林德宜：马来人的困境塑造种族论

我在两周前的文章中指出，声称“受害人”和采用“受害人”的心态，已成为马来西亚一项有利可图的产业。我也指出，在一些族群的某些领导人，包括受过良好教育者，以及那些通过利用所谓的“受害”族群身份，而获得最大的社会经济流动性和政治优势的人，更容易接受这种现象。

马哈迪医生的《马来人的困境》，是影响马来西亚种族偏见观念，并助长“受害人”心态与种族主义文化的主要著作。这本政治著作出版于1970年，其目的是在513种族暴力冲突后，重塑马来人和马来西亚的政治和社会。

最初，由于该书内容被指煽动和可能破坏513后重建的社会稳定而遭禁，不过在1981年马哈迪出任首相时，该书获得解禁。

社会达尔文主义

《马来人的困境》一书，当年尽管被禁，却成功以不同方式，重塑对这国家未来的探讨。首先，这是马哈迪在政坛崛起的主要因素之一。这也确保了他在马来政治中的地位和持久性。

更严格来说，过去50年来一直延续到今天，在新经济政策以及之后各项国家政策下，制定的各种种族偏差的政治，社会经济和教育公共政策的基础，就是以这本著作的思维为依据。

这本书最重要的“遗产”，也许就是其对这国家的种族论述和受害者心态的重塑作用。这是很少公众人物敢于讨论的遗产。

最近，美国和世界各地兴起的反种族主义和探讨种族关系的运动，也让我们重新审视《马来人的困境》一书中的主要论点及其对2020年当前局势的适用性。

来自国内外的许多读者和评论家都指出，该书宗旨下的核心论点──确保土著获赋予“在马来西亚有利的地位”──这是源自以社会达尔文主义观点来理解马来西亚。

社会达尔文主义和其他社会相关理论，是试图将生物或环境下的自然选择和优胜劣汰概念，应用于社会发展和政治，这于1870年始于英国、美国和西欧国家。这学说及其伴随而来的意识形态，除适用于国内外，也在不同时间点上，用来为殖民主义、帝国主义、优生学、种族主义和社会分化政策辩护。

如在第二次世界大战时，纳粹统治下的德国官员及医生，就受了社会达尔文主义和优生学的启发及推动，把这些思想贯彻和实践。这导致希特勒为培养优越的雅利安人种做出了不懈的努力，也让纳粹政权决心要消灭非雅利安人的犹太人和吉普赛人。

在马哈迪撰写该书时，尽管已存在著种族大屠杀的可怕事实，但社会达尔文主义者依然坚持认为，基于人类会因肤色不同，而存在遗传差异，因此种族优劣的观念，在某些圈子里仍然盛行。

《马》书论述获得认同吗？

但是，在50年后的今天，我们的新一代政策制定者和政治人物，须重新评估这样的论述。

最近，就有一位读者在网络上，对这本书作出了类以的回应。

“我绝不同意这本书的论点。其不断地重复一个论点，而这些论点是基于作者自己对历史和社会的解读。这是以粗暴、广泛的概括以及总体上尝试为制度化种族主义辩护。”

另一位读者提出了如下的评论：

“我可详细说明，但我认为这应该足够清晰。我可以断定，作为马来人，我可以自立。我们不需要任何保护。在心理上，人有发展自我的潜力。从技术上讲，我们可以在许多方面与他人竞争。就个人而言，我不欣赏他（马哈迪）鄙视马来人的方式。坦率地说，我不知道其背后隐藏的信息是什么，如有的话。对

我而言，这本书在某种程度上，鼓励我为实现自己的目标而不断奋斗。我相信每个人都可以改变。马来人并不懒惰。马来人可以改变。”

最后，我把这文章分享给一位马来同事，他看后说：

“《马来人的困境》一书和马哈迪随后采取的行动，带来的最具破坏性影响之一，就是在教育和施政上要实现平等成果。

这没有为马来人提供仅凭绩效来进行竞争的手段和能力，反之其实施不看绩效的固打分配。这使大量不合格的人获得及进入原本他们完全没有能力在公务员体制和官联公司中的职位。在过去的30年到40年中，我们基本上在教育和施政上确立了“彼得原则”（即一个人趋向于上升到他所不能胜任的地位）。这也是我们今天所遭受的苦难源由。”

这本书中的“受害人”论述，演变成至高无上的种族意识形态，也说明了我国种族主义的变迁。

问题是，谁能不只是批评这本具有争议和误导性的假设及结论一书背后的社会达尔文主义，更能走出书中所塑造的种族主义论述的阴影。

《马来人的困境塑造种族论》（The Malay Dilemma Shaping The Race Discourse）原文：

In an earlier article I noted that the claim of victimhood and adoption of a victim mentality has become a profitable industry in Malaysia. I also pointed out that this phenomenon is most embraced by some leaders of the community including the most educated and those who have achieved the greatest socio-economic mobility and political advantage by taking advantage of their so-called victim status.

The major work influencing Malaysia’s racial stereotyping and feeding into the country’s culture of victimhood and racism has been the book by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, The Malay Dilemma.  Published in 1970 the political tract was aimed at reshaping Malay and Malayan politics and society in the aftermath of the racial violence of 13 May.

Initially banned for its alleged seditious content and potential to destabilize a society reeling from the trauma of 13 May, the ban was lifted in 1981 when Dr. Mahathir became Prime Minister.

The book, though prohibited, was successful in reshaping the debate on the country’s future in several ways. For one, it has been one of the main factors for the political rise of Dr. Mahathir. It has also ensured his ascendency and durability in Malay politics.

More critically, it has been the basis for a wide range of racially skewed political, socio-economic and educational public policies under the New Economic Policy and various successor national policies during the last 50 years and continuing until today.

Perhaps the most important legacy of the book has been its role in shaping the racial and victimhood discourse in the country. This has been a legacy which few public figures dare to discuss.    
 
The recent soul searching over race and race relations in the United States and elsewhere in the world gives us an opportunity to reassess the main arguments contained in the Malay Dilemma and its applicability to the current situation in 2020.

Social Darwinism: Its Relevance in Malaysia

Many readers and reviewers, from within and outside the country, have noted that the central argument underpinning the objective of the book - to ensure that the indigenous community would be accorded “his place in the Malayan sun” - stems from a social darwinist understanding of Malayan society.

Social darwinism and other related theories of society seeking to apply biological or environmental concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to social development and politics first in the 1870s in Britain, the United States and Western Europe. Besides its application to the home constituency, the doctrine and its accompanying ideologies were used to justify colonialism, imperialism, eugenics, racism and social differentiation policies at various points in time.

More recently, the application of social darwinism and eugenics are found in the ideas and practices that informed and motivated German doctors and administrators  in the operations of the Nazi state. It resulted in Hitler’s obsessive efforts to breed a superior Aryan race and the Nazi regime’s determination to exterminate the non-Aryan Jews and gypsies.  

At the time of the writing of the book by Dr. Mahathir, despite the horrendous reality of the Holocaust, a social darwinist view adhering to the belief that there are genetic differences in the human population based on races and the notion of superior and inferior races was still prevalent in some circles.  

But its relevance today 50 years later needs to be reassessed by our new generation of policy makers and politicians.

One recent reader has described his response to the book on the internet this way.

“ I disagreed with this book in every possible way. It rambles on and on about the same points, which are steeply based in the author's own interpretations of history and society. Crude, broad generalizations and overall a terrible attempt at justifying institutionalized racism.”

Another reader provides the following comment

“I would like to elaborate more but I think this should be enough. What I can conclude is, me as a Malay can stand by ourselves. We don’t need any protection. Psychologically, man has potential to develop themselves. Technically, we can compete with others in many things. Personally, I don’t appreciate the way he despises Malay. And to be frank, I don’t know what is the hidden message if there is any. For me, this book somehow encourages me to keep fighting for reaching my own target. I believe everyone can change. Melayu tak malas. Malays can change.”

Finally, a  Malay colleague with whom I shared the draft had this to say:

“One of the most devastating impacts of The Malay Dilemma and Mahathir's subsequent actions was the implementation of equality of outcome in education and in governance.

Instead of providing the means and ability for Malays to solely compete on merit, it imposes quota of results without regards to merit. This allowed massive numbers of non-qualified persons to attain and maintain entry and positions they are wholly incapable of performing in the civil service and GLCs. We basically instituted the peter principle in education and governance for the last 30 to 40 years. That was our recipe for the disaster that we have today.”

How the claims of victimhood replete in the book have morphed into a supremacist ideology explains the racial journey and metamorphosis that the nation has undertaken.      

The question is who will take the book with its contentious and misleading assumptions and conclusions that are not limited to the subject matter of social darwinism, out from where it has cast a long shadow on the country’s race discourse for fumigation?