Entering Lee Kuan Yew’s mind

In Malaysia, Lee Kuan Yew is often made an issue or he purposely make issues with Malaysia
, Which ever is more right is not important. Recently, Kuan Yew makes noise again and the latest is a colleague of mine, Professor Awang Sariyan, a linguist and the holder of the Malaysia-China Chair in Malay studies at a university in China, responded.




Awang Sariyan defended that the Malay language had been the language of knowledge in Malaysia, as well as in Indonesia, in countering Lee Kuan Yew’s statement. Who else can we expect to react, if not a linguist when the malay language is belittled.



Understanding Kuan Yew’s intelligence, such a response is expected. Kuan Yew understands very well the psychology of the Malays. Otherwise he would not have been able to make the Malays in the republic proud to be Singaporeans.



To understand Malay, Kuan Yew, a lawyer by profession, studied books on anthropology looking for the answers. I don’t think lawyers in Malaysia, including those who have become political leaders, will read books on anthropology to understand how the Chinese and Tamil voters in Malaysia think.



The most, the politicians will do is take a short-cut by asking lecturers on anthropology in universities. It is very unlikely that they will read the anthropology books themselves. Their excuse “do not know Chinese or Tamil”.



Kuan Yew obtained answers on Malay thinking not through books written by the Malays in the Malay language, but was convinced by English author. George P. Landow, a professor at an Ivy League university, the Brown University, who said that Kuan Yew obtained the answers after studying a book by Bryan Parkinson, a fellow at the centre of South East Asia Studies, Hull University in England.



Parkinson found that the thinking of the Malays on success greatly differs from the Chinese and Tamil. To the Chinese especially, success means changing their economic condition, even if it means changing the basic and tradition.



To the Malays, success is defending tradition. Although the Malays, like others, want to be rich and successful, but the wealth and success should be achieved outside the tradition and norms which the Malays and comfortable with.



The change of fundamental matters cannot be accepted by the Malays. In the language of human knowledge \, the thinking of the Malays is thick with pre-conditions, meaning the Malays would say “I will only strive, I will only succeed or I will be rich with the condition…”.



The conditions may be a long list. Parkinson opined that such a Malay thinking was not irrational, but will not make it possible for the Malays to be ahead in an open competition.



Kuan Yew concluded that the Malays were low in achievement orientation, determination to be ahead and motivation to possess, compared with the Chinese and Tamil. There is only one way which can help the Malays to progress, which is through affirmative action (ala New Economic Policy), like providing free education from primary school to university level and to segregate them to housing areas of various races so that their children will have a new culture and be competitive like the children from other races in Singapore.



To manage the Chinese, Tamil and Malays in Singapore, Kuan Yew had never adopted the western democracy, unlike some Malaysian leaders, from both the government and the opposition, who compete and trying hard to prove they are ‘super-democratic’ according to the western prescription which they consider universal, Kuan Yew rejects it.



Kuan Yew rejects the western notion which said that every human beings wants democracy, appreciate freedom of speech more than economic comfort. The need for peace and security is more important than others and is a pre-requisite to achieve the desired comfort.



It is on that belief that Kuan Yew is not threatened with the criticism that he was defending wrongful arrest or habeas corpus. What is said about open and fair trial, according to does not necessarily be fair, because in many situations, witnesses are afraid to come forwards to tell the truth.



It is because of that stance, to Singapore, economic prosperity is the country’s priority compared with other matters to an extent that now Singapore has left Malaysia as a developed country and its people, a high-income society.



I used to write a feature in this newspaper from Harvard University by quoting conclusions of class discussions there on Singapore – “Singapore buys democracy with economic prosperity” which was translated into English in Singapore.



Kuan Yew seems to believe that leaders do not have to beg for people to be abiding citizens, instead they should be in a position where they have to abide. He admits to learning that from the Japanese administration in Singapore. He said the three years under the Japanese rule taught him a lot more than his years in university.



Although everybody hates Japan, said Kuan Yew, that after a certain period people will learn to adapt.- those who abide will prosper, while those who do not, will lose their wealth and status. Although life then was bad, people were poor and starving, the crime rate was still low., unlike what is normally said by academicians that poverty had positive co-relation with crime rate.



Malaysia has set several targets for the country’s transformation, among others, to attain a developed status and to be a high income country by 2020, reduce crime rate, reduce corruption index. Almost all those have been achieved by Singapore. Like Malaysia, as stated on paper the Vision 2020, to be developed according to its own mould. Singapore also used that slogan , but in Kun Yew’s head as tacit knowledge, implementing it and achieving it. If, in my previous article, it is mentioned as ‘Swedish model’, this time it is referred to as Singapore’s mould.



Kuan Yew never apologise for his actions, while the democratic leaders in Malaysia apologise for something which they have not done.



If Kuan Yew had worked hard to achieve what Singapore has achieved now through the study of the Malay, Chinese and Tamil minds by studying anthropology books, I’m not sure if in the National Transformation programme, Datuk Seri Idris Jala has set up laboratories to understand the thinking of the various ethnics. I also do not have the information whether the special laboratory, which has been specially selected by its members among the anthropology, sociology and psychology as part of the transformation laboratories.



Has any anthropologist, sociologist and psychologist serve as members of the National Economic Action Council . Is there an anthropology in the Economic Planning Unit? I believe, people like this contributed a lot to the National Economic policy during Tun Razak’s time or on grounds that the world has changed, the current plan no longer need to take into account the cross-culture factor, like race, ethnic, age, gender, geography, socio-economy, employment, etc.



When the Prime Minister said that the transformation should provide comfort toall the people, regardless their race, he also promised that the fate of the Malays/bumiputera will not be neglected.



But, borrowing Kuan Yew’s thinking, make any change or transformation, there is no need for the Malays to be discriminated intentionally because they will discriminate themselves. Affirmative action is the only way that can help them. Is it true?



Also, when Kuan Yew touches on the Malay language, it is impossible that he purposely wants to hurt the Malays in Malaysia as said by Awang Sariyan and my other friends, What can be Kuan Yew’s targets? Perhaps the intellectual Malay friends, like Hasan Ahmad, Shamsul Amri, Hashim Yacob, Zainal Keling, Firdaus Abdullah and Zainal Abidin Borhan, as always, have their answers.



Tan Sri Dr. Nordin Kardi

is a Professor at the College of Literature and Science,

Universiti Utara Malaysia.



original link