February 24th, 2010
Introduction and Overview
A Father's Query
Growing up in colonial Malaya, my father insisted that his children attend
English schools. This was surprising as my parents were Malay school
teachers and the country was then in the grip of intense nationalistic
fervor, anticipating independence. Malay teachers were at the vanguard of
this movement, specifically in UMNO.
In his later years my father would confide to me his reasons. He wanted
us, his children, to learn the ways and secrets of the English, and to
discover what it was that made them so successful that they could control
an empire. What was it about Britain, he wondered, an island half the size
of Sumatra that it could produce a race that would control a vast portion
of the globe? Why was it that the British who colonized Malaysia and not
Malays over Britain?
My father was not the first to ponder such matters.
The American biologist Jared Diamond in his Pulitzer prize-winning book,
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies, recounted his
experience with a tribal chief in Papua New Guinea at the end of the
Second World War. At that time the Allied forces were regularly dropping
supplies and other "goodies" to the troops and natives on the island.
These cargo drops were much anticipated. To the Stone Age natives, these
precious gifts were literally falling from heaven.
Their chief Yali, as befitted a true leader, went beyond simple
wonderment. In a pensive moment he too wondered why it was that Diamond's
people (that is, White man) who were dropping the cargoes on the natives
and not the other way around. The chief may had been in a Stone Age
surrounding and culture, but his insight and curiosity were on par with
past and modern thinkers and philosophers.
Yali's question, as Jared referred to, was also on my father's mind during
another major event in his life. During World War II the Japanese briefly
colonized Malaya. He could not help but notice the vast difference
between the behaviors of the Japanese masters as compared to the British.
While the English were very successful in making Malays and others eager
to learn and ape their ways, there was no love felt by Malaysians for the
Japanese, despite their much-hyped profession of Asian solidarity. To be
sure the Japanese were much respected, but that was out of fear and
intimidation. Unlike the British, the Japanese were very much hated for
their brutal and savage ways. There wasn't a Malaysian tear shed when
they surrendered.
My father wanted to know why these two races, the Japanese and British,
would turn out to be very different as masters. Even more important, what
was it that made them venture beyond their shores while Malays were
content to stay at home. This last point has not always been the case.
After all, his father had migrated across the Strait of Malacca from
Sumatra. Many in fact ventured far beyond the archipelago, landing on
such distant shores as Madagascar and South Africa. Malays back then were
famed as seafaring people.
Historians, ancient and modern, have attempted to explain the rise and
fall of great civilizations. Unfortunately I am no fan of that
discipline, perhaps the result of botched teaching during my high school.
History is unfairly stamped on my mind as only dates, persons, and events;
a narration of who did what to whom and, of course, when. Rarely is the
fundamental question of "Why?" asked. And when it is, the answer would
depend very much on one's (or the historian's) perspective.
Events of World War II would undoubtedly be interpreted much differently
from the current version had the Japanese and Germans won. To the victor
goes the privilege of writing history, observed Churchill. This bears
emphasis. Today Westerners, that is members of the developed societies,
write much of the literature on development. Rightly so, for few would
want to hear the views and theories of development propounded by
socialists and communists. Theirs is a failed system. We must however, be
careful to separate propaganda on the virtues of the West from empirically
proven successful strategies. Another useful caution is that what works in
the West may not be necessarily be so elsewhere. That however should not
be the excuse for us not to study Western ways, for if they are not
applicable to our society, then at least we should at least find out why.
A more problematic issue with the study of history is that human societies
and conditions change. Thus factors and conditions considered favorable
for development in the past may no longer be appropriate today; indeed
they may well prove to be obstacles. This caution is necessary in view of
fundamentalist Muslims' obsession to enforce 8th Century laws onto modern
society.
A more fruitful pursuit in understanding the fate of societies lies in the
sciences, both the social and natural sciences. Science after all attempts
to explain phenomena with a view to predict and or alter subsequent
events. That essentially is the focus of my enquiry.
Variations in the level of progress occur not only between but also within
societies. Having lived in three different countries, I am very much aware
of this. In Malaysia we have the Malay/non-Malay dynamics; in Canada, the
Francophone and Anglophones; and in America, the Blacks and Hispanics
versus Whites. When I hear discussions in America on the lack of Blacks
and Hispanics in higher education, all I have to do is substitute Malays
for Blacks or Hispanics, and the debates might as well have been in
Malaysia.
When I was living in Montreal in the 1970s, the passionate arguments then
were on the lack of French-Canadians at McGill University. Those heated
discussions eerily echoed the equally impassioned rhetoric of an UMNO
Youth gathering. Only the geography and participants were changed, but
the dynamics remained remarkably similar.
Malaysia's Problems In Perspective
During my childhood I was very much aware of the gross inequities between
the races in Malaysia. I was also keenly conscious of the racial
undertones whenever minor social and economic conflicts arose. Even
seemingly innocuous neighborly disputes could quickly escalate into major
racial confrontations.
I remember how an innocent and inconsequential labor dispute at Malayan
Railway in the late 1950's quickly degenerated into an ugly racial
confrontation, simply because most of the workers were Indians and the
managers, Malays. It took the swift action of an economics professor,
Ungku Aziz, to prevent that conflict from degenerating. A decade later in
May 1969, a boisterous electoral victory parade by a predominantly Chinese
party precipitated the nation's worse race riot.
The successive governments of Malaysia, from the colonial British to the
present, have long grappled with the race problems with varying degrees
of success. Out of that 1969 national tragedy emerged the New Economic
Policy, with its objectives of eradicating poverty and the
"identification of race with economic functions." The dangerous gaps
separating the various communities in Malaysia have now narrowed
considerably; nonetheless inequities still exist and continue to be a
major source of social instability. Malaysia's problems however, are not
unique.
A year after the Malaysian riot and in the opposite end of the globe, I
would once again be caught in the maelstrom of another interracial
conflict. It was in Montreal, this time between the French- and
English-Canadians. Although the number of casualties was nowhere
comparable to the Malaysian melee, nonetheless qualitatively, the
dynamics were similar.
That Canadian rage erupted when members of the separatist Front de
Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) kidnapped a Francophone provincial cabinet
minister and the British consul. The diplomat was later released
unharmed, but the minister was savagely murdered. That crisis
precipitated a civil unrest the likes of which Quebec and Canada had
never seen. The old War Measures Act was resurrected and thrust onto
Canadians; overnight they saw their cherished freedom taken away. That
conflict also saw armed troops marching and heavy tanks rolling down the
streets of Montreal. The scenes were reminiscent of a banana republic
rather than a modern nation.
Canada, like Malaysia, has come a long way from those ugly days of a
generation ago. In many parts of the globe today however, we still see
ugly ethnic conflicts, and the participants in each of those disputes
insist on the righteousness of their claim and on the uniqueness of their
particular positions.
Malaysia has the added problem of its socioeconomic cleavages paralleling
racial lines. Again this is not unique. With the massive migrations and
arbitrary drawing of political boundaries in the last century, many
countries have ethnically and culturally diverse populations, and the
attendant inter-communal inequities. Much of the world today is still
consumed with irrational ethnic and racial hatred, from Europe (Northern
Ireland and the Balkans) to Africa (Nigeria and Rwanda), and Asia (Sri
Lanka and Fiji). Thus Malaysia's experience in dealing with her
interracial problems has worldwide relevance.
Canada, like Malaysia, had its own sets of interracial problems. The
socioeconomic differences between the French and English there were
obvious, at least a generation ago. The province of Quebec may be
overwhelmingly French, but signs in that language were practically
non-existent in downtown Montreal. The executive suites there were more
likely to be filled with a Baker, Smith, or Wilson, rather than a
Beauchamp, Dumaine, or Poirier. At least that was the situation back in
the 1960's.
These differences extended beyond the social and economic arena. I
remember being perplexed by a case of fever in a young French-Canadian
girl. A senior English-Canadian doctor casually suggested that I look at
the patient's teeth and remarked rather crudely that French-Canadians had
"rotten teeth." Sure enough, she indeed had severe cavities and gum
disease. Thus even oral pathology follows racial lines. To what extent
such differences reflect differing socioeconomic status or merely the
function of genetics, diet, or culture is not known.
A decade later in California, I was again struck by the glaring inequities
between the different communities. The dynamics were more complex
involving Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics. Every so often America's race
problems would explode, as in the Watts riot of 1960s and the Rodney King
of 1992. That second eruption followed the acquittal of four white
policemen who were caught on videotape senselessly beating up an unarmed
black man, Rodney King.
Even when the citizenry of a nation is relatively homogenous, differences
can occur, for example, between regions. Coastal regions of China are
more developed and readily adopt free enterprise, while its central
regions remain mired in totalitarianism. And conflicts between the two
occur regularly.
Thus the study of how societies develop is relevant to understanding
inequities not only within but also between nations.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
No comments:
Post a Comment