Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of Tables
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Glossary
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The Origins and Patterns of Conflict in Malaysia
- 3 Regime Maintenance through Consociational Bargaining
- 4 Regime Change towards UMNO Dominance
- 5 Towards Mahathir's Personal Dominance
- 6 Politics in the 1990s: Regime Change or Regime Consolidation
- 7 The Rise of New Politics and Challenges to the Mahathir Regime
- 8 Whither Malaysia?
- References
- Index
- About the Author
4 - Regime Change towards UMNO Dominance
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 October 2015
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of Tables
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Glossary
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The Origins and Patterns of Conflict in Malaysia
- 3 Regime Maintenance through Consociational Bargaining
- 4 Regime Change towards UMNO Dominance
- 5 Towards Mahathir's Personal Dominance
- 6 Politics in the 1990s: Regime Change or Regime Consolidation
- 7 The Rise of New Politics and Challenges to the Mahathir Regime
- 8 Whither Malaysia?
- References
- Index
- About the Author
Summary
In deeply divided societies where consociational techniques have not been, or cannot be, successfully employed, control may represent a model for the organization of intergroup relations that is substantially preferable to other conceivable solutions …
(Ian Lustick 1979)This government is based on UMNO and I surrender its responsibility to UMNO in order that UMNO shall determine its form — the government must follow the wishes and desires of UMNO — and it must implement policies which are determined by UMNO.
(Tun Abdul Razak 1970)During the period 1957–69, the newly established Malaysian state opted for political compromise which meant by implication that Malays retained political prominence while the non-Malays, especially the Chinese, kept their strong economic position, even though the modern economy continued to be dominated by foreign capital. As described in the previous chapter, the component parties of the Alliance government had both incentive and capacity to engage in mutual compromise in order to avoid internal collapse and to maintain their legitimate influence over their segmental ethnic groups. It also appeared that the intensity and volume of communal demands were relatively moderate and negotiable to a large extent in such a mutual deterrence situation.
However, the relatively amicable ethnic relations were not built on strong foundations. As Mahathir Mohamad noted, racial harmony in the first decade of independence was “neither real nor deep-rooted” but was rather the “absence of open inter-racial strife”. Moreover, the absence of overt struggle was not necessarily “due to lack of desire or reasons for strife” but mostly “due to a lack of capacity to bring about open conflict.” The changed political environment in the second decade of independence, however, demonstrated that such mutual compromise (or avoidance) was no longer effective. Towards the end of the 1960s, the non-Malay communities became more vocal in their demands for greater political equality. To a greater extent, the Malays, especially a group of young Malay leaders, were worried that the Alliance regime's compromising approach would ultimately cause them to be marginalized in the political and economic sphere. Consequently, growing ethnic anxieties led to the breakdown of political order which took the form of the bloody racial riots in May 1969.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Personalized PoliticsThe Malaysian State under Mahathir, pp. 91 - 142Publisher: ISEAS–Yusof Ishak InstitutePrint publication year: 2003