July 15-16, 2000

THE OTHER MALAYSIA
Farish A. Noor

Despotic traditions welcomed here

Not too long ago, there raged the debate over the thorny issue of "Asian values". 

For more than two decades, East-West relations were fought out over the question of whether Asians and Westerners were really as different as some Asian leaders made them out to be. 

In time there appeared what has since been known as the "Singapore school" which defended the thesis that Asians were different from other societies and cultures because of the values of Asians themselves.

Much of what was said and written by the leading thinkers of the "Singapore school" (led by the then-premier of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew and Malaysia's Mahathir Mohamad) was predicated on terms and categories that could only be described as essentialist.

The so-called "Singapore school" posited the idea that Asians were unique and different from everyone else because we are somehow endowed with these so-called "Asian values" that are inbuilt and ingrained within us. 

Judging by what has been said on the matter by men like Mahathir and Lee Kuan Yew, one can only conclude that underlying this theory were decidedly dodgy notions about genetic traits and inherited essential qualities.

As far as the theory goes, the Asian "economic miracle" was due largely to these inherent qualities that are ingrained within the Asian consciousness itself. Because Asians "naturally" worked more, played less and were "naturally" obedient and disciplined, the economies of the Far East and Southeast Asia were able to catch up with the developed liberal-capitalist economies of North America and Western Europe within a few decades. Or so we are told.

What the proponents of the Singapore school of Asian values forgot to mention was the simple fact that much of the development in the Far East was also due to external factors. For a start, realpolitik had a lot to do with it. 

It is hardly a coincidence that those countries that were allied to the Western capitalist bloc during the Cold War were also the ones that received all the investment and development aid. 

Foreign investment and aid also contributed to the higher levels of infrastructure development, domestic demand and credit expansion, which in later years went out of control and contributed to the meltdown of 1997.

The other aspect of "Asian values" that was left out by men like Lee Kuan Yew, Suharto and Mahathir was the uglier side of the picture. I, for one, have never been among the sceptics who claimed that the concept of "Asian values" was bogus or mere word-play and political rhetoric. 

For me, Asian values exist in the same way that we can detect, identify, decode and interpret Asian aesthetics, Asian cuisine, Asian art, Asian architecture and even Asian humour. "Asian values" for me is merely a nominal label for a set of values and beliefs that are held by people who also happen to carry the name "Asian".

But the point that needs to be made here is that not all Asian values are good, noble or indeed valuable in themselves. Indeed some of these Asian values are downright repulsive and reprehensible. 

This is simply because so much of contemporary Asian culture (including its political culture) is drawn from the neo-feudal era of the past where the feudal mode of government, rule and law were derived from a personalised political culture where the ruler was one with the state. 

Much of these neo-feudal elements are still with us, and that would help to explain why our so-called "developed and modern" country is a mess of painfully apparent contradictions.

When the inspector general of police - the highest ranking officer of law in the country no less - admitted hat he had brutally assaulted the ex-deputy prime minister while the latter was blindfolded, handcuffed and totally powerless to resist him, Malaysians were shocked by the revelation. 

But this sense of outrage, shock and horror is only appropriate in the context of a society where such things are beyond the pale of normality.

Unfortunately Malaysia happens to be a country where such things are not beyond the boundaries of the possible, for the simple reason that we still live in a neo-feudal political set-up where politics and power are personalised and professionalism has a lesser value compared to loyalty and obedience to one's (political) ruler.

Those who are not persuaded by this claim should have a look at the "Hikayat Hang Tuah" and they will see how little things have changed in this beloved land of ours. (I recommend the 1965 version edited by Kassim Ahmad). 

In "Hikayat Hang Tuah", Hang Tuah and gang were not exactly the paragons of virtue and selfless heroism that we were taught by our teachers at school. They were all members of the "budak raja"(Raja's boys) and were basically a motley crew of mercenaries, cut-throats and ne'er-do-wells who were given license by the king to do whatever nasty things he needed done on his behalf. 

If you think that the behaviour of the ex-IGP was appalling, then you should look into what our "national heroes"did from a closer perspective. Beating up the Raja's enemies and opponents happened to be a routine daily task then.

These unpleasant realities are also part of our valorised and canonised "Asian values". Mss. Lee Kuan Yew, Suharto and Mahathir may not be all that happy to admit that they are part of our collective legacy as a people, but the facts of history have the embarrassing tendency to linger 
around when we don't want them to. 

And history books are not the only sources that we can turn to of course: Much of contemporary Southeast Asia today is littered with living and/or concrete proof of the fact that neo-feudalism is alive and well in our neck of the woods. 

What better example can we look for if not the sprawling over-decorated and over-the-top palace complex for the PM that was completed recently? 

Apart from the fact that it was built at a time when the country was reeling in the aftershock of the economic crisis, the form and appearance of the palace itself is in keeping with the traditional mode of Asian "elite" aesthetics which dictates that everything the Raja possesses must be loud, vulgar and obscenely expensive.

When the "Asian values" debate began to die its own belated death a few years ago, many prominent Asian leaders and intellectuals expressed their disappointment. I must admit that I too was dismayed by the turn of events for the simple reason that the topic was too rich, too interesting and at times even too ridiculous for me to drop just like that.

But those of you who think that "Asian values" are dead and gone should look again. All around us there remain ample proof that the uglier side of Asian values still exists, and haunts us still.