In modern Malaysia, attitudes born in the traditional village, as well as Islam, are being used to defend against threats to the Malay world’s important symbolic boundaries.
I ended some recent remarks on the current political situation in Malaysia with an allusion to what I call ‘deep’ Malay cultural psychology. I noted that:
They, so many of them, would rather have to themselves, unshared and exclusively ‘on their own terms’, 100 per cent of a small and dubious inheritance — to squabble over interminably among themselves — than to have and enjoy a substantial stake in a thriving enterprise that they must share, sensibly, in both material gratitude and human generosity, with others. More on this ‘Malay cultural psychology’ another time…
Well, that time came sooner than I expected, so I have written on the subject. This is not a final statement but should be considered a first draft. Note well and bear that in mind as you read it.
First, let’s be clear about what I am not talking about here. I am not talking about the now standard clichés, even these days generally ‘received ideas’, promoted and popularised by Tun Dr Mahathir in his The Malay Dilemma (subsequently recycled, little changed or modified, in some parts of his memoir, Doctor in the House).
Nor am I speaking of the important ideas and debates that Tun Dr Mahathir should have been aware of (but probably was not) when he wrote The Malay Dilemma. These included the controversy that briefly raged in the late 1960s, especially between the economist Brien Parkinson and the anthropologist William Wilder Jr, about the non-economic aspects and sources of what was then called ‘Malay economic backwardness’.
I am not talking about the key ideas upon which that debate rested, found especially in the work of the anthropologist Michael G Swift exploring the formative sociocultural groundings and cultural-psychological dimensions of Malay economic attitudes and behaviour.
Nor am I speaking here about the bearing upon these same questions at the time and since of Syed Hussein Alatas’s critique of ‘the Myth of the Lazy Native’ in the wider Malay world of Southeast Asia.
Neither am I alluding to some more general ideas upon which that debate and those arguments in part rested: ideas, again, to which people now habitually have recourse in discussing many issues of this kind, while remaining totally innocent and ignorant of any idea of their origins. These are namely the clichés — so much a part of the fateful policy debates of 1969-1970 leading up to the declaration of the New Economic Plan — of a ‘limited pie’ , of ‘dividing up the cake’ and of ‘increasing the size of the economic cake’ to be shared.
These expressions and ideas had their origins in a once famous but now largely forgotten essay by the anthropologist George M Foster on “Peasant Society and the Image of the Limited Good”. These are ideas about whether it is better to argue about the proportional sharing, or division, of a given fixed quantum (‘zero sum’ thinking in Game Theory talk) or to work instead to increase the size of the overall yield that is to be shared among a number of parties.
These ideas are often, in one way or another, drawn into the discussion about Malay and Malayan and Malaysian society: into arguments about ethnic relations, separation, competition and Malay anxieties and fears of being out-competed by (non-Malay) others.
But important as these ideas are, in general, and in the modern Malaysian policy and political context, I am not talking here simply about those things, but something much deeper.
So, what then am I talking about?
I am calling attention here to matters that anybody who has ever spent a night, or several, or a week or several, in a Malay village — and especially anybody who has spent a few evenings, and long nights until dawn, with some Malay village bomoh (or shaman) as they have gone about their special business — will know about. And if you haven’t, you probably won’t. But need to.
This has to do with a fundamental Malay cultural sense of ‘beleaguerement’, and of the ensuing need of Malays to huddle close together — sometimes behind physical barricades such as bamboo perimeter fences and often behind less tangible protective barriers — in mutual support.
These ideas, upheld as experientially powerful cultural imperatives, long predate, and have much deeper sociocultural origins than, what we may call modern plural society social dynamics and stresses — though they may well feed into modern historical and now also contemporary Malay ideas about, attitudes toward, and anxieties concerning economic competition and fears of social displacement and marginalisation.
I am talking here about matters that were once of interest and concern to that largely forgotten, and now widely scorned field of knowledge — old-fashioned (pre-postmodernist) social and cultural anthropology.
If you have ever been in a ‘conventional’, quasi-traditional Malay village at nightfall, as the evening suddenly closes in and the swooping dark suddenly envelopes people at day’s end, as senja (dusk) arrives with all its mambang (hauntings) and other strange, disquieting mystical forces, you will know what I am talking about.
A perceptible apprehensive hush descends, and with it a fear of disturbing who knows what.
Understandably, the villagers think (or that is how things were), they hope and trust in the idea, that there is safety in numbers. So they try to huddle together defensively, united in protective agreement against those fears, spoken and unspoken. It gives them strength, or a feeling of strength, it makes them feel secure.
When Malay villagers in former times felt themselves threatened — by human enemies, by wild animals, by plague and illness, by the supernatural terrors of the surrounding jungle, by the dark and all the unseen dangers that it might conceal — they would huddle together for strength. They would find assurance in and seek protection from the spirit-challenging jampi (spell) of a bomoh and would recite do’a, Islamic pleas and prayers. Together, they would chant especially potent verses and sura from the Quran for protection from encroaching evil.

Photo: Cccefalon/ Wikimedia commons
What is the modern relevance of all this? It lies in the fact that, while the traditional Malay village may no longer exist, the attitudes born in and of its cultural milieu still do. And they continue to exert a powerful force upon modern Malays, in the countryside and city alike.
In a similar way, overall, to that older village social universe, the Malay political world in peninsular Malaysia these days huddles together for reassurance, in kampung-like strength and solidarity, behind a barrier and fortification that is afforded largely by Islam — an Islam under royal patronage and protection and of constitutionally guaranteed standing. It is the old strategy of kampung defence, now writ large.
Through recourse to Islam, threats to the integrity of the Malay world’s important symbolic boundaries can be contained. Islam is used to insulate the boundaries of Malay society against non-Malay intrusion, penetration and subversion — to separate Malay society symbolically and morally from, and elevate it beyond the reach of, its threatening, even contaminating, wider social environment.
We are all familiar with the concept and historical creation of Malay Reservation Land. More recently the same process of space-management has been extended to other areas, to virtual space. Specifically, to linguistic space.
In the contentious ‘name of Allah’ dispute — and notably in then Court of Appeals Justice Apandi Ali’s astounding landmark decision in the matter — as well as in the case of words such as agama, ibadah, iman and the 30 or more others that are now on Malaysia’s quasi-papal index of religious terms (istilah) that are for exclusive Muslim use only, and not to be applied to the discussion of any and all non-Muslim religious life, we see this process not just advancing but assiduously and officially promoted.
We now have, and people are asked to recognise and accept, an entire new privileged zone that has been set aside, that of “Bahasa dan Istilah Rizab Melayu”, of a quarantined Malay Reservation in language and terminology. A Malay semantic protectorate. One with Islamically patrolled and fortified boundaries.
This barrier of protective prohibitions is the modern equivalent of the recourse of Malay villagers to chanting do’a in the dark to ward off wild beasts, malign spirits, strangers or encroaching outside plagues such as cholera.
These modern practices, this array of duly gazetted bureaucratically sustained prohibitions, also provide a protective barrier, an insulating buffer device, enabling beleaguered Malays (or those who feel that way, and who have the power to impose their ways, likes and fears authoritatively on others, on all Malays) to huddle together, secure among their own kind, for reassurance and distancing protection.
This is what, at the deep cultural and psychological level, lies behind, informs and drives the continuing Malay determination to live huddling together for comfort and strength — rather than being eager, ready, or just prepared to engage with others and seek sensibly to share the world with them. They would rather have a smaller, narrower world, but one that is their own, entirely their own, that they may inhabit and hold exclusively on their own cultural terms.
The outside world, the world that surrounds the Malay world, closes in upon it, and asks Malays to engage with it on its broader and more inclusive terms is, somehow, the analogue and functional equivalent of, and is psychologically isomorphic with, the non-human, asocial, non-Malay world of mambang and ghosts, of spirits and wild animals, of strangers and the unknown, that closed in upon the ‘little Malay world’ of the village every night.
Clive Kessler is Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney. He is the author of many works in this area, most notably Islam and Politics in a Malay State: Kelantan 1838-1969.
It is sad indeed, for both government and nation, that far too many Malays of power and influence (none would be preferable) have looked for the quick fix, the convenient scapegoat and the ready supply of foreign money to bolster an identity that is transparently fractured. In the days of Conrad, it was the ‘noble’ Arab trader from abroad, loaded with wisdom from the Holy Book and the Prophet and a voracious libido calmed by local women; today, it is pride in autographed photos with Leonardo Di Caprio, the “new” Bomoh of Malay Bollywood, lavish apartments from LA to Sydney, frequent trips to the land of the Prophet, not so much for purification with Zam-Zam water, as laundered money. I agree with Clive, but what has changed is that, while the old Daulat was (at worst) silly, boastful and mostly inconsequential, today, it is repugnant, totally unethical and a complete betrayal of even the slightest compact between Malaysians (not just Malays) and their leaders. At least circumambulating the Kaaba in Mecca has a religious purpose, Malay elites going round and round and round is merely a repulsive sight for very sore eyes.
0
0
doesn’t really have anything to do with ethnic malay psychology
you are typically saying islam is only an means of expression and a manifestation rather than the cause of this behaviour
this argument is very popular among those who wish to avoid laying the blame on the Islamic religion
but islamic theology itself inherently promotes this type of exclusionary behaviour
it is the concept of al wala’ wal bara’
This is inherent to Islam and found in any race of people who practice the Islamic religion, not a product of malay cultural psychology
0
0
That is a complete misinterpretation of the commentary and is in fact, an absurd comment, that is discordant with Islam, whether in Malaysia or in Morocco or in Kazakhstan. The commentary has nothing to do with blaming Islam or not blaming Islam; the column is about Malay psychology and projection, not a political commentary on the possible Wahhabization of the elite UMNO-appointed clerical Imam class, as very accurately described by Kassim Ahmad. You must be reading the weed leaves as your response is to a commentary not in visual evidence. Perhaps learning more about Malays and Malaysia will help clear the visual static. Finally, the concept of Al-Wala’ Wal-Bara’ in Islam is not inherently Malay and this commentary is not a diagenesis of the whole range of Islamic practices from Morocco to Indonesia, which include Sunni, Shi’a and smaller sects, which have no concept of Al-Wala’ Wal-Bara’. Lay of the weed, dude.
0
0
The column is claiming that Malay attitudes to non-Muslims are based off of Malay psychology rather than Islam, and thus while not saying so, is evidently attempting to absolve Islam of blame.
The concept of Al-Wala’ Wal-Bara’ is inherent to Islam. If a Malay follows Islam, this is what he believes. If he doesn’t follow Islam it isn’t an issue.
Shia are outside of the Islamic religion as should be well known. We cannot really expect fluency in Islamic theology from the bashers of non-existent ‘Wahhabism’.
0
0
Again, not what this commentary even remotely states. There is no “fluency” in Islamic theology with innumerable Sunni, Shi’a and minority (Ahmadi, Ismaili, Alewi, Druze, etc) schools, regarded as heretical, but are merely successful derivatives and thus engender jealousy among mainstream Sunnis and Twelver Shi’ites, jealousy evident in recent Ahmadi communities in Malaysia and Indonesia. You are arguing with yourself. Professor Kessler is not engaging in any debates about postmodern Wahhabism, Salafism, Hanbali, Hanafi or Shaf’i Islam. I find it interesting that several Malay colleagues of mine who have read his commentary either completely agree or disagree with him. The ones that agree are those trained in scholarly studies of Malay history, Adat, culture, and intercultural practices. The ones that disagree are Imam friends of mine who support PAS and serve village suraus and mosques. They disagree because, like you, they also set up a false paradigm and think Clive is out to either smash Islam or “re-Malayize” it, so to speak and neither is the case. I don’t buy your implied argument that your presumed expertise in Islam (and evident non-expertise in Malay Studies) is more pronounced than Malay scholars themselves, or Professor Kessler’s knowledge. Your first sentence is wrong and it is also not what Professor Kessler is stating. It is your own straw man that you erect between Ketuanan Melayu at one end and Islam at the other. This is not, and has never been, a zero-sum game, which is what you are arguing….in the mirror.
0
0
‘Absolve Islam of blame’; for what exactly? ‘Al Wala’ Wal Bara’ is not exclusionary, it means ‘refining one’s beliefs’. It is not ‘well known’ that Shia Islam is ‘outside the Islamic religion’ because…well, because it isn’t.
Anyway, Malay anxiety about economic competition would seem to be justified given the exceptional mercantile skill of the Chinese, particularly the Hokkien.
The Malay court decision on the name ‘Allah’ was indeed astonishingly stupid given that the Arab Christian use of the term predates Islam.
0
0
Dear John Smith, I’m of Cantonese descent and I take exception to your high praise of the Hokkiens. The Cantonese too were savvy merchants and traders and would not lag behind the Hokkiens in any way, and besides we have superior cuisine.
And as long as we are talking about Islam, it should be remembered that the form of Islam practised by many Malays is blended with many pagan rituals from the pre-Islamic days (and perhaps also from the days when Hinduism prevailed). Clive Kessler’s description of mambang and bomoh is spot on, because the modern Malay still believes that djins are all around and the practice of black magic is not uncommon, despite the best efforts of the Islamic authorities to discourage these “haram” beliefs. Take a random look at Malay films and many of them will be of vengeful ghosts and jilted lovers casting evil morbid spells. There must be an audience for these films, and I can tell you it is not the non-Malays – we have enough ghosts of our own, thank you.
I think Clive Kessler has touched on an aspect of Malay-ness that is often overlooked in the rush to analyse their fears of the other ethnicities in Malaysia in simpler terms of either racism or economics. The other extreme of being in such a protected space is demonstrated in the growing group of Malays who believe that they were born to be the true heirs of the country, that they are untouchable, demagogues even, and that theirs is the greatest country in the world (no thanks to the Chinese, of course). It’s no coincidence that there is a term for this – “jaguh kampung” – literally, “village champion”.
Thanks, Clive, I enjoyed reading your article.
0
0
Malay Muslim here; Sunni in theology, Shafi’e in jurisprudence and Ash’ari in dialectic and I never heard of this concept of Al-Wala’ Wal-Bara’. A quick Google search led me to believe that this is more prevalent among the Salafi and the Wahhabi ideology. Look man, if you want to bash Islam, at least have the decency of doing your homework and see that the experience of the Middle Eastern Muslim and that of the Southeast Asian model are often not the same.
0
0
It is all politics with politicians brain washing all and sundry to stay in power. The abandonment of the Malay Adat and the adoption of perceived Islamic practice, which are actually Arabic culture in disguise.
Replacements of common Malay words with Arabic terms in the last 15 or so years. Need for prayers before every damn thing – seminars, conferences meetings etc etc. these were not there 20 years ago!!
Promotion of jakim who seems to have higher authority than the “supreme” court. These are all a function of Politics in Malaysia.
0
0
Huddling / Banding together based on race and religion is not exclusive to Malay village psychology but can be found in Britexit,Trump politics, Merkel’s Germany etc etc
0
0
So do Inuit and your point is ? If this article was about German “huddling”, would point out that Malays do it too, as a Malay of course.
0
0
Nice piece with lots of insights. I think ethno-psychopathology is very important but politics and power erect boundaries between us and them figured as friend or foe and this is where Islam comes in. Malays are a recently invented ethnic grouping and were Hindu and Buddhist before being Arabized by an alien colonial religion
0
0
Malays are not a recently invented group, simply because they are heterogeneous. If I said Hokkien Chinese were merely a “recenty invented group” that derive from the Xiamen region in Fujian Province (which is how many Mainland Chinese often perceive overseas Hokkien Chinese) , I am sure many Hokkien Chinese in Malaysia would rightly have me drawn and quartered. We are well aware of Malay and Indonesian religious history. The basics of that is old hat, and we are well aware that many contemporary customs are still very much Hindu-influenced (Bersanding ceremony). Yes, Arabization brought foreign and uncomfortable paradigms to Malaysia. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Malays dressing like Bedouin, studying conversational Levantine or Gulf Arabic, or joining extremist Islamic groups, is seen as a way to get the pre-Islamic “demons” out of the closet. Hinduism and Buddhism had been in the region 3X as long as Islam. Old habits die hard. I agree that when politics is used to make intracultural and intercultural judgments, it almost always leads to discord. When men were more want to listen, both the Tunku and Gerakan-founder Dr Syed Alatas, pounded home the importance of multiculturalism, tolerance, respect and national cohesiveness. Tunku did not do this for himself, but for Malaysia. What has become of his rational and reality-based vision for the nation is both a tragedy and a disgrace.
0
0
June,
Truly, doesn’t Malaysia have enough trouble than to start whining about different Chinese language dialects ? When someone says, like I have, that Hakka women have had a history of social and economic independence overseas, that surely is not equivalent to saying Cantonese women haven’t also shown obvious independence and economic success, anywhere they reside. Superior cuisine ? My, aren’t we a bit haughty today. To non-meat fish eaters like me, Shanghaiese cuisine is superior to Cantonese. I would hardly make that as a Chinese Rule of Law. Is there enough variety in Chinese food, that one can find anything they like. Are you planning on wiping out the entire Caucasian race because most of us probably don’t like Pi Dan all that much.
Hinduism and Buddhism are not pagan belief systems. You are very free with your generalizations as much as you criticize others for the same. No one likes a hypocrite. You must distinguish between spirit belief in older Malay culture, existential Hindu-based beliefs, and beliefs that derive from Islam. To infer that everything that is not Islam, is “other” would draw howls of protest if I listed all the pagan Chinese beliefs that co-exist with Taoism and Buddhism. Your somewhat crude grand pronouncements indicate an incomplete education about Malays and Chinese-Malaysians. Your latent cynical tone may well be justified, but adds nothing to the discussion of why Malays have historically felt entrapped, even when they were (and are) dominant demographically and politically. The aphorism about “safety in numbers” really applies to groups subjected to direct persecution. If anything, that would describe the Chinese-Malaysian position more than the generic Malay position. The answer is not to be found solely in population numbers, per-capita incomes and cuisine. The feeling of beleagurement is complex and includes self-esteem issues, jealousy, bigotry, latent anti-colonial feelings, and something that is taboo in the Malay community for the more religious: Most Malays naturally accept that Islam is their natural order of things and that obeying God’s principles through the teaching of the Qur’an and Hadith are all natural. Few Malays ask, “Well, what has Islam done for me lately” ? Since you are not supposed to question what is a given, this is never asked. This is why, for most Malays, either “Islam” is to be defended, locally or abroad, and if something goes wrong, invariably it is the fault of non-Muslims, or possibly the Muslim in question is not devoted to Islam enough, has sinned and has to make Islamic resitutions. The ultimate reason for the beleagurement that Malays feel is that they are not allowed to ask the question: “Is there something wrong with Islam” ? As St. Frances struggled with Catholicism, great Rabbis with Judaism, the Guatama himself, with the notion of goodness and transcendence, almost common to Hinduism, Islam is unique in that metaphysical examination and discourse is not allowed (with some exceptions, like in Sufism and a few other ‘heretical’ branches of Islam). If you cannot question who YOU are, out of some unsubstantiated fear of loss on personal control, then anything perceived as foreign, by definition, becomes frightening and threatening. While the pagan and pre-Islamic tradition in Malay culture did indeed inculcate fear of the unknown as well, the strictures on such fear were far looser. As Islam became less Malay over time, and more imitative of foreign Arab (mostly) traditions, again it was assumed that this was the gold standard for Islam, simply because Muhammad didn’t happen to come out of the jungles in Madagascar. This belief in an Islamic gold standard is phony, as every other group of Muslims around the world, believe they also have a gold standard. This has been unhealthy for the Malay community, and by counterexample, explains why the Indonesian national concept of “unity in diversity” is a wise and prescient concept for a very heterogeneous nation. It long past time, that all Malays in the nation, come to believe the same thing….that, unity in diversity is healthy and necessary for Malaysia to prosper. Mocking Malays by pointing out their mutlireligious past is not helpful. They know their history and what it entails. Malays themselves, in a fractured society, must come to their own realizations, but must they come, for Malaysia to remain a stable and hopeful nation.
0
0
True. But then as you said, quote “Malays are not a recently invented group…” unquote. Look up the history of the Malaca Sultanate. As the PM of Malaysia said it himself, he is of Bugis decent.
It’s all about power. Here are a few example:-
http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=618830:even-before-hudud-posters-of-woman-without-tudung-deemed-sexy-by-hadis-pas&Itemid=2#axzz4H5NveEyP
http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=618554:using-islam-to-defend-najibs-corruption?-umno-academic-tells-muslims-to-be-wary-of-us-kleptocracy-lawsuits&Itemid=2#axzz4H5NveEyP
http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=618605:admit-it-malays-are-scared-to-compete-with-non-malays-best-cinematography-nominee-withdraws-from-racist-ffm&Itemid=2#axzz4H5NveEyP
It’s all about POWER. Islam is Malay, Malay is Islam, converts need not apply.
As for the 30 or more others that are now on Malaysia’s quasi-papal index of religious terms (istilah) that are for exclusive Muslim use only…errr I thought that those are ARABIC? Is Arabic not another language? After all, the language of Malaysia is Bahasa Malaysia, No? How are non-muslim suppose to ask questions, to learn about Islam if they cannot say those words? Go out of the country I suppose. Thus it’s all about POWER, nothing to do with the religion.
Look up the history of Malaya and Singapore, during the British time, the time leading to Independence, the promises made by Dr.M, and what happen after. It’s all about POWER.
Look up what happened or not happened after oil was found off the coast of Sabah.
It’s all about POWER. The rest are hubris.
From the view of a layman.
0
0
This is blatantly wrong, Sufism is not a mere heretical offshoot of Islam, the debate on ‘Ilm Kalam is well known, al-Ghazali is well respected throught the Sunni and the Shia world. Malaysia and Indonesia itself has a very rich Sufi tradition; the likes of al-Falimbani, as-Sumatrani, al-Fansuri. You talk of Indonesia national concept of ‘unity in diversity’ as wise and prescient, yet you failed to mention the rampant corruption that happened in Indonesia, the abysmal treatment of its Tionghua (Chinese) community, the violence that led to East Timor independence.
0
0
Muzaffar, your comments are tendentious. Sufism is regarded as heretical in all Muslim nations, TODAY (except secular Kazakhstan). It does not matter today that Sufi Islam ONCE dominated Islamic practice from India to Indonesia. It does not now, at least not officially. No more legal than Ahmadi or Ismaili Islam which is banned in Iran and Ahmadis persecuted in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia. Muzaffar, you think you represent Hadi Awang ? Then your Islam is hardly Shaf’i. You think you represent Najib ? Then your Islam is a jumble of convenient mixtures of Shaf’i and semi-Arab Islam. Many Malays are defined now probably more by what they don’t do than what they DO. Much of that is practice Islam with common sense and reason (thus many Malays and even Imams not even knowing that handling a dog is allowed in Islam if one washes subsequently, confusing Najis with Haram).
You seem to have a large rattan chip on your shoulder. Chinese are diverse in Malaysia, socially, culturally and linguistically, but what is fairly common to many is that they do not like the current trend in Malaysia inching towards Islamic orthodoxy, they do not like the blatant racist behavior of Ketuanan Melayu types, they do not like being scapegoats for Malay failures, smart ones don’t buy into Mahathir’s sudden epiphany in which Anwar and Chinese are now his buddies (beyond laughable). Malaysia was meant to be a secular nation like post-ottoman Turkey. Tunku meant it and the Reid Commission meant it. Both UMNO and PAS have broken the Malaysian Constitution so many times, it’s not worth keeping score. As a Malay, shouldn’t it be YOUR responsibility to ensure your practice Islam privately and responsibly and that the public sphere in Malaysia is kept free of religion, race and rascals ?
0
0
Ironically, Kessler’s reductionist and patronising line of thought found in this article is exactly what perpetuates the unequal and unjust power relationships in Malaysia.
The so-called “kampung psychology” proposed here is one that is perpetuated by the rigid structures of power in Malaysia. Such discourse from an esteemed anthropologist, no less, that subsumes ALL Malays to be embedded with this form of “psychosis” is extremely troubling and problematic.
Perhaps he has been subsumed so much by Malaysian racial politics that he has also subconsciously become as racially-minded as the Malaysian status quo!
Would it be possible to start thinking about Malays beyond the constructed boundaries of ethnicity? As a Malaysian-Malay, I must say thay I am deeply offended by this fallacious argument.
Kessler, your discourse here is effectively disempowering Malays from the possibility of breaking out of these colonially-constructed stereotypes. Where can we consider agency in the Malay world?
Were there not creative people from the region who went against the collectivist grain? Musicians, Theatre artists and filmmakers since the 1940s were actively creating spaces and works for individual expression that also critiqued colonialism.
The Malay left of the 1940s was instrumental in sparking the Malayan independence movement.
Fast forward to the late 1990s and note the reformasi movement that actively challenged Mahathir’s regime…. facing water cannons and all. From what I recall, I did not see them huddle in the face of such authoritarianism.
In recent times, young Malays such as Fahmi Reza boldly critique the Prime Minister in the form of creative arts (he was arrested for printing a T-shirt of Najib’s face painted like a clown).
My point is, your duty as a Malaysian academic is to critique but paramountly you should be enabling people with your ideas to change the dire political situation that is Malaysia.
Ikhlas (Sincerely)
0
0
I am most disturbed by the orientalising views ( and bringing Foster back into the fold?) expreseed by Prof Clive Kessler; its such a red herring argument, so pointless ,unproductive and so homogenising and does not shed any light into the issue of the current discourse of Malayness and governance in Malaysia. I welcome the more measured perspective by our young scholar Adil Johan!
0
0
Adil is not a scholar and thank you for validating Clive’s point: The Malay fear of any criticism leads to charges of “Orientalism”. This is both reflective of Malay’s own ignorance of their culture and their inability to interact with the “other”. There is nothing Orientalist here, except perhaps Joseph Conrad’s more than keen observation of the tendency of Malays to retreat when faced with truth. Zawawai’s comments are those of a fairly typical young Malay with insufficient self-esteem and self-knowledge to do anything other than imitate Edward Said and shout “Orientalism” at anything that makes him uncomfortable, the truth being the primary loser here.
0
0
So much has been said here, but briefly this is a clear case of excessive social capital, a condition written at length by Portes (1998). It actually has been attributed to many civilizations’ downfall especially when there is a strong intrinsic sociological force driving it. In this case, its religion. But make no mistake, any other can substitute for it. So the scenario described is not unique.
0
0
Stop quoting superfluous work and move beyond postmodern academic BS. Make no mistake, no one who has lived among Malay people from Johor to Kelantan and in Sabah and Sarawak, can’t but have a sense of the Malay identity crisis, whether eons ago, or today, and I will grit my teeth before I even have to refer to Mahathir to make my case, as he (for all the wrong reasons) spoke of this correctly, if hardly eloquently. Portes, shmortes. The Mayans are gone, except some ethnic enclaves in Central America. The Malays are not gone, which should give them sufficient succor, but it does not. The reasons are to be found in delusions of grandeur, fear of assimilation, and low self-esteem. Yes, there are other peoples who exhibit them, but not many with a government official who says that he stated “kill non-Malays” to boost Malay confidence. Please….even Pinochet, Marcos, Franco, Peron, Duvalier, Suharto, Reza Pahlavi, never said anything quite so absurd and chilling and then had to backtrack. No other nation has an analogue to “DR” Abdullah Tee, except Germany, circa 1938. No more whining about how all people feel threatened. Most of those people, unless they commit genocide, do not go around threatening to lop other people’s (i.e., Chinese-Malaysian) heads off. That is the kind of morale booster we saw in 1915 and 1938-1945, so this scenario is quite unique in the vituperativeness of Malay responses to their own fears, and this road has been traveled in Malaysia for years, with racist badgering, argument over an Aramaic word and who can use it and such ridiculous and infantile arguing, that one does NOT see in other nations. Kooties from foreigners, dirty dogs, chocolate pig DNA, illegal Fatwas, and the mass larceny of billions of dollars, while a moron poses with Leonardo di Caprio, and you think Thailand has problems ?
0
0
Bravo Cohen.
0
0