Mahathir, Lee Kuan Yew & The Lazy Native
One wonders if Mahathir and Lee Kuan Yew ever share the same philosophy. The Ultra Malay Mahathir and Radical Chinese Lee are almost always at odds with one another. From politics to policies, there seems to be infinite reasons for them to brawl and hark over, and even if there are no reasons left they can’t seem to help but pull a mickey out of the other. But read between the lines; and you will realize that they share the same philosophy. The same reductionist philosophy that subjugated the region into chains of colonization in the past.
But before going into the shared philosophy espoused by these leaders, it is better to understand how a reductionist view on any subject would eventually lead to the perversion of the original idea in the first place. An idea or perception of a matter or subject – is defined based on the senses and our analytic thought. That, and infused with cultural, surroundings and historical impact at the end of the day produces the paradigm in which we live our lives. Right, now that’s not that hard to follow isn’t it? However, no matter how accurate one’s senses perceive a subject, an observer possessing a reductionist view would try to simplify things by creating faulty arguments and slippery judgments.
Thus, when it comes to formulating a policy – a reductionist approach is at best, dangerous on many levels. Firstly, a reductionist may not solve the problem at hand but instead exacerbates it by not understanding the whole mechanism in the first place. In other words, a reductionist would rush to ‘fix’ the problem based on first impressions – thus neglecting the intricacies of the problem in the first hand. On a second level, even if the problem is solved, it will leave an after taste of resentment, as the early mechanism of the machinery has been forcibly changed in order to facilitate the new function. In other words, the machinery is forced to function based on the whims of the reductionist rather than working naturally based on its mechanics. On the third level, a reductionist would distort an original idea by implementing the interpretation of the idea into a form, which is extreme, or unfounded by the earlier idea. This is because the reductionist would digest the original idea only in its cosmetics rather than understanding the whole dynamics and principles of the idea. For example, a reductionist view of sociology gave birth to Communism; a reductionist view of biology gave birth to Nazism, and a reductionist view of Islam gave birth to Islamic terrorism.
The same could be said about both Mahathir and Lee Kuan Yew.
In his ‘Malay Dilemma’, Mahathir espoused the view that the Malays; particularly the rural Malays whom he characterized as less competitive compared to the urban and racially mixed Malays as somewhat lacking in intelligence as compared to the others. By others, I refer to the Chinese, Indians, and Malays of racially mixed background. Therefore, in his assessment – an open and competitive market and environment would actually cause the Malays to be more weak than their status quo.
Mahathir may have written the Malay Dilemma in the early years of his entrance into politics, but his view remained unchanged. To exemplify this, his recent comments especially with regards to Premier Najib Razak’s drive to promote meritocracy was a clear sign that he has yet to ditch his post-colonialist belief in social anthropology, which ascribed to the idea that certain races are born superior than other races. Does Mahathir believe that the pure-blooded Malays are superior than the other races? No. In fact he believed that the pure-blooded Malays are somewhat incompetent when it comes to competition with other races. It was written thus in his Malay Dilemma. And was reiterated again during his post-retirement era, where he concluded that meritocracy would benefit only certain races as compared to affirmative action which, in his opinion would level the playing field for everyone. In his paradigm, which I believe and presume that many of UMNO Old Guards still adhere to, affirmative action is a must to ensure that all the races would be able to stand together and reap the economy fairly.
Now, in Lee Kuan Yew’s ‘Hard Truth’; the Singaporean Lion mentioned that the Chinese people are resilient because the Chinese in the past practiced the law of ‘survival of the fittest’, where ‘the poor can’t get married and breed, while the smart and rich are able to breed’, thus eliminating the ‘bad genes’. He had also concluded that the modern Chinese are thus resilient and smarter, as it is both inherent genetically, as well as culturally. In his own words, Lee Kuan Yew mentioned that he loathed liberal democracies, as they tend ‘to believe that all people are born equal’. With all due respect to Mr Lee, he may have taken the liberal democracies egalitarian principles literally – as compared to having it as a guiding principle. But that’s for another discussion. As for Mr Lee, his generalization of race (often by forgetting that the different ethnics in China have different micro-history based on their region) and his implicit belief that some races are born superior than others come to prove that his mentality is along the lines of the colonialists that both he and Mahathir replaced. However, as opposed to Mahathir’s paradigm – Lee Kuan Yew believe that affirmative action would be detrimental towards the more superior race as they are forced to accommodate to the inferior races.
Eerily, many of us still adhere to both of these mutually exclusive paradigms. In fact. I believe that these two paradigms have made its mark on the societies of both countries especially with regards to Sino-Malay relationship. Thus, they made the bulwark to a dynamic relationship between the two races.
In truth however, both of their judgments and thinking flow are, well, flawed. Firstly, having the self-belief of superiority to judge the people based on race has shifted their attention away from the illness affecting a section of the population. By generalizing a certain problem to a particular race, one does not solve the problem at all as the remedy is not solving the cause of the problem. Rather, they have focused on the symptoms of the illness, rather than the cause of the illness.
With this regard, Lee Kuan Yew is less guilty in the trajectory of this mindset into his administration. As for Mahathir, the affirmative action was already taking place when he came into power – thus giving him more impetus in administering the policy based on the post-colonial mindset. The economic strength and growth in the early 90’s perhaps have dulled the people’s mindset from reacting towards such a denigration of thought. Economic success in most cases, is defined as the wisdom and ingenuity of the leader. Both countries grew and grew while harbouring the post-colonial philosophy, which reared its head after economic downturns. In other words, Malaysia and Singapore are merely growing shells – with no input of philosophical glue to actually coalesce the people together. The unity dances, songs and cultural festivals are merely cosmetics. The ruling government decides how the races should interact rather than giving them guidelines on how to interact. There’s a subtle line that both government failed to see.
In the Myth of the Lazy Native, Syed Hussein Al Attas hampered the thoughts that the Western imperialists have towards the natives. He motioned that the Western combination of fantasy, prejudice and refined scholarship gave the basis to imperialism, whereby “[t]he image of the indolent, dull, backward and treacherous native has changed into that of a dependent one requiring assistance to climb the ladder of progress”. Hussein denounces the belief that the natives, i.e. the Malay require constant assistance in order for them to be successful and civilized. Predicaments, history, location and time he believed, shaped the people’s mindset. And unlike the Western Imperialist, Mahathir and Lee Kuan Yew – Hussein believes that the resilience and intelligence of a race is very much formed by the surroundings rather than being inherent. Thus, it paved the way to his belief in the early Gerakan Party that was the champion of racial equality and a dynamic modern socialism approach.
Mahathir and Lee Kuan Yew may have been successful in managing their respective country, but the philosophy in which the countries were managed were only ‘good while they last’. The current threat to our joint 1culture, politics and dynamics from falling apart rests on the development of a reformed philosophy and an ever shifting paradigm. And the time for a major paradigm shift happens now.
It is somewhat apparent as to why liberal democracy may not be able to blossom any time soon within this region. With most of the top echelons within the two countries still harbouring the belief that they know more than the others, and thus can decide on how to deal, interact and administer the populace. The worse part is that the view is implicitly shared by a large part of the populace. For a liberal democracy to bloom, the populace would need a substantial amount of confidence, as well as more depth within their thoughts that they are able to coalesce dynamically to form a functioning society. The governments of the day within these two nations thus have a large burden in educating the people on civil rights and social responsibility, along with managing their current development policies.
The time has come for the governments of this region to give birth to a new dynamic society, one that subscribes to the philosophy that is both progressive yet localize in its expression of culture. A brand of philosophy that may have its origin in the centre-left movement of the 60’s but gravely relevant to the present day.
‘The Myth of the Lazy Native’ should be reviewed in a more recent term. They myth is no longer true in the eyes of former colonial masters, but is sadly seen as fact by local leaders.
