This is a very well written and insightful commentary on Malaysia and the state of its federation written by MalaysiaKini columnist, James Wong.

Original article take from here.

Personality cult behind Economist controversy

Opinion
James Wong Wing On
12:53pm Tue May 6th, 2003

Unlike The Star’s executive editor Wong Chun Wai, I am a proud subscriber and regular reader of the London-based weekly the Economist for the past 20 years.

Whether Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Defence Minister Najib Tun Razak or Deputy Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin like or loathe this magazine, it doesn’t really matter to me

They have their values and interests, I have mine.

The major reason I like to read the Economist, and for that matter, most of the liberal Anglo-American newspapers and periodicals, is simply because there is no regular reading materials o?n international relations matching their intellectual quality in Malaysia.

Misplaced patriotism

Above all, unlike the MCA- and Umno-controlled media in Malaysia, there are vigorous debates in these liberal publications among different personalities and schools of thought. And the debates are not contrived or trivial.

Such liberal publications keeps o?ne sane amid the daily and inescapable bombardment from tireless editorialists, columnists and writers from the official media, who specialise in Western and American bashing.

Which may also be the reason why many policy-makers in the business community, economic think-tanks, ministries and universities subscribe to the Economist and other liberal Anglo-American publications.

Given the real alignment or distribution of political, economic and military forces in the world today, it is rather shocking to hear a top editor of a leading English-language newspaper publicly proclaiming with misguided pride and misplaced patriotism that he never reads the weekly regularly.

What other foreign newspapers and periodicals does he regularly read to broaden his mind then? North Korea’s Workers’ Daily? Lyndon LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review?

Perhaps Wong does read the weekly but because the magazine has now become an object of contrived hatred and state-sponsored condemnation, he has to deny it for understandable, albeit not necessarily acceptable, reasons.

Narcissistic mindsets

Indeed, the public ‘controversy’ surrounding the Economist in recent weeks has again revealed the rather narcissistic mindsets and psyche of a segment of the ruling elite in Malaysia.

First, there is a strong psychological pressure for everyone - including some oppositionists - to conform to the ‘intellectual’ (if I may be allowed to abuse the word) likes and dislikes of the top Umno leadership and their propagandists, especially o?n issues relating to international relations and foreign affairs.

The Economist controversy is o?nly the latest example. A few months ago, many overzealous conformists and misguided patriots called for a ban of the book ‘Inside Al Qaeda - Global Network of Terror’ even before they read it.

Their o?nly knowledge about the book at that time seemed to be that some top Umno government leaders and Umno-controlled newspapers had expressed displeasure or condemnation.

Some bookshops, without even receiving any legal order of banning the book, removed it from the shelves for fear of circulating or displaying ’subversive’ materials.

The contrived ‘controversy’ o?n my interview with the BBC was yet another such example.

The Stalinlist feature of such ‘mass campaigns’ is that the immediate response of the ruling elite to criticism is to concoct a conspiracy theory and then attack those expressing politically incorrect ideas as ‘agents’ of that conspiracy or conspiratorial groups.

Letters would then ‘emerge’ in the controlled newspapers to back the official stand and ‘reporters’ would be assigned to solicit more support from politicians, NGO activists, leaders of trade unions and academics in the form of ‘news’.

Poorly trained

Second, the substantive ideas disagreeable to a clique of opinion-making elite are never discussed or discoursed rationally.

One reason seems to be that the ‘attack dogs’ in the Information Ministry and the official media are o?nly trained, and conditioned in all-purpose psychological warfare, but not in substantive subjects of economics, international relations, global finance and international security.

These subjects have their own sets of empirical facts and figures, theoretical constructs, modes of reasoning as well as global communities which are beyond the comprehension of such propagandists.

Deputy Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin is a classic representative of this group of ‘Jack of all trades but master of-none’ propagandists.

Their preponderance in the mass media in Malaysia serves to lower intellectual debates and discourses but they also positively provide comical entertainment.

Third, the preponderance of these comformists, misguided patriots and propagandists in the opinion and editorial sections of the official media suggests that there is a great divergence between political power, influence and unproductive wealth o?n o?ne hand, and true knowledge and intellects o?n the other.

It explains why so many honourable academics and professionals in Malaysia have chosen to keep quiet o?n many public issues, or even opt to teach, write or speak in other countries where functional meritocracy and moral uprightness is made the foundation of social progress, and mediocrity and opportunism, a public shame.

Moral dilemma

Fourth, for those Malaysians and friends of Malaysia who cherish intellectual discourses and democratic debates, how to respond and react to these propagandists pose a moral dilemma.

If their follies are not pointed out, criticised and corrected publicly, they would continue to really think that they are right, and justly entitled to their power, influence and wealth.

They would continue to debase the intellectual quality of the nation with a ‘clear conscience’ and a ’sense of patriotic mission’.

However, if their vainglorious follies are publicly exposed and criticised, they would probably suffer from explosive inferiority complexes and delusions of persecution.

Should we pity and tolerate them, or deal with them and put public discourses back o?n the right track again at this historic transition of the nation?

It may be worthwhile to note symbolically that, since the Economist was first published in 1843 as a liberal publication, its declared mission has always been to take part in “a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress”.

Fifth, there is evidently an idolatrous cult-of-personality in Malaysia (as in Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Kims’ North Korea and Saddam’s Iraq) in the form of Mahathir-worshipping.

Otherwise, how could we explain there are still Malaysians who cannot accept the earthly and secular reality that any human leader and public figure, including Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, is not perfect, or omnipotent and omniscient.

Perfection, omnipotence and omniscience are the exclusive attributes of God, not men or women o?n earth. To believe, think, opine or suggest otherwise is idolatrous in Abrahamic faiths, including Islam and Christianity.

Idolatrous supporters

However, to be fair to Mahathir - who did perform many great services for the nation in the past but has also committed some grave errors and mistakes, especially since 1997-98 (which can still be corrected) - he has never claimed to be o?n par with God.

It is his overzealously idolatrous supporters and self-serving opportunists who attempt to deify a man for their self-interests and self-preservation, like what the Gang of Four did to Mao Zedong in China’s ‘Cultural Revolution’ in 1960s.

The emergence of a cult of personality in Malaysia at this junction of our national history does not augur well for the future progress.

It suggests that secular modernity, despite outward ‘Westernisation’, modern-looking buildings and attires, has not been widely entrenched in the hearts and minds of even the English-speaking ruling and opinion-making elites.

Secular modernity is also not firmly institutionalised as an overarching system of the social thoughts, relations and behaviour of the ruling elite.

In the absence of democratic, meritocractic and transparent governance, respect for basic human rights and rule of law as well as a high degree of social trust, some psychologically insecure Malaysians - both old and young - are still yearning for another earthly god in the 21st century.

Mahathir, who has ruled supreme in Malaysia for 22 years, has indeed failed miserably in this critical aspect of nation-building and modernisation.

  

Posted on May 7th, 2003 by jl
Filed under: Misc Notables