|
POST-COLONIAL DISCOURSE IN MALAYSIA: by: Hairudin Harun Department of Science & Technology Studies Faculty of Science 50603 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia Tel (603) 7967-4343 Introduction
This paper is an overview of the emerging themes in Malaysian post-colonial discourse. The post-colonial social needs and economic developments as well as the search for a cultural identity in a new “free” world largely molded the themes as well as the context of discourse. However, two major events, the Independence (1957) from Great Britain and the “Bumiputera's (natives of the land) May 19 [economic] Uprisings” (1969), may have more than anything else, influenced the framework within which Malaysian post-colonial discourse, particularly on science, society and culture, were fermenting. The passing of the British Colonial rule in Malaysia left a system and a legacy (Hairudin, 1989; Morris, 1993) that are both promising as well as frightening. Depending on whom one speaks to, the medical, judiciary and educational legacies may seem promising and enlightening, but the legacies of colonial security apparatus, draconian acts, and subtle authoritarian political structure are indeed worrisome to many social critics. Colonialism also left the locals with a confused intellectual tradition and distorted symbolism: heroes, villains, vices, and virtues no longer carry the symbolisms that they used to denote. Nonetheless, the independence installed a new hope that the post-colonial administrations will harness the human potential as well as scientific and technological (S&T) resources for socio-economic development. This surely will include the emplacement of strategic opportunities to make national S&T policies and institutions more responsive to cultural as well as democratically decided social needs. As expected, there are many challenges confronting the realization of those ideals. They apparently relate to the fundamental issues of (i) sustainable and equitable accessibility to social development, (ii) the status of indigenous knowledge, (iii) the search for alternative science or appropriate technology, (iv) the elusiveness of a democratic civil society, with a (v) civil science policy. The Context By referring largely to the Malaysian experience and on issues that operate on a particular spatial, cultural and ideological context, this paper makes no claim to being able to capture all the essentials of post-colonialism. Indeed the focus on the context implies that the possibilities of discourse are never exhausted. One notable possibility relates to how colonialism shapes and affect native and local post-colonial discourses. The other may relate to the issues of post-colonial divide between modern and traditional natives (Hairudin, 1999) that continue into the post-colonial discourse. The writings of Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, notably his Malay Dilemma, are representative of the Malaysian post-colonial discourse. Mahathir, arguably, is the most influential person in post-colonial Malaysia (with an additional credential of being more than two decades in the office of Prime Minister) has been involved in colonial and post-colonial social and political discourse since the late 1950s. The Malay Dilemma, first published in 1970 and immediately banned in Malaysia, but later rescinded soon after Mahathir became the fourth Prime Minister of Malaysia in 1981. The authorities banned the book because of its alleged politically incorrect contents. Critics of the book have described it as an eclectic analysis, with little academic pretensions, of the many issues facing native Malays in a post-colonial era. It is essentially an attempt to post-mortem the apparent failures of the Malays to secure an economically viable position vis-à-vis the other immigrant races. Among other things, Mahathir’s book warns Malays of the dire consequences of lagging behind in post-colonial education, economic and social development. The book recommends a couple of affirmative actions designed to assist the Malays and other natives in the socio-economic development. It makes no apologies for adopting the modern western idea of progress as the post-colonial status quo as well as a legitimate platform for social development. Notably, the book argues for the total adoption of modern science, technology, and medicine by post-colonial Malay society; and apparently willing to allow the demise of Malay ethno science, ethno technology or ethno medicine if that was the price. Mahathir’s major thesis is that British colonial policies deliberately marginalized the Malays in all spheres of life. He does not pull any punches either when criticizing the Malays. He castigates them for apathetically accepting their second-class lot in the post-colonial Malaya. Interestingly too, he is credited to be among the first post-colonial intellectual to analyze the Malays malaise and temperament from a “scientific” or rather, biological point of view (Nasir & Chee, 1984). Mahathir argues that the less than tough environment in the tropical Malay Peninsula (i.e. easy availability of food, few natural disasters, warm climate etc) failed to “Darwinian select” qualities that are “strong,” “aggressive,” and “competitive” and thus giving rise to the proliferation among the local natives of “weak,” “docile” and “easygoing” traits. Since these characteristics, according to Mahathir, are heritable, they explain for the “soft” distinguishing traits of the Malay race, and to him, also explain for their economic backwardness. Mahathir adds further that the practice of inbreeding, marriage within the tribe and village widely practiced among the Malays, caused the inevitable spread and entrenchment of the weak traits in the community (Mahathir, 1977; Nasir & Chee, 1984). However, Mahathir qualifies his generalizations of the Malays by exempting one group, the urban Malays. The latter is regarded as being more sophisticated and genetically superior to their village dwelling brethrens owing to their liberal practices of intermarriages and their supposedly more successful and aggressive traits (Mahathir, 1977; Nasir & Chee, 1984). Mahathir’s thesis contrasted sharply with the position of a contemporary, Syed Hussein Alatas, particularly in his The Myth of the Lazy Native (1977). Notably, in an apparent censure directed at Mahathir’s view of the Malays, Alatas alleges that the adoption of such analytical approach proves that neocolonial thinking still overwhelms the local intelligentsia. He laments about "the [colonial] ideology… [that] evaluated people according to their utility…If a community did not engage in activities directly with the colonial capitalist venture, the community was spoken of in negative terms" (Alatas, 1977). To Alatas, the stereotyping image of the lazy native that British colonial rulers (Bolt, 1971) imparted and perpetuated on their Malay subjects was no more than an expression of the fundamentals of the colonial doctrine of subjugation and conquest. On the other hand, Alatas' brother, Seyyed Naquib Al-attas prefers an epistemological approach to his analysis and critique of colonialism within the Malay intelligentsia. In one of his works (Al-attas, 1978) he argues for a revival of Malay traditional philosophy and epistemology. He cautions the Malays that what they regard as "knowledge" within the colonial and post-colonial education may not be knowledge per se but rather a “cultural mirage" that masquerades as knowledge. He employs an almost Wittgenstein like rhetoric against “secular” scientific methods: …the greatest challenge that has surreptitiously arisen in our age is the challenge of knowledge, indeed, not as against ignorance; but as knowledge conceived and disseminated throughout the world by Western civilization; knowledge whose nature has become problematic…; knowledge which pretends to be real…, which elevated doubt and conjecture to the 'scientific rank'…(Al-attas, 1978) Many of his arguments go down well with the traditionalists and nationalist alike, particularly his call for the indigenization of “western knowledge” as well as the sciences. His ideas and arguments inspire many post-colonial writers, especially among the philosophers of science writing on the subject of ethno science or “Islamic science.” It is probably worthwhile to remember here that the adjective “Islam” is used in the context of the Malaysian discourse in “Islamic science” (Osman, 1997b). The latter is very much conditioned by the Malay experience and version of the religion (akin to the “non-political Islam” or “mystical Islam”), and conducted within the framework of the indigenization of science, or the local alternative science movement (Hairudin, 2001). The former as well as the latter passionately believe that science and technology are neither value free nor neutral as far as colonialism is concerned. The 1980s and early 1990s saw a proliferation of post-colonial academic studies in the relationships between science, medicine, and British imperialism in the Malay Archipelago (Hairudin, 1997a&b). Those studies were partly instrumental in exposing the uses as well as the abuses of science and technology during colonial era, including how the British used medicine as a colonial tool in the service of colonial agenda (Hairudin, 1989). Colonial history is a witness to the colonial slogan, “a Doctor is worth a thousand soldiers,” and whose truism was repeatedly realized in the field. In the Malay Peninsula, apparently the studies found that medicine was also part of a Trojan horse doctrine to further colonial interests and to facilitate territorial gains. No doubt, the studies are widely interpreted as supporting the argument that science, medicine and technology are not as value-free, as they have been apparently portrayed by mainstream Whiggish historiography and colonial scholarships. The concerns about the fate of Malay Weltanschauung and ethno science have a history as early as the first encounter between the native Malays and early Europeans: namely the Portuguese and the Dutch. Nevertheless, the battle of the minds seems to have come to the fore during the British imperial rule that lasted for nearly two centuries. The introduction, in the late nineteenth century, of British science, medicine and technology via formal colonial education, in the English language to the Malays was a milestone that some celebrated while others mourned, particularly at the prospect of the passage of the Malay cosmological doctrines and natural semiotics among the native (Windstedt, 1981). The latter is revisited in the current debate about the possible negative impact of digital semiotics on the vestiges of Malay traditional semiotics (Hairudin, 2001).
At the other end of the spectrum of discourse are scholars like Chandra Muzaffar (1996) and Osman Bakar (1997a&b) who argues for a more reconciliatory approach in the form of a civilization dialogue where the east and west could talk as equals. Chandra's call found support in Anwar Ibrahim's The Asian Renaissance (1996). The latter particularly believes about the universal values in the philosophical legacies of Asia that could be graciously shared with others, including the West. As if moving away from the classical approach of post-colonialism that tends to point towards the other, he directed his criticism in the opposite direction, i.e. towards fellow Asians by reminding them not to cite "Asian values," especially to cover excesses such as authoritarian rule, or to justify the denial of civil liberties and rights with preserving "Asian values." Another notable figure is Osman Bakar (1997a, 1997b), a proponent of the idea of civil society, characterizes the latter as one in which virtues of learning and knowledge cultures are cultivated. He believes that it should be a major agenda of a post-colonial society. Emerging Themes The conceptual debates around the whole idea of post-colonialism discourse have attracted much interest within the Malaysian intellectual circles (Ding, 1981; McIntyre, 1976; Muzaffar, 1996). Much of the discussion centered on the elusiveness of trying to delimit the boundaries of post-colonialism within a formal definition. Many agree that in a literal sense, the term "post-colonialism" is simply that which has been preceded by colonialism, as a notable event "of, relating to, or being the time following the establishment of independence from colonial rule." In practice, however, the term is elastic. Notwithstanding the definition, those in the field are interested not only in the events of the period after the departure of the imperial powers, but more so with the many activities, that include a post colonial reinterpretation of the social, cultural and intellectual events, that fill the period before independence. Just a cursory survey of the works and literatures available reveals that the colony, the colonial machinery and mechanisms of control as well as the various stages in the development of anti-colonial nationalism has attracted many studies (Ding, 1981; Roff, 1961,1979). In some of those studies, temporal consideration always turned up to include spatial concerns; that the cultural processes and social structures of the colony before colonization, are readily employed to understand the very experience of colonization. The spatial focus is rooted in the view that the post-colony as a geographical space has a history prior or even external to the experience of colonization. This is contrasted with the view that post-colonial experience as a function of a particular period (Fieldhouse, 1981). "Post-colonialism" has also been used to include phenomena of nations that have yet to achieve independence, or even to refer to events related to minorities in the North (or First world countries). Likewise it has also been used to refer to independent colonies, but now having to contend with "neo-colonialism" i.e. all new forms of "colonialism" that are mediated through the economy and globalization. "Post-colonialism" then is more than a referral to some specifics or materially historical events; it is certainly more than describing the part of the last century in general as the aftermath of a heyday period of colonialism (Fieldhouse, 1981; Williams and Chrisman, 1994). In Malaysia, and elsewhere in the ex-colonies, it has even taken a more generic form: "post colonialism" signifies a position against all forms of imperialism, and Euro centrism. It has since become a framework whereby western ways of knowing and knowledge production as well as dissemination in the past or present become objects of intensive analysis and critique, particularly for those seeking alternative means of expression. The expansiveness of the post-colonial discourse has given rise to lively debates. Even as some deplore its imprecision and lack of historical and material particularity, others argue that many former colonies are far from free of colonial influence or domination and so cannot be post-colonial in any genuine sense. In other words, the overhasty celebration of independence may masks the march of neo-colonialism in the guise of modernization and development in an age of transnationalism and post industrial globalization. Meanwhile, there are colonized countries that are paradoxically under the control of ex-colonized nation. As the term seems to suggest, the emphasis on the dialectics of colonizer-colonized relations tends to obscure the focus on the continued internal oppression within the colonies that was a structured legacy of colonialism. Still others caution the selective tendency within Western scholarship to be more receptive to post-colonial discourse that are compatible with post-modern formulations (e.g. hybridity, syncretization) while ignoring the critical realism of works that are more interested in the specifics of social and racial oppression. Moreover, the rise of Post-colonial Studies at a time of growing transnational migrations of capital, labor, and culture is viewed by some with suspicion that it may be a red herring to deflect attention away from the realities of the ongoing exploitation both within the nations of the North and the South. Despite the reservations and debates, research in the Studies is growing because post-colonial critique allows for a wide-ranging investigation into power relations in various contexts. The formation of empire, the impact of colonization on post-colonial history, economy, science, and culture, the cultural productions of colonized societies, feminism and neo-colonialism, agency for marginalized people, and the state of the post-colony in contemporary economic and cultural contexts are some broad topics in the field (Williams and Charisma, 1994). As far as the paper is concerned, post-colonialism refers to the corpus of experiences that a formerly colonized society or nation underwent. It also refers to the socio-economic and intellectual adjustments that the society or nation undertook to regain self-identity and to operationalize their newfound independence. Some of these adjustments manifest as social and intellectual responses. Notably, local responses are increasingly gaining momentum against colonial literatures, or against stereotyping colonial documentation about their colonized subject. These are ideal fodder for the ferment of a post-colonial discourse that include, though not exclusive to, the following issues: (i) on the attempts by the local cultures to articulate their identity and reclaim their intellectual and cultural past that have either being lost as the "otherness" or in the danger of being obsolescence by time (Said, 1978); (ii) on the attempts to understand the way in which the colonizing culture distorts the experience and realities, and imparts inferiority on the colonized people (alatas, 1977); (iii) on the way in which literature in colonizing countries appropriates the language, images, scenes, and traditions of colonized countries (Windstedt, 1981). Underlying the post-colonial discourse is the presumption that during the colonial period the non-European world was normatively materials for Europe. The latter determine questions, assumptions, methodologies, and analyses, which serve objectives that range from the military, the political to the popular literatures (Said, 1978). This is to say that like the colonial discourse that precedes it, post-colonial discourse also centered on the concept of the "otherness." However, the latter are not at all context free since it has to account for the following intellectual legacies: (i) “otherness” implies doubleness, both identity and difference; for that every other , every different than, and excluded by, is dialectically created and thus includes the symbolism of the colonizing culture even if its power to define is trivialized; (ii) the western concept of the oriental (Said, 1978) is based on the Manichean allegory of seeing the world being divided into mutually exclusive opposites: if the west is ordered, rational, masculine, and a manifestation of all that is good, then the orient is chaotic, irrational, feminine, and a projection of all that is evil. Simply reversing these poles of symbolism is as effective and potent identity-destroying power where all could be reduced simply to a set of dichotomies, black or white, etc.; (iii) most post-colonial society are not homogenous, neither in their structure nor in their traditions. The cultures are largely in a dynamic flux. Thus, while they may be easily differentiated as that 'other' from the colonizers, they are however also different from each other and from their past. Unqualified generalizations and clichés such as “colored consciousness,” “Malay soul,” and “aboriginal culture” tend to obscure peculiarities that might be important in the understanding of the society and culture in question. Some authors have suggested that the very act of generalization is often a manifestation of nostalgia that has its roots more in the thought of the colonial discourse rather than that of the colonized. (iv) the post-colonial society will always be other than their pasts, while able to be reclaimed in parts but never can it be reconstituted in full, and so must be contend with revisition and fragmented realization. Post-colonial writers have characterized their discourse chiefly around the concept of resistance and opposition. The problem with building such a discourse lies in the dialectical nature of resistance that usually inscribes the resisted into the texture of the resisting: it is, in short, a double-edged sword. Moreover, the concept of resistance carries with it or can carry with it ideas about “freedom,” “liberty,” “individuality,” etc., ideas that may not be commensurable with, or held in the same way, in the former colonized culture. (Mohd. Taib, 1985). The recent rhetoric of Asian Values or Confucian Values is similarly parallel to the argument of the "otherness" that we stand apart from the West. However, of late, post-colonial discourse is also about promoting a form of cultural dialogue between post-colonies and the former colonial powers (Muzaffa, 1996; Osman, 1997). It is about articulating freely both the former and latter’s current fears and future hope. It is introspective as well as reflective of the new culture of reconciliation and progress that post colonized societies and nations plan to move on. From a particular level, the discourse elicits what can be termed as the McLuhan's paradox that "the medium is the message." Most of the Malaysian post-colonial writers used English as their major medium of expression. Notably, they liberally borrowed, and inversed, the logic of the colonial discourse. Thus, there may be a basis to the characterization of post-colonial discourse as essentially a continuum of colonial discourse. Indeed, the very act of reconstituting the identity of a formerly colonized society by producing a literature may entail a replication of some of the ex-colonial production processes: from the analysis, writing and right up to publishing, promotion, and production of books. This in turn may well require a supporting social superstructure: a centralized economic, legal and management systems, which ultimately are either western imports or hybrids of the former, though tempered slightly by local contents. After all, most of the former colonies do inherit some if not all of, the colonial superstructures (Adas, 1989). In addition, the very concept of producing a national, or a formal common cultural literature, may well be antithetical to the traditions of some societies. Many colonized societies weaved cultural identities and expressions in their art and craft, dancers and oral stories. Indeed most tribes distinguished themselves from the other and preserved their identity by their unique cultural expressions. They may not have the idea of literature as conceived in the western traditions or in some cases no literature or writing at all. This was particularly true in the case of the peoples of the West Indies, with little or no literary medium. This is in sharp contrast to the Malays who had a long-established tradition of letters (Ismail, 1974). However, in the case of the natives of the Malaysian Borneo which have had a colorful divergent of sub-cultures but with little, if any, common identity with the others, a national literature could mean the elimination of their individuality and homogenization of their unique cultures. When parts of Borneo, now known as Sabah and Sarawak, came under Kuala Lumpur’s political authority, a national identity were nonetheless created. Politicians argued that the latter was a political necessity and part of a "national vision" to bind the peoples of the Peninsula with that of the Islands. The British colonialists, who had created earlier catalogues of common hybrid identity of most of their subjects, paradoxically are a significant contributor to facilitate the post-colonial effort to forge a national vision. Throughout the British period, the official colonial documents, scholarly works, and even policies justifications, referred and stereotyped the locals by that given identity (Bolt, 1971) and apparently, the latter will continue to serve the post-colonial era, only this time under a different pretext. The colonial stereotyping of the Malays as the "lazy native" discussed earlier is a notable example. The fact that it went against historical evidence and that it was only an external hybrid identity, an expedient image created essentially by colonial necessity, does not seems to diminish either its intellectual or political utility even in the post-colonial era.
Civil Science in a Post-Colonial Society Like most post-colonial nations, Malaysia has woken up to a world that put premium on development based on industrialization (Adas, 1984; Shaika, 1986). The latter implies an adoption of a new set of worldviews that is based on modern science and new ways of living and doing that is based on technology. The post-colonial world seems to demand a closer link between the scientific and social goals, on one hand, and the democratic processes on the other. Both the former and the latter are alien to most post-colonial nations. Though some nations, like Malaysia, have been apparently successful in the former, many still have difficulty in reconciling with the latter. Malaysia's success in cultivating a scientific culture and industrialization has been described as an Asian miracle. Nevertheless, as science and technology become increasingly integral to the fabric of daily life of the nation, as never before, the public seems to demand correspondingly a bigger voice in setting science and technology policies (Dickson, 1988; Cozzens, 1993; Sclove, 1993). Such demands are initiated by a wide spectrum of groups as well as motivated by many reasons: (i) Interest-groups.
From alternative science activists to environmentalists, from traditionalists’ advocates to consumer rights organizations, including groups composed of various backgrounds all increasingly seeking to influence the scientific agenda. (ii) Cultural alienation. It has become more noticeable now that as post-colonial societies became more and more affluent, the promise of continual societal progress fueled by more scientific and technological progress seems become more difficult to fulfill. This is especially true when most of the basic needs are met, and when the idea of progress is increasingly being fed by a dynamic flux of aspirations and satisfactions that are intangible, subjective, and culturally defined. The recent called for a civil approach or broad-based public participation in the promulgation of science policy is a notable instance. Another is the clarion called to revive indigenous knowledge or ethno science and technology. As it is becoming more apparent in the more industrialized countries, the direct contribution of science and technology to the general quality of life in affluent societies may have reached a state of diminishing returns. The promise that more science will lead to more societal benefits may increasingly be at odds with the experience of individuals in such societies who find their lives are changing in ways that they cannot control and in directions they may not desire. This experience is felt also by newly industrialized societies (Barke, 1986; Bijker et al, 1987). While, continued innovation in information and communication technologies may accelerates economic growth and creates many conveniences, but it also undermines traditional community institutions and symbolism that are crucial to the welfare of the society. The resulting disaffection can fuel social backlash that is antagonistic to the further adoption of modern science and technology (Hairudin, 2001). The origins of such public antagonism is commonly misinterpret as nothing more than a reflection of inadequate understanding of the benefits of science, coupled with the ludditic fear and irrational attitudes about the risks brought about by technological change. But the opposition may also reflect a rational desire, rather than a cultural fear, for more democratic control over technologies and institutions that profoundly influence one’s daily life. (iii) Socioeconomic inequities. The distribution of wealth in Malaysia has grown increasingly inequitable over the past two decades. In spite of registering economic success, she seems to have acquired some of the symptoms that are widely seen in the more industrialized country: the rise of the urban poor, and the doubling of income disparity between the top, middle and bottom 10 percent of the populace. Such income disparities translate into inequity of opportunity for education, employment, health, and environmental quality (Shaikha, 1986). While the transition of the Malaysian economy from primary producers of raw materials to industrial and into post industrial age is being primarily driven by the scientific and the advancement in the information and communication technologies (ICT). Indeed, the current huge investment in the latter is typically justified by policy makers as a crucial component of social development (Arief, 1984). Yet, for a significant portion of the population, particularly those with declining incomes, and with limited employment options except poorly paid jobs, the economic and social realities of technology-led growth may have little meaning. Furthermore, in a free-market society, the problem-solving capacity of science and technology will preferentially serve those who already have a high standard of living. This is so because the latter group is a major source of the market demand that stimulates further the need of high technology and scientific research.
As an example, the life expectancy of the average rural Malay of a remote village is expectedly less than that of the average city dweller (Shaika, 1986). In fact, the life expectancy of the former has progressively decline (another post-colonial paradox of the nation). The latter may not necessarily caused by the poor accessibility to modern medical care but more as a consequence of the cultural suspicion of modern medical system. Rural Malays, as a community, might hold to the view that the focus of modern medicine on “diseases of affluence” does not serve their health needs. Such conclusions may have driven many to avoid medical services in preference for traditional cures. The undercurrent calls from mainstream quarters that support the rehabilitation and revival of traditional medicine may well be a tacit recognition that the latter is still relevant to some sectors of the population.
There is a danger though that unless the trend toward increased socioeconomic inequity is successfully redressed, large segments of the populace may eventually realize either that they have not benefited, or that they cannot hope to benefit, from the national investment in science and technology. Obviously, the trend is a result of complex social, economic, and political factors of which science is just one component. Nonetheless, scientific and technological progress is implicated in them since they are widely regarded as prime catalyst for change in the post-colonial world. These are visible in a wide spectrum of circumstances: from the effect of information technologies on the structure of labor markets and communities to the impact of biomedical research on the cost and ethics of health care. This is so in spite of the fact that S&T influence people's lives in complex, profound, and unpredictable ways, and that their impact are not always positive or equitable. Indeed, the Malaysian post-colonial S&T Policy has been under
scrutiny from many quarters. Some of them have alleged that the policy has
shortcomings, and the latter has largely been described as: (i) Un-encompassing: The root problem here is that the policy is allegedly concerned more with advancing Malaysian economic competitiveness. Other societal and cultural objectives--when considered at all--are more often secondary concerns.
(ii) Unfriendly: The proposed policies tend to neglect the different social and political effects of technology policies and designs on different target groups. Absolutely, no provision was detected to accommodate the indigenous and traditional science and technology either immediate or in future. (iii) Undemocratic: Most of the drafted policies fail to provide enough opportunities for the many affected groups and marginalized sectors of the society to play a role in either shaping the policies themselves or a say in the subsequent technological developments. Perhaps, a unifying theme that emerges more strongly than ever from this debate is the issue of democratic controls of science and technology: in short, a civil science policy. The latter often couched as socio-economic inequity; is an accepted measure of how significant segments of the population benefit from the fruits of the public investment in modern science. The inability of individuals and groups to experience the positive impacts of modern science and technology (S&T) on their lives may give rise to alienation. In all cases, the post-colonial democratic process, from the ballot box, the feedback agencies, to legal systems to legislation, ideally will be avenues for redress. However, in practice, as most marginalized groups found out that putting them into service and engaging such democratic resources can be far from easy. Encouraging results from the successes of interest groups in the S&T arena do demonstrate that redress is still possible. It will no doubt be part of an important and continuing post-colonial agenda in the future. Such successes demonstrate not only that the public can indeed productively contribute to science policy discourse; but also that such contributions can constructively influence the conduct of science to serve the public larger interest. Such a civil science policy can then also be responsive to address some of the post-colonial societal goals and priorities. Conclusion A number of themes emerge from
the Malaysian experience discussed above. They are fundamentally issues of
post-colonialism discourse in a post-colonial society manifesting in the
debates about the relevance of indigenous knowledge, the search for
alternative science or appropriate technology, and the role of a
democratically driven civil science policy. References:
Adas, Michael. (1989) Machines as the Measure of Men: Science, Technology, and Ideologies of Western Dominance. Ithica: Cornell Univ. Press.
Alatas, Syed Hussein. (1977), The Myth of the Lazy Native, London: Cass. Alattas, Seyyed Naquib. (1978), "Preliminary Thoughts on the Nature of Knowledge and the Definition and Aims of Education," in S.N. Alattas.. ed. Aims and Objectives of Islamic Education, Jeddah: Hodder and Stoughton/King Abdul Aziz University. pp.19-47. Andrews, Thomas A. (1988) "Selected Bibliography of Native Resource Management Systems and Native Knowledge of the Environment." in Traditional Knowledge and Renewable Resource Management in Northern Regions, Milton R. Freeman and Ludwig N. Carbyn, eds. Edmonton, Alberta: IUCN Commission on Ecology and the Boreal Institute for Northern Studies. pp. 105-124. Arief, Melanie
Sritua. The Malaysian Economy and Politics, 1963-1983: A Bibliography. East Balmain, NSW: Rosecons, 1984. Barke, Richard. (1986). Science, Technology, and Public Policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press. Bijker, Wiebe E., Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor Pinch, eds. (1987). "The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions" in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bolt, Christine (1971), Victorian Attitude to Race, Routledge & Kegan Paul. Ding Choo Ming. (1981) A Bibliography of Bibliographies on Malaysia. Petaling Jaya, Selangor: Haxagon Elite Publications. Hairudin Harun, (1989), “Colonial Strategy and the Kuala Lumpur Institute of Medical Research,” Departmental Seminar No.1, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya. _____________ (1997a). “ Colonialism and Medicine in Malaysia” in Encylopaedia of the History of Science, Technology and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, Helaine Selin (ed.), Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, 211-215. _____________ (1997b).“ Colonialism and Science in the Malay World” in Encylopaedia of the History of Science, Technology and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, Helaine Selin (ed.), Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht. 226-229. _____________ (2001). Malay Cosmology in the Era of Information Technology, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur. (in Malay). Anwar Ibrahim. (1996), The Asian Renaissance, Singapore & Kuala Lumpur: Times Book International. Lent, John. (1979). Malaysian Studies: Present Knowledge
and Research Trends. DeKalb:
Center for Southeast Asian
Studies, Northern Illinois University. Mahathir Mohamad (1970 & 1977), The Malay Dilemma, Kuala Lumpur: Pelanduk Publications. Marglin, Frederique Apffel, and Stephen A. Marglin, eds. (1990). Dominating Knowledge: Development, Culture, and Resistance. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mclntyre, W. David (1976). 'Malaya from
the 1850's to the 1870's, and Its Historians, 1950-1970: From Strategy to Sociology' in C.D.Cowan and O. W.
Wolters,eds, Southeast Asian History and Historiography. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press,. Morris, James (1973), Farewell the Trumpets: An Imperial Retreat, Penguin. Mohd. Taib Osman (1985). The Traditional Malay Socio-Political World-View, in Mohd. Taib Osman. (ed.) Malaysian World-View, Singapore: Insitute for Southeast Asian Studies. Muzaffar, Chandra (1996) "The Asian Values Debate," The Asia-Pacific Magazine, Canberra: Australian National University. Nasir Hashim and Chee Heng Leng, “Mahathir’s (Genetic) Dilemma,” in Designer Genes: I.Q., Ideology & Biology,” Chee Heng Leng & Chan Chee Koon (eds.), Kuala Lumpur; Institute for Social Analysis, 1984. pp.14-19. Osman Bakar (1997a), "Civil Society: Its Components and Dynamics," Paper presented to Seminar on Civil Society and Its Future Challenges, Institute of Islamic Understanding (IKIM) Kucing, Sarawak (19-20th May 1997). ___________ (1997b), Islam and Civilizational Dialogue: The Quest for a Truly Universal Civilization, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. ___________ (1996), "Asian Value, or Universal Values Championed by Asia?" Paper Presented to Symposuim on Asianing Asia, Central Queensland University (16th December 1996). Roff, W. R. (1961). Guide to Malay Periodicals,
1876-1941. Singapore:
Eastern Universities
Press,. ___________ (1979) Southeast Asian Research Tools:
Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei. Honolulu: Southeast
Asian Studies, Asian Studies Program, University of Hawaii,. Said, Edward (1978). Orientalism, New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Sarewitz, Daniel.(1996). Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress, Temple University Press. Sclove, Richard E. (1993). "Technological Politics as If Democracy Really Mattered: Choices Confronting Progressives." in Technology for the Common Good. Eds. Michael Shuman and Julia Sweig. Washington, DC: Institute for Policy Studies. pp. 54-79.
_____________ (1994). "Democratizing Technology." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 40, No. 19 (12 Jan.): B1-B2.
._____________ (1995a). Putting Science to Work in Communities." The Chronicle of Higher Education 41, No. 29 (31 March): B1-B3. ______________. (1995b.) Democracy and Technology. New York: Guilford Press.
Shaika Zakaria, Datin, ed. (1986). Poverty
in Malaysia: A Bibliography. Kuala Lumpur: Library, University of
Malaya,. Stockwell, A. J. (1976). “The Historiography of Malaysia: Recent Writings in English on the History of the Area since 1874',” Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 5, 1 (Oct.). Ungku Maimunah Mohd. Tahir (1987), Modern Malay literary culture, Singapore: ISEAS Research Notes and Discussion Paper No. 62, 78 pp. Williams, Patrick and Laura Chrisman, (eds.) (1994), Colonial Discourse and the Postcolonial Theory: A Reader, New York: Columbia University Press. Winks, Robin (1966). A Historiography of the British Empire, and Commonwealth, Duke University Press. Winstedt, R. O. (1981), The Malays, a cultural history, rev. by Tham Seong Chee: 1981, Singapore, Graham Brash. |
|
|