Critical Asian studies f\ Routledqe

37: 1 ( 2005) , 161- 175 I V Taylor & Francis Croup

Review Essay
The State of Malaysian Studies
Sheila Nair
Edmund Terence Gomez, ed. The State of Malaysia: Ethnicity, Equity
and Reform, London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004.
Francis Loh Kok Wah and Johan Saravanamuttu, eds. New Politics
in Malaysia, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2003.
Khoo Boo Teik. Beyond Mahathir: Malaysian Politics and Its Discon-
tents, London and New York: Zed Books, 2003.
Vidhu Verma. Malaysia: State and Civil Society in Transition, Boulder,
Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002.
In the 1980s political theorist Quentin Skinner noted that the empiricist and
positivist turn in the social sciences, which had driven the study of politics and
society in the three preceding decades, was under challenge by "hermeneu-
ticists, structuralists, post-empiricists, deconstructionists, and other invading
hordes."* The general skepticism about positivist social science was a reaction,
noted Skinner, "against the assumption that the natural sciences offer an ade-
quate or even a relevant model for the practice of the social disciplines."^
Anti-positivist critics advocated instead uncovering or recovering meaning, ex-
plaining the contingent and the unpredictable and contextualizing inquiry. The
turn toward history, a form of "grounded" knowledge, and an awareness of the
normative and ideological bases of inquiry and the uses to which knowledge
may be put signified an important shift in the social sciences and was critical in
the evolution of "area studies." The impact of the positivist movement on the
study of politics and society in Malaysia during the same period and for some
time afterward has been profound. It shaped Malaysian studies in much the
same way it impacted the inception of area studies it underscored positiv-
ism's central tenets about an objective universe that could be rationally appre-
hended and scientifically known. Linear notions of political and social develop-
ment dominated the scholarly literature, one largely influenced by U.S. social
scientific thinking about "modernization," political systems, and the societies
these embraced.
Modernization's claims, which relied on assumptions about objective knowl-
edge, and specifically the relationship between political development and eco-
ISSN 1467-2715 print/1472-6033 online/01 /000161-15 2005 BCAS, Inc. DOI:10.1080/1467271052000305313
nomic growth, hardly go unchallenged today, but modernization's influence
has been lasting in the literature on Malaysia. Concerned for the most part with
explaining elite politics, party politics, government, and ethnic pluralism, Ma-
laysian Studies particularly works focusing on politics and social change in
the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s tended toward analyses rooted in a modernization
paradigm. Especially troubling was the tendency to see one or more variables
particularly ethnic identity and conflict as explaining major political out-
comes. There was also a tendency to formulate frameworks for analysis by
which the evidence gathered would be used to test the author's initial hypothe-
ses. Arguments were generally rendered as objective and value neutral. How-
ever, as Skinner paraphrasing Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
suggests, "there are no facts independent of our theories about them, and in con-
sequence no one way of viewing, classifying and explaining the world that all ra-
tional persons are obliged to accept."^ Despite these efforts to "scientifically"
produce knowledge about Malaysian politics and society, the process of "classi-
fying," "ordering," or "systematizing" evidence in a particular way resulted in
understanding that was more or less skewed toward the categories being em-
ployed, instead of being a reflective representation of the "facts" of the situa-
tion. Such knowledge, apart from being embedded in a dualistic conceptualiza-
tion of modernity and tradition, demonstrated a preoccupation with Western,
mainly North American, social scientiflc criteria.
Despite these drawbacks, several earlier studies generated much insight on
the nature and role of political institutions and processes, and stimulated vigor-
ous debate among scholars. A few also revealed a self-consciousness about
knowledge production and the position of the researcher/analyst/scholar in
shaping that knowledge. Among the works that demonstrated such a sensitivity
to context, history, and reflective inquiry is William Roff's remarkably interpre-
tive analysis. The Origins of Malay Nationalism (1967). The narrative allows its
"subjects" to be heard in the text rather than merely imposing the author's
voice. The research is painstaking, and its presentation in the book conveys
not concrete evidence of this or that event or fact, but instead a compefling ex-
planation of the sources of Malay nationalism. Roff's analysis of Sahabat
Pena's (Brotherhood of Pen Friends) emergence as a nationalist movement,
for example, informs us of its early ideological beginnings in a newspaper col-
umn, to its growth into a correspondence club, and thence to a national move-
ment. The controversies surrounding the formation of the movement and its
"political" orientation are presented in a way that brings out what may initially
appear as minor details, such as the injunction to boys and girls in the column
published in the newspaper Saudara to communicate only with members of
the same sex."* These bits of information are in effect critical to our understand-
ing of the larger narrative generating insight into other facets of Malay society
such as the state of gender relations. Roff's study provides us with a window
into the formation of early Malay nationalism that is nuanced and persuasive in
its complexity.
Roff's analysis recalls Hirschman's distinction, in the latter's comparison of
two noteworthy contributions to the study of Latin American politics, society,
1 6 2 Critical Asian Studies 37:1 (2005)
and economy, between "good and bad theorizing, or between fruitful and ster-
ile paradigmatic thinking."' Comparing two major studies on Latin America,
James Payne's Patterns of Conflict in Colombia, and John Womack's Zapata
and the Mexican Revolution (both published in the late 1960s), Hirschman
suggests that Womack, who has rigorously excluded from his "universe any
semblance of a paradigm...invites speculation and thereby contributes to the
possibility of understanding."* Payne, on the other hand, appears trapped
within his "paradigm" when he triumphantly presents the reader, according to
Hirschman, with the "key to the full and complete understanding ofthe Colom-
bian political system. The rest of the book is a demonstration that the key in-
deed unlocks all conceivable doors of Colombian political life, past, present,
and future."^ Roff, in light of Hirschman's critique, has provided us with a richly
conceived and textured account of the rise of Malay nationalist ideology.
Hirschman's warnings against mindless theorizing as a substitute for that
other pitfall, "rank empiricism," is a point that all scholars and particularly those
who might identify themselves as area or regional specialists, or experts on a
country in an area or region, would do well to heed. Along those lines, other
scholarship on Malaysia emerging in the 1980s and 1990s sought a balance be-
tween "objective" theorizing and empirical analysis. Several studies also ex-
pressed a commitment to social and political change by exposing and challeng-
ing the underlying ideological biases of earlier approaches. The move toward
grounded theory compared with more general formulations about the rela-
tionship between economic and political development, a preoccupation with
the generalizability of models, and quantitative measurements of political be-
havior saw the emergence of alternative schools of thought, which posed a
challenge to the modernization paradigm. The analysis ofthe formation of class
structures and the relationship of class to political power in Malaysia, which was
soon evident in the literature, contributed greatly to the study of Malaysian po-
litical economy. An example being K.S. Jomo's A Question of Class (1988),
which was a timely work on class relations in colonial and postcolonial Malaya,
tracing the development of capitalism and its implications for the political econ-
omy of the postcolonial state. This study provided an important critique not
only of modernization, but also of the dependency school, which had influ-
enced research on the political economy of Latin American and African societ-
ies. Jomo's analysis also challenged theories that focused on the state as a neu-
tral arbiter of competing interests in a plural society. Significantly, his work also
revealed that a focus on the so-called ethnic bases of Malaysian society hid class
relations. A Question of Class thus uncovered the complexity ofthe Malaysian
class structure and its implications for political arrangements in the
postcolonial state. This work shed new light not only on class formation but also
on the state's role in engendering the formation of new^ social forces.
The older debate between the modernizationists on the one hand and neo-
Marxians on the other (among them works invoking one or more perspectives
on imperialism and neocolonialism, dependency, world systems, and structural
analyses ofthe state), has to some extent been displaced by more recent influ-
ences on the study of Malaysian politics including the various "posts-," as in
Nair/State of Maiaysian Studies 1 6 3
postmodernism, post-structuralism, and postcolonial theory. Some of these
theoretical shifts have influenced the study of Malaysian politics indirectly. In
anthropology and sociology, in particular, these "newer" theoretical shifts have
had a profound impact on the way these disciplines have reconstituted them-
selves. In addition, the emergence of a distinct body of feminist theory also sug-
gests that the privileged "unit of analysis," the abstract rational individual,
group, or class, in mainstream approaches, must be viewed as an inherently
gendered category. Among the contributions to this literature are the writings of
Ong (1987) and Peletz (1996). It is possible to view these post-positivist contri-
butions to the literature as a continuation of the kind of work done by Roff
(1967), Scott (1985), Jomo (1988), and others writing in an interpretive and/or
critical vein.
However, despite the critical theoretical disjuncture provided by explicitly
post-positivist methodologies, the modernization literature, which utilized im-
plicitly or explicitly certain models of political behavior, has also informed the
development of Malaysian Studies in the last decade. For example, studies of
democratization in Malaysia, "soft authoritarianism," and state-society relations
in the 1990s suggest a preoccupation with notions of political development, a
key theme of modernization theory. I am mainly concerned in this essay with
scholarship that falls within the domain ofthe study of politics or political sci-
ence, but admittedly the distinction between what constitutes a particular disci-
pline or fleld and the interdisciplinary aspects of these studies may make this an
arbitrary distinction. Malaysian Studies in the new millennium reveals a contin-
uing interest in questions concerning the electoral process, democratic institu-
tions, ideology, the state, political economy, and civil society. The works re-
viewed below approach these questions from varying methodological angles
and perspectives. What unites these studies is a concern with new configura-
tions in Malaysian politics in the aftermath of a singularly important series of
events in recent Malaysian history. These events were triggered with the 1997
Asian financial crisis, which affected Malaysia in rather profound ways. The Ma-
laysian currency depreciated sharply and its fall was only halted by aggressive
government policies aimed at curbing capital flows out of the country and cur-
rency speculation. Serious cracks soon emerged in ruling circles and were man-
ifested most plainly in differences between the Malaysian prime minister,
Mahathir Mohamad, and his deputy, Anwar Ibrahim. The subsequent expulsion
of Anwar Ibrahim from both the ruling party. United Malays National Organiza-
tion (UMNO), and the Barisan National (BN) coalition government, and his im-
prisonment on charges of corruption and sexual misconduct triggered a move-
ment for reform, popularly known as reformasi. Several key themes dominate
the post-1997 literature and include among others the emergence ofthe reform
movement and its implications for electoral politics, and political transforma-
tion more broadly; the relationship between authoritarianism and democratiza-
tion; and the relevance of ethnic identity and social class for an understanding
of contemporary Malaysian politics.
1 6 4 Critical Asian Studies 37:1 (2005)
Constructing a New Idiom: The "New Politics"
One ofthe more common terms of reference in the Malaysian Studies literature
in recent years is the idea of a "new politics." This concept is used generally to
describe a shift away from the "old politics" of race and ethnicity in Malaysia.
The preoccupation with ethnic relations and ethnic politics was widely re-
flected in the literature for many decades and, as mentioned earlier, treated as
the single most significant factor shaping state-society relations. While these ar-
guments about the overriding claims of ethnicity on political culture and iden-
tity have some merit, this is surely only part of the story. Alternatively we can
identify other sources that have influenced social and political change in Ma-
laysia, such as class and gender affiliations. The new politics as it is conceived
in recent contributions to the Malaysian Studies literature attacks the central
premise of the earlier literature's preoccupation with ethnic identity as the
main source for the creation and stability of political coalitions and political par-
ticipation. The use of a new lexicon to describe an apparent shift in political
alignments and ethnic consciousness is the centerpiece of Loh and Saravanu-
muttu's edited collection, New Politics in Malaysia. In this study the editors
and individual authors set out to uncover "a shift in Malaysian politics" accom-
panying the events of 1998, using the Malaysian general election of 1999 as a
turning point for an in-depth analysis of changes in the sociopolitical landscape
of the country. The volume contains fourteen chapters, including two that re-
flect the editors' efforts to analytically frame the volume, and twelve empirically
driven studies ofthe impact ofthe general election on a wide range of issues and
concerns including the drawing of electoral constituencies, voter behavior, eth-
nic voting patterns, gender and representation, "micro-politics" of particular
constituencies, and state-level politics.
A strength ofthe volume is its comprehensive coverage of key issues surfac-
ing around the 1999 Malaysian general election and its efforts to situate shifting
political alignments and sentiments after 1997 through original and primary re-
search by both well-established and junior scholars and practitioners. The vol-
ume highlights the dilemmas of a post-1997 Malaysian politics caught between
ethnic chauvinism and a long-standing hegemonic ruling framework that re-
flects partriarchal privilege, authoritarianism, and elitism, and an opposing set
of political forces pushing for the dismantling of the old order. Unlike in
Suharto's Indonesia where the New Order regime, which was by 1998 clearly an
old order, fell apart in the wake ofthe currency crisis that hit that country espe-
cially hard, Malaysia's ruling elite led by then prime minister Mahathir Moha-
mad entrenched its position. In characteristic and peremptory fashion Mahathir
ousted his opponents, triggering widespread protests, but not to the extent that
his government was ever seriously in danger of collapse. Yet how could it hap-
pen in Indonesia but not in Malaysia? Like the other works reviewed here, this
volume struggles with why democratization, understood in the conventional
sense ofthe institutionalization of an independent judiciary, media, civil society,
and the promotion and protection of civil and political rights, has posed such a
Nair/State of Malaysian Studies 165
challenge in Malaysia with the ruling party continuing to enjoy rather wide-
spread electoral support.
In New Politics in Malaysia some answers are offered, including the tight
control by the state ofthe media, gerrymandering, ethnic politics, hegemony of
the dominant political culture, and fear of change. While the different chapters
in this collection explore a slice ofthe larger electoral picture in 1999 in the con-
text ofthe movement for reform, the book seeks to address the broader ques-
tion and problem of political change. The contributions are generally useful ad-
ditions to the literature, but a few, in this writer's view, stand out, such as Lim
Hong Hai's "The Delineation of Peninsular Electoral Constituencies," Johan
Saranvanamuttu's study of the "middle class factor" in one electoral constitu-
ency, and Tan Beng Hui and Cecilia Ng's analysis of the Malaysian women's
movement in electoral politics. Lim's essay draws attention to the complexities
of delineating electoral constituencies and its relationship to ethnic relations.
He notes that in Malaysia the re-delineation of boundaries has been mostly con-
sistent with ethnic fragmentation and party politics. Lim suggests that grappling
with "the rules and practice of constituency delineation in Malaysia" will yield a
better understanding ofthe struggle for power and representation among eth-
nic groups and political parties {44). He is able to support this contention well
through a careful and attentive study ofthe history of constituency delineation
and its contemporary effects on Malaysian electoral politics.
Saravanamuttu's essay is one ofthe rare ones inNew Politics inMalaysia that
attempts to frame something of a research question or problematic. He begins
by asking "whether there is an electoral 'politics' which typifies the concerns, in-
terests, and tendencies ofthe Malaysian middle class" (178). In other words,
what is the relationship between social class and voting behavior, and specifi-
cally how was this manifested, if at all, in the 1999 election? He is also interested
in exploring the impact of reformasi on voters' opinions and behavior. Sarava-
namuttu seeks to uncover an answer through his analysis of voters' attitudes
and opinions on the eve of the general election in an ethnically mixed but
mainly middle-class constituency, which was subsequently retained by the BN
ruling coalition. His use of a survey instrument to gauge voter sentiment on is-
sues such as income, security, social justice, and ethnic relations reflects the so-
cial class and ethnic makeup of this constituency. He concludes that despite the
survey results showing respondents citing social justice as high among their
concerns, voters expressed their electoral preferences mainly along party, and
hence ethno-political, affiliations (187-88; 192-94).
In Tan and Ng's chapter we find yet another variable gender enter elec-
toral calculations and electoral politics. The writers situate their discussion of
two key initiatives put forth by the Malaysian women's movement, the Women's
Agenda for Change (WAC) and the Women's Candidacy Initiative (WCI), by re-
lating them to the significance and implications of a politics of representation
more generally Leading from this, they ask whether it is "essential for women to
enter formal politics in order to have their interests represented? Put differently,
what would be the best approach to maximize women's gains vis-a-vis the issue
of representation?" (110). This study by Tan and Ng raises important points
Nair/State of Malaysian Studies 166
about the merits of "formal," as in the mobilization of women around party poli-
tics, versus the "informal" participatory dimension, where women remain in
some sense outside the mainstream of political life, but are nevertheless impor-
tant agents in the shaping of their own histories and destinies. Indeed, the com-
ing out as it were of women into electoral politics through the fielding of an in-
dependent WCI candidate who "stood on a women's issues platform" was a
turning point for the women's movement in its efforts to place center stage the
problem of political representation and women's rights (115). The strength of
this chapter lies in the way it relates recent trends in the women's movement in
Malaysia to broader theoretical issues concerning gender, and power and repre-
sentation. Although the authors do not delve into an extended theoretical dis-
cussion of feminist scholarly insights, they provide enough theoretical depth in
the chapter to frame the analysis and thus save it from being merely descriptive.
Unfortunately, this is not the case with several other chapters, which while pro-
viding valuable information this would be acceptable if the book's ambitions
were more modest, tend to provide more of a descriptive recounting of various
events and data around the 1999 general election. What is lacking are more
richly textured and interpretive narratives that, as Hirschman would put it, in-
vite speculation and understanding. It is also worth noting that a mainly empiri-
cal discussion may tell a part of the story, but will not typically help us put this
story in a wider context or give us insight into deeper implications of broad as-
sertions concerning shifts in cultural and political identity, which is an objective
of the volume.
An admirable effort to provide the central theme(s) and an overarching ana-
lytical purpose may be seen in the last chapter by Francis Loh. He suggests that
while ethnicity remains a formidable force in the calculations of Malaysians on
who to vote for, it has been somewhat displaced by the "politics of develop-
mentalism," which links economic growth, rising incomes, and consumption
with political stability in the form ofthe BN state (261). He attributes the elec-
toral choices of a large percentage of Malaysian Chinese to developmentalism,
which he argues was promoted by the BN and its component Chinese-based
parties throughout the 1990s. He also suggests that based on the findings of var-
ious contributors to the volume it would be safe to conclude that while ethnicity
remains an important factor in electoral politics it is also contested. He cites
other considerations that should also be taken into account such as class and gen-
der, although the infiuence ofthe latter may be felt more in the realm of nonparty
politics. Despite the contributions of the chapter toward a rethinking of Malay-
sian politics, however, the reader is still unclear by the end of the volume about
what the editors mean by one of its central concepts: the new politics. The con-
cept comes up infrequently throughout the volume and when it is explained its
meaning and content remain elusive. Loh provides this explanation:
the "new politics" alluded to is not that of participatory democracy, nor
that of developmentalism. The "new politics" refers to the increasing frag-
mentation ofthe ethnic communities, on the one hand, the contestations
between the discourses and practices ofthe politics of ethnicism, partici-
patory democracy, and developmentalism, on the other.
Nair/State of Malaysian Studies 1 67
He goes on to add that the "new politics is evident in the realm of non-formal
politics especially in the peninsula" (278-79).
Loh's definition raises more questions: Is the new politics about fragmenta-
tion and contestation among ethnic communities, or is it about the struggle be-
tween competing discourses driven by different social forces and interests? Or is
it instead about the emergence of a nonparty politics in Malaysia? Elsewhere
Loh refers to a "new political culture" that emphasizes developmentalism, but
concludes that "new politics refers to this fragmentation and contestation in
Malaysia's political culture."* It would have been helpful if Loh had distin-
guished his definition from that deployed in the scholarly literature on new so-
cial movements in the 1980s and 1990s when the concept "new politics" was
commonly used in reference to nonparty, noninstitutionalized social move-
ment politics in Western Europe and North America.' On its own terms, Loh's
explanation does not adequately address the significance of ethnicity vis-a-vis
class or gender as constitutive of the identities of political agents, or develop-
mentalism vis-a-vis participatory democracy as socially mediated spaces where
politics gets played out. Perhaps the simplest explanation ofthe new politics is
to think of it as distinct from an "old politics" in Malaysia, the latter driven by
ethnic interests and class privilege. Yet this leaves this reader somewhat dissatis-
fied. Is it safe to assume then that the old politics signified a lack of contestation
and fi-agmentation? Such an assumption would surely contradict earlier studies
that document confiict and struggle over the terms and conditions of political
discourse in postcolonial Malaysia, especially obvious in the first two decades of
independence.
Despite these reservations, I would argue that New Politics inMalaysia suc-
ceeds reasonably well in accomplishing its general objective of providing an
overview of changes in the electoral map and electoral politics and original re-
search on electoral behavior. Its conclusions that events after 1997 have re-
sulted in social and political shifts, even if not on a tectonic scale, and challenge
a dominant discourse structured around ethnic politics and patronage are well
taken. Where the weakness of the volume lies is in the accomplishment of the
theoretical and conceptual significance of many of the findings generated in the
various chapters, and implications for further research and future directions in
Malaysian Studies.
Politics in Transition
Another notable contribution to the recent literature is also an edited collec-
tion, Edmund Terence Gomez's 77>e State of Malaysia: Ethnicity, Equity and
Reform. This collection includes chapters relating post-1997 developments
such as the reformasi movement to Malaysia's political system, "transethnic sol-
idarities," elections, and the nexus of politics and business. Gomez nicely sets
the context for the rest of the volume in his introduction by highlighting the sig-
nificance and implications of the reform movement for social and political
change, government decision making, and social and economic policy in Malay-
sia. The introductory chapter poses the general question of why the reform
movement, and here the comparison with New Politics in Malaysia is instruc-
1 6 8 Critical Asian Studies 37:1 (2005)
tive, failed to make an impact (The State of Malaysia, 19). Gomez explains that
the chapters in the volume address two main issues: first, "why Malaysians have
been reluctant to accept the new formidable opposition coalition led by Anwar
despite their concerns about poor governance by Mahathir," and second, "the
themes and conflicts that animate Malaysian politics and business, specifically
the difficulties of maintaining large-scale, multi-ethnic political unions and cre-
ating sustainable domestic entrepreneurial enterprises" (19). One ofthe ten-
sions that emerges in this volume, which could also be a strength, is between
these two competing objectives, since the chapters do not consistently relate
their purpose to the central question about the limited impact of the reform
movement posed by Gomez at the outset. I shall take up this point a little later,
but I would like first to address the significance of, and contributions made by,
this volume to Malaysian Studies.
The Malaysian political system has been w^idely described as "semi-authori-
tarian" or "soft authoritarian" in the scholarly literature. Deploying a similar ter-
minology, the chapter by Case in the The State of Malaysia refers to the country
as a "pseudo-democracy." According to Case, Malaysia's "pseudo-democracy in-
volves a pattern of limited civil liberties, but at least moderately competitive
elections, driven by, yet in turn helping to sustain, a government that centres on
a single dominant party" (29). Case's chapter is an ambitious attempt to trace
the origins of Malaysia's so-called pseudo-democracy, the stresses it faces, and
the reasons for its long-term stability (30). Case argues that the ruling BN has
been able to keep its hold on power despite the political challenges emerging
after 1997 in part due to finessing its patronage politics, dissension among the
opposition ranks and the rise of Isiamicists, and the historic loyalty of military
and other security forces. Applying theoretical literature on democratic transi-
tions and democratization. Case measures the Malaysian experience in light of
claims concerning the survival of authoritarian regimes, and finds support for
several key theoretical assertions, albeit with some modification. Among them
is the link between regime survival, on the one hand, and elite cohesion,
clientilism, and coercive capacity expressed in the allegiance ofthe military and
police, on the other. Although Case addresses some anomalies in the Malaysian
case, which make it difficult to neatly replicate theoretical claims ofthe chosen
model, he nevertheless makes some rather sweeping assertions about the
pseudo-democratic character of the Malaysian political system that bring to
mind the cautionary example by Hirschman of work that might provide us the
"key" to discovering the "truth" of a particular situation.
Driven by a similar interest in democratization post-1997 Jason Abbott and
Claudia Derichs in two separate chapters in the Gomez collection explore the
role ofthe reformasi movement in shaping democratization. Abbott's concern
is with the relationship between the internet and the growth of reformasi, while
Derichs explores how intellectuals and other key figures belonging to think
tanks, the mass media, parties, advocacy or nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs), and academia view political reform, and the constraints shaping "idea
travel" into the policy realm. Abbott suggests that despite its promise in the first
flush ofthe reformasi movement, when organizations and individuals used the
Nair/State of Malaysian Studies 169
internet extensively to post and promote news and information about the
movement, the potential for democratic change occurring vis-a-vis the internet
was shaped by other critical factors including the limited impact of a split in the
ranks ofthe ruling elite signified by the expulsion of Anwar Ibrahim and by po-
litical repression. He also suggests that the ability of the internet to impact de-
mocratization is hindered if reform or independent civil society groups are not
better mobilized on the ground. Abbott's chapter contains some important in-
sights on the relationship between utilization of alternative media and democ-
ratization by social forces and groups invested in political and social change in a
country such as Malaysia where access to conventional media sources is restric-
tive and generally severely constrained. Abbott's analysis suffers, however, from
his eflFort to also address the broader problematic of democratization and civil
society in Malaysia, which is not adequately developed in this chapter. His chap-
ter contrasts with another by Mustafa Anuar on the role of Malaysia's main-
stream media inNew Politics in Malaysia. Anuar draws our attention to the pro-
pagandistic nature of media coverage of the ruling BN government's record
with a silencing of key issues raised by the opposition Barisan Alternatif (BA) or
Alternative Front and its negative depiction. Both essays highlight the difficul-
ties in articulating demands for democratization from the margins, although
Anuar's essay would have benefitted from a deeper discussion of the relation-
ship between media control and ideological hegemony, which are only vaguely
alluded to in the essay (56).
In the chapter by Derichs the role of ideas, their infiuence and impact on pol-
icy, is foreshadowed by a theoretical discussion of "idea travel," presumably the
conversion of ideas into policy, and the role of "opportunity structures" in shap-
ing idea travel. The strength of Derichs's chapter in The State of Malaysia lies in
original primary research, -which consists of interview's with about twenty infor-
mants drawn firom the groups mentioned above. These interviews elicit inter-
esting responses on questions about the kind of political reforms respondents
would like to see in Malaysia, their contributions to political discourse, and how
they view their role in shaping public policy. One of the weaknesses is that
Derichs does not explain well enough why idea travel is a necessary condition
for democratic change, or why democratic ideas, in this instance, are dependent
on opportunity structures a concept Derichs does not define or explain in
her chapter for their wider dissemination? She also relates idea travel to the
premise that a maturing middle class will typically support ideas about democ-
racy and political reform, which would appear to fit well with a central claim
made by modernization theorists about the positive correlation between eco-
nomic and political development, a relationship that is challenged elsewhere in
the volume (see Abbott, The State of Malaysia). Derichs concludes that the fail-
ure of the "economically developed middle class" to support the reform move-
ment stems in part from the salience of ethnic and economic interests protected
by the status quo (125).
The role of ethnicity or, more commonly, "race" in confounding the process
of democratization is a familiar and recurring theme in the volumes under re-
view. Consequently, it is refreshing to find work that challenges these presuppo-
1 70 Critical Asian Studies 37:1 (2005)
sitions in the literature. The chapter by Sumit Mandal suggests the need to "ex-
plore the ways in which transethnic cultural politics has been erased from
history in Malaysia" and to trace "transethnic solidarities" (53). This chapter
confronts the assumptions underlying the mainstreamed, modernization-
driven studies of Malaysian society, culture, and politics. Mandal writes that the
"tendency towards modular approaches in this literature attributes a false sta-
bility to race by affirming its apparently primordial character. This in turn rein-
forces the premise that multiethnic societies are unstable polities. By claiming
the salience and universality of race, the literature attributes far too much of
consequence to the 'racial' rather than the social, cultural, and political dynam-
ics that give shape to the category in the first place" (61). Mandal's refiective es-
say suggests that the process of racialization emerges out of political and public
discourses that deploy ideas about race or ethnicity. While he does not claim
that race-based thinking is not significant in the Malaysian context, Mandal at-
tempts to show how that thinking has evolved through the historical erasures
of intra-ethnic difference and the proliferation of transethnic identities and
solidarities that are an indelible part ofthe Malaysian experience even predat-
ing colonialism. Mandal revisits and interrogates a widely held assumption
about the immutability of ethnic identity (typically used interchangeably w^ith
race in the Malaysian Studies literature and in popular discourse) in Malaysian
politics, and moves us toward a complex understanding ofthe interplay of eth-
nicity, culture, and identity in postcolonial Malaysia.
Other chapters in this volume, which unfortunately get only a brief mention
here due to constraints of space, also contribute much through original re-
search to the portrait of a post-1997 Malaysia where democratic reform, ethnic
identity, and social justice converge in ways that challenge simplistic analysis.
The last three chapters by Gomez, Salazar, and Hamayotsu deal with key ques-
tions concerning the relationship between government economic policy and
the corporate sector and the implications of this relationship for ethnic and
class relations and governance. Hamayotsu's study makes some interesting ob-
servations about the infiuence of Islamization on economic policy and the con-
tradictions engendered by the state's uneven implementation of Islamic princi-
ples in the public sector. However, while these chapters stand on their own
merits it would have been useful if the authors could have related their essays
more clearly to the question posed by Gomez in the introduction about why the
reform movement failed to make an impact. This would have given a sense of
greater thematic continuity to the volume. Despite this omission. The State of
Malaysia is a valuable contribution to the literature, presenting original, analyt-
ical, and contemplative research on contemporary Malaysian politics and politi-
cal economy.
One ofthe commendable features of Malaysian Studies is that it is an eclectic
field, one marked by a diversity of disciplinary approaches and methods and
modes of inquiry. The works reviewed here, by no means exhaustive or exem-
plary, suggest that it continues to evolve as a field, although there is clearly a pre-
occupation with questions concerning governance; political behavior; Islam;
ethnicity, social class, and politics; and democratic change or transition. The lit-
Nair/State of Malaysian Studies 171
erature reflects this diversity of perspectives evident in studies that draw our at-
tention to the unexpected and contingent, to those favoring modular explana-
tions, and yet others whose descriptive narratives are informative but generally
tend to be light on theoretical and conceptual content. This sample of the re-
cent literature suggests that we need to see more work that combines in-depth,
original research with an attentiveness to theoretical debate and analytical
depth. There is no shortage of work that explores very similar themes by schol-
ars studying Malaysia and other regions, and engaging these would make for an
exciting and rewarding debate over some of the issues raised here. One of the
problems may be a sense of urgency, understandably, in publishing work that is
timely and quickly captures the moment, but the downside is scholarship that
may reflect the haste and speed at which materials are put together. A collection
of descriptive case studies may generate factual knowledge, but will fall short of
telling us why we should take seriously or be compelled by the information pro-
vided. In other w^ords, to what use can we put this information, and how does
the information enhance our conceptual and analytical tools and understand-
ing? Alternatively, work that relies mainly on secondary sources and purports to
provide a holistic or modular approach will tend to reflect a lack of nuance or
deeper understanding of the complex interspersed layers of Malaysian history,
politics, religion, culture, economy, and society.
On this score, I must mention two other recent contributions, Vidhu Verma's
Malaysia: State and Civil Society in Transition and Khoo Boo Teik's Beyond
Mahathir: Malaysian Politics and Its Discontents, to the Malaysian Studies lit-
erature that illustrate some of these points well. Verma expresses the purpose
and objective of her ambitious book as describing and analyzing "the role of
state and civil society in two contexts: Globalization and changes in the concept
of nation-state." The rest of the volume vainly tries to maintain a coherent
framework for analysis that brings these contexts into focus as the author ad-
dresses "five central themes": nationalism; citizenship; Islam; democracy and
authoritarianism; and human rights (10). Verma's research question is this:
"What has propelled these five themes to center stage given so many divergent
political agendas?" By now the reader may be excused for being a little per-
plexed about how the general purpose of the book and the primary research
question are related and how Verma expects to develop those connections.
However, even more vexing is the argument Verma offers early on in the intro-
duction where she suggests the following:
Two processes have occurred together simultaneously in the past decade:
on the one hand, democratic aspirations have been raised; on the other,
the PAS [Islamic Party of Malaysia] has emerged as a major political force in
Malaysian politics. I argue that these processes are determined by the in-
teraction of three factors: state developmental capacity, globalization pro-
cesses, and the historical legacy of religious institutions. (11)
Suffice to say that much of this volume suffers from a disconnect between the
author's initial statement of her research objectives and argument and the nar-
rative laid out in subsequent chapters. Verma's study would have benefitted
from the citing of primary source material (e.g., interviews), which is notably
1 7 2 Critical Asian studies 37:^ (2005)
lacking in this volume; the book appears to rely heavily on secondary writings
for a reconstruction of contemporary Malaysian political discourse. The heavy
reliance on secondary materials does not of course invalidate this study, and
Verma attempts to balance this shortcoming with the inclusion of speeches by
Mahathir Mohamad and news stories. Yet the absence of the voices of the very
civil society actors the author seeks to theorize and are presumed in the title
of this volume is painfully obvious especially in the chapters on "Debating
Human Rights" and "Islam and the Malay Community." Despite these reserva-
tions, Verma's study should stimulate debate about future directions for Malay-
sian Studies and the need for more reflective and interpretive approaches.
By contrast Khoo Boo Teik's study of Malaysian politics "beyond Mahathir" is
a compelling study of power and ideology in Malaysian politics and popular dis-
course. Khoo's work draws our attention to the politics of a nationalist vision
and project underwritten by a capitalist logic conceived and promoted by
Mahathir Mohamad during his term as prime minister (1981-2003). Mahathir's
remarkable political and ideological trajectory and longevity have been chroni-
cled elsewhere by Khoo, but in this volume he seeks to uncover the implications
of what he calls a "Mahathirist programme of socio-economic development,"
which "can be regarded as a nationalist project driven by capitalist impulses or a
capitalist project imbued with nationalist aspirations" {Beyond Mahathir, 5).
Khoo's central objective as he outlines it in the introduction is to give the reader
"a sense of social and political change that departs from mainstream interpreta-
tions and standard perceptions of politics in Malaysia as the 'ethnic politics' of a
'divided society"' (14). Khoo's volume illustrates that it is possible to undertake
work that elicits theoretical insight without indulging in sterile paradigmatic
thinking that can get in the w^ay of meaningful analysis and interpretation. In-
deed, Khoo demurs that he has avoided academic and theoretical debates with a
view to reaching a w^ider audience and readership. Still, one may glean from the
pages of this study useful theoretical and conceptual arguments that contribute
to the scholarly literature reinforcing this writer's view that self-consciously em-
ploying theory is not at issue here, but instead how theoretical presuppositions
are in turn informed and shaped by one's research.
Conclusion
Malaysian Studies today may arguably be described as a tapestry, richly textured
and illuminated by boldness and brilliance in places, but somewhat unimagina-
tive and predictable in other areas. Much good work has been and is being done
in this field by scholars working in Malaysia and beyond. Yet there remains room
for more reflective and critical inquiry that takes apart conventional categories
and makes more explicit the scholar's subject position not merely in the con-
ventional sense of contrasting one's theories and methods with those employed
in similar w^ork, but also in the sense of clarifying one's epistemological and on-
tological commitments. Foucault's critical assessment of philosophy captures
these sentiments nicely:
The critical ontology of ourselves has to be considered not, certainly, as a
theory, a doctrine, nor even as a permanent body of knowledge that is
Nair/State of Malaysian Studies 1 73
accumulating; it has to be conceived as an attitude, an ethos, a philosophi-
cal life in which the critique of what we are is at one and the same time the
historical analysis ofthe limits that are imposed on us and an experiment
with the possibility of going beyond them.'"
Perhaps, it is this consciousness and imagination ofthe "possibility of going be-
yond" that needs to be given clearer expression in Malaysian Studies. There is
much at stake if scholars of Malaysian Studies remain cocooned from the vigor-
ous critiques in social and political theory and cultural studies that are ongoing
in the social sciences and in the humanities on a global scale. Without indulging
in unnecessary navel-gazing, Malaysian Studies has to be mindful of the inter-
section of the experiential and theoretical without which good and consistent
argumentation and critique are difficult. There is a widespread tendency to
view the Malaysian experience as somehow unique, demonstrated in the few
genuinely comparative studies available that challenge or address that assump-
tion. While there is much merit to good, single-case studies, it would be very
helpful if Malaysian Studies could be more attentive to how that experience is
situated in a wider temporal and spatial context. This is an argument for making
Malaysian Studies speak to those outside its confines, as well as for developing
and defining its identity beyond the minutia of the empirically driven study.
Related Works of Interest
Bedlington, Stanley S. Malaysia and Singapore: The Building of New States,
Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1978.
Bowie, Alasdair. Crossing the Industrial Divide: State, Society, and the Politics
of Economic Transformation. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991.
Crouch, Harold. Govemment and Society in Malaysia. Ithaca: Cornell Univer-
sity Press, 1996.
Funston, N.J. Malay Politics in Malaysia: A Study of the United Malays Na-
tional Organization and Party Islam. Kuala Lumpur: Heinemann Educa-
tion Books, 1980.
Jesudason, James V Ethnicity and the Economy: The State, Chinese Business,
and Multinationals in Malaysia. Singapore: Oxford University Press,
1990.
. "The Syncretic State and the Structuring of Oppositional Politics in Malzy-
siz," in Political Oppositions in Asia, ed. Garry Rodan. London: Roudedge,
1996.
Jomo Kwame Sundaram. A Question of Class: Capital, the State, and Uneven
Development in Malaya. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Means, Gordon V. Malaysian Politics: The Second Generation. Singapore: Ox-
ford University Press, 1991
Milne, R.S. Govemment and Politics in Malaysia. Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1967.
Milne, R.S., and Diane K. Mauzy. Malaysia: Tradition, Modernity and Islam.
Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1986.
Ong, Aihwa. Spirits of Resistance and Capitalist Discipline: Factory Women in
Malaysia. Albany: SUNY Press, 1987.
1 74 Critical Asian Studies 37:1 (2005)
Peletz, Michael G. Reason and Passion: Representations of Gender in a Malay
Society. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996.
Ratnam, K.J. Communalism and the Political Process. Kuala Lumpur: Univer-
sity of Malaya Press, 1965.
Roff, William R. The Origins of Malay Nationalism. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press, 1967.
Scott, James C. Weapons ofthe Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.
Vasil, R.K. Ethnic Politics in Malaysia. New Delhi: Radiant Publishers, 1980.
von Vorys, Karl. Democracy without Consensus: Communalism and Political
Stability in Malaysia. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1975.
Notes
1. Quentin Skinner, ed.. The Return of Grand Theory in the Human Sciences
(Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 6.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid., 10.
4. William Roff, The Origins of Malay Nationalism (New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 1967), 213.
5. Albert Hirschman, "The Search for Paradigms as a Hindrance to Understand-
ing," in Interpretive Social Science: A Second Look, ed. Paul Rabinow and Wil-
liam M. Sullivan (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press,
1987), 178.
6. Ibid., 182
7. Ibid., 179.
8. Francis Loh, "New Politics in Malaysia," available on-line at http:/Avww.aliran.
com/monthly/2003/6h/html.
9. See, for example, Claus Ofife, "New Social Movements: Challenging the Bound-
aries of Institutional Politics," Social Research 52, no. 4 (1985): 817-68.
10. Michel Foucault, "What Is Enlightenment?" in Rabinow and Sullivan, eds.. In-
terpretive Social Science, 174.

Nair/State of Malaysian Studies t 75