as Kedahans, Johoreans and Terengganu-ites became Malay first. In this push, however, the biggest losers were Malays from the two most developed states – Perak and Selangor – where a sense of local identity was totally eradicated.
The media was complicit in this agenda, strengthening the centre as a sense of local sentiment was denigrated as backward.
Of course, in East Malaysia, the process was all the more intense as pressure was brought to bear on Bajau, Orang Sungai and Melanau communities to become explicitly Malay – thus denying their distinctive local identities.
Similarly, the left-of-centre, socialist traditions exemplified by the late Burhanuddin Helmy were also swept aside and vilified. However (and ironically) Umno was never able to dislodge Kelantanese parochialism, permitting PAS a foothold that it exploited for its own Islamist ends.
Umno political strategists were only to realise much later that the disappearance of the “left” was to open up the ideological terrain for the Islamists – many of whom modelled themselves on Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.
Indeed, the Islamists’ exclusion from the centres of power meant that they were able to focus on issues of social justice, benefiting in turn from the growing disgust with mainstream politics.
However, the IT explosion post-2000 has broken the establishment’s control over both the news and the media in general.
Indeed, the proliferation of voices unleashed by technology has been both deeply distressing and disorientating for those who believe in a monolithic Malay identity centred on the royal houses and the government-sanctioned Islamic beliefs and practices.
Many in the old elite (some of whom are actually quite young) remain Canute-like in their rejection of the new realities.
So where are we heading? First off, Malays as Muslims are still united by their faith. Nonetheless, many differences will continue to emerge as people explore intellectual and spiritual frontiers on their own.
Secondly, the keenest divide will be the differences between the haves and have-nots (determined, of course, by proximity to political power) within the Malay community as urban English-language speaking Malays continue to forge ahead, leaving their monolingual brothers and sisters in the lurch.
Furthermore, the increasing demographic dominance of the Malays – 50.1% of our total population of 27.5 million (more if we include the non-Malay bumiputra communities’ 11.8%) – means that the old anxieties of being overwhelmed by others no longer seem as dire.
This, therefore, is where the Malay community stands in 2012.
NST – Choice, fate and history
December 16, 2011 in Articles, Spotlight, Tun Dr. Mahathir
*Photo from bigdogdotcom.wordpress.com
December 16, 2011 | By Farish A. Noor
Much of Malaysia’s history has been shaped by unprecedented variables
WHILE teaching my course on the politics, society and history of Malaysia, I am sometimes asked as to how and why Malaysia has become what it is today.
I often respond with two standard replies: the first is to remind my students that history is never linear and that things which appear predestined or fated only appear so with the benefit of hindsight. Much of Malaysian history — like the history of any other country — has been shaped by unprecedented and unexpected variables that nobody could control or stop, and the rest, as they say, is history.
The second response I often give is to add that despite whatever mistakes were made in the past — and no historian would suggest that the past is blissfully bereft of errors — things have settled to where they are today and the duty of the scholar is to weigh all the options as best as she or he can, sometimes arriving at the conclusion that despite the wrongs that were done in the past, things could have turned out worse if other options were taken.
Take the crucial period between 1957 and 1967, Malaysia’s first decade and a period that is seen by many as Malaysia’s “golden years”.
Now, just why this decade is looked upon with fondness baffles me still, for the fact remains that this was the period when the newly created Malaya, and then Malaysia, was weak and vulnerable; emerging in the world at a time when it was surrounded by enemies and those who sought to destroy it.
Malaya, and then Malaysia, was born in the cradle of the Cold War and the new country had no choice but to play its cards wisely, without the benefit of ever being given a second chance. From the outset, the odds were stacked against Malaysia, and the international community cast a despairing glance at the young country that nobody thought could succeed.
Younger Malaysians may not appreciate this now, born as they were in the age of cheap airline travel, the Internet and a global communication infrastructure. But Malaysia then was vulnerable to fluctuations in global commodity prices, notably rubber and tin, and had to develop fast, or fail.
Remember that Southeast Asia was then at the heart of the Cold War. The international community — by that I mean the West in particular — was worried about the rise of the communists in Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia in particular.
Indonesia’s Partai Komunis Indonesia (PKI) ranked itself as the third biggest communist party in the world, and was vying for pole position in Indonesia’s domestic politics, having won significant victories at the elections of 1955 and 1957.
The leaders of PKI were instrumental in goading Sukarno to take offence at the creation of Malaysia, claiming Malaysia to be a neo-colonial plot to halt the advance of communism across the region. Malaysia, on the other hand, had new and untrained armed forces, and the coming together of Peninsula Malaysia, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak was the catalyst to what was later called the “Crush Malaysia” campaign initiated by Sukarno and the Indonesian communists.
This led to the Confrontation (or Konfrontasi) with Indonesia that thankfully never escalated to a major war between the two countries. Indonesia took the fateful decision to pander to the communists, aligning itself to the Third World, too.
Malaysia, small and friendless, found succour from the Commonwealth and despite the odds, managed to fend off the small-scale attacks on the new country.
In the end, the Confrontation was stopped short by the failed coup in 1965, which led to the fall of Sukarno and the rise of Suharto instead. What followed in Indonesia was a blood-letting of horrific proportions, leading to the virtual elimination of the entire PKI.
But with hindsight, and despite the enormous human cost involved, Indonesia ceased to be seen as a potential communist staging-post, and relations with Malaysia were soon repaired to such an extent that both countries could claim to have a “special relationship”.
In the end, the moves of PKI backfired on them, leading to Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore — and Thailand and Philippines — coming together to form Asean in 1967.
These developments may seem strangely alien and distant to Malaysians today, who forget how close the country was to being seriously damaged.
As we contemplate the future of Malaysia in the coming decade, Malaysians will likewise have to make some painful decisions to keep up with the realities of the time. We live in a region that has always been at the crossroads of the world, and as such, our survival depends on being able to read the international waters closely and correctly.
For a miscalculation now may lead to a wrong alignment in the future, with potentially catastrophic consequences. And as our history tells us, we — Malaysians — have never, and will never, be given a second chance.
The Sun – Wisdom of foresight
December 15, 2011 in Articles, Spotlight
December 15, 2011 | By Natalie Shobana Ambrose
A FEW years ago there was a landslide along Jalan Duta after a downpour. For weeks it was covered with tarpaulin and sealed off with cautionary tape. It was alarming and personally worrying. Each year there are mini landslides, erosion and siltation around the Damansara Heights-Jalan Duta area. Fast forward to today and a short distance from the said landslide area, acres of land have been cleared for development – development in an area already highly congested and clearly prone to landslides. It’s considered prime land today, but what will it be in years to come?
Certainly when the Honda factor in Rojuna Industrial district, Ayutthaya in Thailand was built, no one could foresee the whole factory sinking in flood waters – or could they? We cannot change the weather or confidently predict swelling rivers and the breaking of riverbanks, but the wisdom of foresight might caution against building in a low-lying area or on a hillside that is already unstable.
Foresight is necessary in development and in the progress of every country. Post independence, our leaders made a calculated decision to shift from an agriculture based economy to an industrial one, not foreseeing the need to be able to self-sufficiently feed ourselves. Of course that shift has made us the third largest Asean economy and ranked 30th in the world, but what good is it if food supply is low and people cannot feed themselves because floods in neighbouring countries have affected not only the supply of electronic goods but basic daily foods – fruit, vegetables and even chillies?
When we talk about foresight, it doesn’t just stop at predicting what may happen but the courage to make painful yet necessary decisions to forfeit immediate gain for long-term collective stability. Such great foresight can be found in country constitutions and certain UN declarations – the blueprints of society.
I have always wondered in admiration of those who wrote these documents and the wisdom they possessed to include sections that perhaps at the point of writing were not needed but for the future may be extremely necessary. If we look at the Malaysian Constitution, one has to wonder why the founding fathers included a whole second section to protect Fundamental Liberties. Perhaps they had a “crystal ball” or the pure genius foresight to imagine its imperative need in today’s Malaysia where civil liberties are being taken away.
Sadly, instead of safeguarding the sanctity of the Constitution, today’s politicians have made it a scapegoat to promote their own personal agendas and beliefs. They have been allowed to do so also because we the people do not know our own Constitution as we should nor do we confidently know our rights and exert them. We choose to be ignorant and let a handful contest, thanks to scaremongering, yet with every new bill passed, our freedom net gets pulled in, further limiting our constitutional liberties.
Not only do our government and policy makers need foresight – we the people do too. When new laws and bills are deliberated, it is our business to know them well because they affect us, our children and our children’s children. Maybe today the Peaceful Assembly Bill does not affect you personally, but some day it will, just like the impending Computing Professionals Bill 2011. We have to remember that tomorrow is built on what we allow to happen today.
We can tell ourselves that laws enacted will not be enforced; they are just there because they need to be – but some day someone will dig them up and use them. What then can we do when we are bound by the law – all because years past we didn’t have foresight.
Natalie believes that the Constitution may be an “elastic compilation of rules” easily manipulated; yet those who pervert it should rightly be deposed. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
*Image from dangerousintersection.org