Krugman on Mahathir

I will simply point out that there have been no massacres of the Chinese population under Mahathir, and that the Malaysian version of sharia law is the most modern and humane sharia that you’ll find. Mahathir has been as good a leader as it was reasonable to expect given the state that Malaysia was in.

And does it follow from your view that the fear and hostility which Mahathir’s authoritarian bigotry evokes in the objects of his hatred should more properly be aimed at the population of the whole region?

I have a shiny sixpence here on my desk for anyone who can find a single person who was genuinely afraid because of Mahathir’s speech. The answer to your question is, of course, “don’t be silly”. It is indeed the responsibility of the Malaysian people that the Malaysian state is as it is, but to express “hostility” toward a (still) undereducated and highly religious mob for being who they are is silly and nasty.

And my capital letters are entirely appropriate; as the linked article points out, anyone who takes Mahathir’s rhetoric at face value is indeed being naive and childish.

Keith, I agree with a large part of what you’re saying, and also agree that this doesn’t mean we have to buy into a crude relativism. But I don’t think it makes a lot of difference to the case in hand. However it may be with judging figures from the past (where I think your case is at its most cogent) I find it hard, in fact impossible, to believe that a world leader like Mahathir is unaware that a reasonably strong case could be made against his anti-semitic views. He knows what such views have led to elsewhere. Nor can I see that he would have risked an enormous amount, personally or socially, had he just left out the antisemitic bits of the speech. Is the issue an important one? People will vary on that one, I guess. But when serious intellectuals start telling us that it’s silly and childish of Jews to be alarmed at expressions of classic Jew-hatred, enthusiastically supported by millions of people, then that is in itself important and worrying.

I think it’s germane to this discussion to point out that there’s all the difference in the world between making a speech like Mahathir’s in a country with a large Jewish population and making it in Malaysia, which has a Jewish population close to zero. Things would be very different in Palestine if children were encouraged to believe that there misfortunes were the fault of the Chinese …

From Fareed Zakaria’s article in today’s WaPo:

Daniel Davies says:
Now I’d like to take time out from saying that Boykin is a Very Bad Person (1) to think about American politics. And my capital letters are entirely appropriate; as the linked article points out, anyone who takes Boykin’s rhetoric at face value is indeed being naive and childish. I have a shiny sixpence here on my desk for anyone who can find a single person who was genuinely afraid because of Boykin’s speech.

I will simply point out that there have been no massacres of the Muslim population under Boykin, and that the Patriot Act is the most modern and humane hysterically authoritarian legislation that you’ll find. I think it’s germane to this discussion to point out that there’s all the difference in the world between making a speech like Boykin’s in a country with a large Muslim population and making it in the USA, where Muslims are one or two per cent of the population at most.

(1)Which he isn’t; he’s an authoritarian and a bigot for sure, but by the standards of the region, ie the Southern States of the US, he’s pretty good.

Chris Bertram adds: I agree with you that it is “not silly or childish of Muslims to be alarmed at expressions of classic Muslim-hatred.”But it is consistent with that to believe that Boykin’s speeches should not be taken at face value. The outrage at those remarks has led people to miss a lot of what is interesting in the speeches and how critical Boykin is of modern secular societies.

“…is a person who expresses racial hatred, and encourages it in others, in better or worse moral shape if he does it entirely authentically and for its own sake, so to speak, than if he does it manipulatively for a further end?”

Worse, I’d say.

I am persuaded somewhat by your claim that my “method” (which was really just an attempt to describe a process that is much less formalized for me) is more appropriate for past figures than contemporary. I’m persuaded because, I admit, I often think in those terms and thus my methodology is probably biased.

On the other hand, I’m not greatly persuaded by the assumption that there is a great dissimilarity between past/present and present/present cultural comparisons.

I’m quite struck by the level of explicit antisemitism in much of the leftist European press—I can’t imagine Easterbrook’s comments, for example, attracting any notice whatsoever in that context. And, to me, the fact that liberal western democracies can still exhibit this much antisemitism without much criticism provides a context for setting realistic expectations elsewhere. Mahathir was saying things that are non-controversial, even considered manifestly obvious, in parts of North America and Europe. In much of the Muslim world, they are well-nigh universal.

That Mahathir is “progressive” and not particularly virulent in his antisemtism is both horrifying and encouraging, depending upon context. Context is key.

But Boykin *isn’t* “pretty good” by the standards of public officials in the South (let alone national public officials, which is what he is); he’s down there with the Chief Justice of Alabama and various other wastrels.

The same is not true of MM; to make the point more strongly, MM was in all probability using the (deplorable) anti-semitic rhetoric as a way of sugaring the pill of his critique of modern Islamic social and political life. What he said about the latter could have appeared on LGF or Longer SdB.

Whereas Boykin was revealing, as far as one can see, his actual thinking about world politics.

Dan, your rhetorical device and its point is unpersuasive to me. Because I, for example, find Boykin’s statements to be even less objectionable than Mahathir’s, and for exactly the same reasons. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think that he’s an embarassment to the DoD and an example of this administration’s general incompetence (or, alternatively, how much it’s captured by the interests Boykin is representative of).

Keith, Mahathir is a racist bigot speaking to a hall full of Heads of State and/or government, addressing demagogic and hate-filled remarks to the world’s Muslims; Boykin is a racist bigot who is also a General in the world’s most powerful army.
A racist thug threatening to get his mates to kick your head in is less frightening than a racist thug belonging to an organisation with unlimited firepower, true. But- basic principle: racist thugs= bad thing. Racist thugs with access to firepower or access to media for rabble-rousing= undesirable. Agree?

“I don’t think that the US has offered unconditional support to Ariel Sharon”

Well, yeah, I guess there’s vicious wrist-slapping every time Ariel talks too loud about the increase in settlement activity…

Chris, this is an interesting theoretical take on the issue. You’re treating the moral prohibition on expressing racial hatred not as an absolute side-constraint, but as an agent-neutral principle, hence one which it’s legitimate to violate if by so doing you can reduce racial hatred elsewhere. The legitimacy of this, even for full-blooded consequentialists, surely depends on whether the desired outcome is achieved, doesn’t it? And have we any reason at all to think that Mahathir’s speech, given to that enthusiastic audience, did anything to reduce racial hatreds?

I’m quite struck by the level of explicit antisemitism in much of the leftist European press—I can’t imagine Easterbrook’s comments, for example, attracting any notice whatsoever in that context (emphasis added)

Keith, just on a general point of style, can we agree that something that comes from your imagination can’t be “an example”?

More substantively, I think that everyone can agree that a Malaysia run by George W Bush would be a more pleasant, liberal and tolerant place than one run by Mahathir Mohammed. But the history of Islamic Southeast Asia appears to suggest that such a Malaysian government would last about three months before the political system fell apart and several hundred thousand ethnic Chinese were massacred. I think that the original mistake in this discussion is Eve’s assertion that “Nor can I see that he would have risked an enormous amount, personally or socially, had he just left out the antisemitic bits of the speech.” Sure he could on any one individual occasion. But without throwing the occasional rhetorical bone to the Malaysian mob, I don’t think that his government would have survived, and I’m pretty sure that all the alternatives would have been worse.

I similarly don’t always begrudge the loony element in the Israeli cabinet their occasional racist outbursts against the Palestinians. When you understand that they’re often playing to the faithful in order to keep a shaky coalition together, it becomes easier to understand.

“Keith, just on a general point of style, can we agree that something that comes from your imagination can’t be “an example”?”

Okay. I will concede the spirit of your complaint, though not the letter.

I think I have a substantial disagreement with you on why Mahathir’s comments can be argued to be at least partly acceptable. While I think we’re similarly pragmatic, we part ways on how we evaluate the cost/benefit of such tactics. My calculation indicates I cannot excuse them on the basis that you do.

My defense relies much more upon the difficulty of taking a moral position that is significantly outside the boundaries of an individual’s normative social context.

Eve,

This thread is degenerating somewhat. I think that what I said didn’t clearly distinguish between the case you describe and another one which is consistent with an absolute prohibition on the expression of racial hatred. Namely, if what-is-prohibited is taken to be the racist illocutionary act (where that is consisten with words that are, literally, racist).

But you asked me a direct question: “have we any reason at all to think that Mahathir’s speech, given to that enthusiastic audience, did anything to reduce racial hatreds?”

To which my answer is *no* . (But, at the risk of being misunderstood and pilloried, I’ll say that that answer is defeasible given the _very limited_ knowledge I have of Islamic and Malaysian politics).

It’s not complicated. I think that, in general, there’s a higher middle-to-long term cost associated with fanning the flames of these sorts of bigotries than there is a benefit. But there’s considerable room for an honest difference of opinion here. I certainly wouldn’t want to be in a position to be forced to appease a crucial constituency by endorsing or repeating morally repugnant, or at least dubious, ideals. But this is what politicians do all the time.

Actually, to be perfectly honest, that’s not true. I would be willing to try to negotiate these sorts of treacherous waters, either as a politician or a political strategist of some sort. I think it can be done while erring away from the side of such endorsements. But, hey, that’s easy to say.

You have me in an unusual position for me: arguing the more idealistic rather than the pragmatic point of view. It’s a nice change.

I think that tribalistic impulses—specifically villifying the alien—is _the_ chief cause of everything greater than petty human evil. So I attribute a much higher cost in trafficing in such sentiments than you do, apparently. I will accept this behavior (that is, the pragmatic duplicity you are describing) under my socialy normative argument, but not on its own merits.

Dan: you have three points.

1. I don’t understand what you’re talking about, or who Boykin is.

2. Both of your examples are flawed because they deal with racially mixed societies in which the ruling class attempted to “divide and conquer”.

3. Nobody’s saying that it was a great thing that Mahathir did. But it makes sense to analyse his speech in the context of the audience that he intended for it.

Keith: As I’ve said above, I’m not trying to morally exonerate Mahathir. But he’s the only example we’ve got of a leader of a non-failed Islamic state.

Nothing so rigourous definitionally. It’s just that of all the Islamic states in the world, Malaysia is the only one which appears to me to even seem to be going in the right direction, or to have any sort of workable development model. Indonesia will sort itself out some day, and Nigeria might surprise us all, but for the time being, Mahathir’s unique among Islamic leaders.

D2, speaking of workable dvelopment models, I would be interested in your take on the UAE, Dubai, Qatar etc – aside from the guest worker issue which I think now is endemic to any wealthy country with porous boundaries.

Although I would agree Malaysia is one of the best Islamic countries in which to be a women – along with Indonesia.

D-squared says I have three points, Chris says I’m a ‘complete tosser’. So the guy capable of speaking like an intelligent human being gets an answer, the wannabe-tough fake-demotic potty-mouth doesn’t. (Offstage, Chris Bertram can be heard: ‘I know EVEN RUDER words than that, and I’m reely hard…’)

D-squared:
1) Lengthy quote from, plus link to, Fareed Zakaria’s article WaPo article on Boykin above. I posted the quote and link before I submitted the later post which you objected to. The reason for posting it was just that the content of the remarks was so hideously similar- except that it we don’t know whether or not Mahathir is shamming bigotry, whereas Boykin seems to be a genuinely sincere kinda guy.

2)You say: ‘Both of your examples are flawed because they deal with racially mixed societies in which the ruling class attempted to “divide and conquer”.’
If the context is Malaysia, the Malaysian ruling class, led by Mahathir, is not trying to demonise its resident Chinese minority. (But that may be changing- not as regards Chinese in Malaysia, but as regards illegal immigrants from neighbouring Asian countries, principally Indonesia. There have been some very nasty laws introduced re immigrants in Malaysia in the last few years. Put it this way, however nasty things have got here, not even Blunkett has legalised the pre-deportation flogging of illegal immigrants. Do some googling and find out.)
However, the context of Mahathir’s speech was not just Malaysian politics. It was a speech to a hall full of leaders of Muslim countries, extensively reported throughout the Muslim world. In that context, there is certainly plenty of evidence to support the argument that the leaders of Muslim countries seek to divert popular anger by whipping up (good verb for Mahathir) Jew-hatred. The usual form this takes is ‘We Muslims are poor because the Americans,and their Jewish puppet masters, want us to be so’. Mahathir’s variation on this is ‘We Muslims must stop being poor, not because a prosperous and liberal society is something to be desired for its own sake, but because when we’re rich and powerful we can settle scores with the Jewish interlopers.’
Yes, if you’re Daniel Pipes, you take speeches like Mahathir’s and argue that all Muslims are rabid Jew-haters. But we don’t need to go as far as that damn fool to be alarmed by Muslim political leaders creating a discourse in which so much has to be discussed in terms of Jew hatred (‘The Jews made us poor!’ ‘No, you reactionary, we made ourselves poor! We must get rich, so we can smash the Jews!’)
3)You say: ‘It makes sense to analyse his speech in the context of the audience that he intended it for.’
Yes, the latter is what Krugman did, or tried to do. But firstly, as I pointed out above, the context is not merely Malaysian politics but also the politics and culture of the wider Muslim community.
t it seemed to me that your post went farther, and in unwelcome ways. You seemed to me to go some way towards exculpation, rather than contextualisation. I quoted all the bits I really pbjected to in the parody post above.
Eg: ‘I have a shiny sixpence here on my desk for anyone who can find a single person who was genuinely afraid because of Mahathir’s speech. ‘
I claim my sixpence- if a hall full of Muslim politicians can publicly applaud a speech right out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, yes I am worried. I’ve had some awful conversations in the last two years with Muslim friends or acquaintances, in which things are blamed not on ‘the Zionists’ but on ‘the Jews’. There are too many people who will quote this speech with approval, in more places than Malaysia.
Or another quote: ‘anyone who takes Mahathir’s rhetoric at face value is indeed being naive and childish’.
Maybe Mahathir is just whipping up a little bigotry to cover his butt. Maybe Enoch Powell was just aiming for the leadership of the Tory Party when he foresaw the black man having the whip hand over the white man, and the River Tiber foaming with much blood. But I wouldn’t blame – still less insult with the words ‘childish and naive’- a black person for taking Enoch’s speech at face value, or a Jew for doing the same with Mahathir’s speech. Maybe it was all cunning; maybe they really believe their own filth. Without living inside Mahathir’s head, I don’t know, neither does Krugman, and neither do you.

Dan Hardie: actually I said you were _acting_ like a complete tosser. Since we are all capable of doing that from time to time, that’s consistent with you not actually being one. Since you are a visitor to our space, we’re entitled to object to the tone typified by your “Shorter Nasi Lemak” piece and also to your hectoring and peremptory demands that we have an opinion on matters you have raised in comments. No one forces you to venture onto CT’s comment boards, but if you do, please behave yourself.

No it isn’t. It’s a hell of a job and there are damn few examples in the Islamic world.

Not always purely a function of leadership; in Malaysia’s case the demonstration effects of being in the neighbourhood it is in would count for a lot as well I suppose. Probably not too many Islamic states as you say that are not in trouble; the problem I suspect more often has to do with geo-strategic factors and the model of the polity they have adopted; but I think Morocco and Indonesia are doing alright and I remain optimistic about a few others. Mahathir has played his cards well, but you seem to be arguing the job he has done could only have been done by a bigot and an authoritarian, which seems kind of determinist to me.

Homophobia is a form of bigotry, and aversion to democracy is a form of authoritarianism. I choose my words carefully.

True, I just wanted to point out that his bigotry does not stop at anti-Semitism, it is fairly broad, I assume he left any homophobic remarks out of his speech. Similarly with authoritarianism, as there have been authoritarian leaders in democracies as well (rest of Asia being a case point).

I’m saying that explicitly, for the reasons that Krugman outlines. Mahathir always starts talking about “International financiers” and about Jews when he wants to distract the Malaysian people’s attention from something he’s about to do or say that would be unpalatable for him.

I agree with your analysis here.

What’s your suggested alternative?

1) Concentrate on the positive and not the negative.

2) Try telling the truth (ok just kidding).

3) Have an affair and then open his heart to the nation about it on primetime Malaysian TV about how he has erred from the True path and has returned to it again.

4) Talk about Asian values (whatever this is) and then rave about the corrupting influence of Western culture through rock music, the internet, Western press etc.

5) Lapse into even more blatant and explicit anti-Americanism (let’s face it this is a good time to do it and will go down well with a Muslim audience as well).

None of these are perhaps as good as a substitute but they will surely get some of the job done.

There are always other alternatives, but how would you go about managing the self-esteem of a population that owns a frighteningly small proportion of the productive industry of its country? In any case, you only need a fairly small element to cause quite serious trouble; look how big Le Pen’s movement got in France after the mainstream parties all ignored growing discontent.

Maybe by tackling it head on and broadening ownership? It strikes me that we are drawing the wrong lesson from Le Pen’s example here; giving people a distant hate-figure in the form of ‘Jewish financier’ etc. will only work so far; once these elements are introduced into the political discourse and legitimised by the leader of the state no less, then sooner or later they can be turned against other, much more visible and much more appetising domestic targets. In this sense, I would argue that managing self-esteem in such a manner is quite myopic and building up trouble for the future.

It is a sad fact that anti-Semitic rhetoric goes down so well with a Muslim crowd, and the Muslim crowd is bad people for being so keen on it.

Well, perhaps more misguided than bad; but in anycase is it ever going to change if we keep on endorsing leaders like Mahathir who use this kind of rhetoric. Is this not something that we should as necessary of changing; it strikes me that if we want to see less ‘failed states’ in the Islamic world then this has to be part of the package – right?

A Malaysian leader who never played to the racial demagogue element would create a clear gap in the market, with highly unpredictable consequences.

In some sense, not an entirely bad thing, no? I am not disagreeing with the points you make (especially about the way this will be jumped on by certain sections of the Right to show how deeply irrationally racist Muslims even prosperous and ‘advanced’ ones are), I just feel that we should perhaps not be so willing to accept the status quo and be happy about the direction current events are moving in, in this regard.

BTW, as a general note the anti-Semitism being the anti-capitalism of fools should be attributed to August Bebel not Hess (given the latter’s move away from Hegelianism and Socialism towards a form of Zionism by this period, it is not a quote he would have necessarily made).

I totally don’t get the disagreeing commentators here. If Mahathir *didn’t* make those kind of comments at least occasionally, there’d be a revolution and he’d get replaced by someone who did. You can’t impose cultural changes from the top.

Criticizing the hell out of the most liberal of muslim leaders isn’t going to get you shit that you want.

“This sounds like the type of arguement used by moderates in the Deep South for not opposing Jim Crow laws. They were rightly condemned by the civil rights movement.”

Only works if there’s actual disagreement about the subject in society; the civil rights movement worked because there was plenty of people who weren’t hardcore segregationists. Not sure you can say this about Malaysia.

Matt:

Your 1 is an utter exaggeration, your 2 is accurate as a portrayal of the unfortunate facts, and I’d advise you not to visit the website where you picked up 3, as it certainly wasn’t here.

Dan H:

I would just like to point out that Chris speaks for all of us in his comments above.

I certainly do not endorse the anti-semitic content of Mr. Mahathir’s remarks, but the broader point, that one should fully consider the full content and extent fo his remarks, as well as, their context, and attribute a positional weight to the particularly objectionable remarks therefrom, I fully endorse. To this end, let me add two points about the context that the above comments have left unmentioned. 1) The Muslim world- and this speech was at a conference addressing representatives of the Muslim world- faces a difficult task of separating itself from Al Quaeda-style jihadist apocalyptic nihilism and re-establishing the legitimating force of the consensual mainstream of Islamic tradition. 2) The Muslim world perceives itself as under threat and potentially under direct attack from the most militarily and economically powerful nation on earth, and perceives this threat as being aligned with Likudnik policies that are anti-Muslim and racist, not entirely without reason/warrant in actual fact.

As for the issue of anti-semitic remarks, I should think that one key criterion of evaluation would be the proximity of the threat. That anti-semitic remarks should be alone or especially an object of universal concern is a peculiar trope, one that invites the suspicion of being ideological. The accusation of anti-semiticism, well warranted as it may be in particular cases, as a blanket concern is a species of ad hominem argument. Specifically, the accusation against the European left, in its criticism of Israeli policies, of anti-semiticism is wide of the mark. Supposedly, it is motivated by a wish to disemburden itself of historical guilt, which, of course, it ought to feel. But generational readjustment can not but be a healthy phenomenon, though it is shameful, if the work of historical anamnesis were to be merely a matter of political fashion and expediency. But would one expect those genuinely on the left to be supportive of a narrowly ethnocentric nationalism and of the political power of religious fundamentalism, as opposed to its civic right to religious practice and expression? Yet these elements are ingredient in Zionism, especially the Revisionist Zionism that has been politically dominant in Israel for the last 30+ years. To the accusation of anti-semiticism in this case, the proper response is the equally ad hominem but more telling one of bad faith. Finally, to drive home the point, let me cite the case of the Polish Roman Catholic woman- I forget her name-, who before the war was a prominent anti-semitic ideologue, yet who in point of fact rescued and protected dozens of Jews during the war. This should bring to mind the complications of the matter, and underscore the difference between sentiments/dispositions and actual acts, which underlies the criticism of ad hominem arguments. Too often it is assumed that having the “correct” attitude- or even the correct reasonings- absolves one of actual responsibility.

The only reason that tolerance is a virtue is that other people are damn irritating, if not worse. But tolerance also has its advantages; adhering to tolerance in an intolerant world allows for both broader and more specific insights. At what point one should take a strong stand in one’s criticisms and when one should rely on the gentler arts of persuasion is a practical question, to which no one knows the answer. Else there would be no need for such threads on the internet or elswhere in the world. But converting one’s tolerance, whatever its degree, into self-righteousness belies the point.

Mediators – no, owners.

Insults – perhaps.

Threats – no.

Seriously challenged – by some, not by others.

Banned – no-one ever so far (except for some spambots).

But I don’t have that belief, as you’ll see if you read my book on Rousseau. If I’ve casually expressed myself otherwise somewhere, please give me the reference (since you’re such a nice guy).

The fact that you don’t remember your own posts is evidence that I don’t pay attention to other people? Eh?

No, I’d say I was complaining about a couple of other things: one is your reaching for bathetic wannabe-street language when someone disagrees with you (‘ere, look, tosser- I’m a rock ‘ard geezer from ver Bristol Uni posse’) and the other would be your subsequent accusation that the person you were doing your Rude Kid impression on was the one who was lowering the tone.

I disagree with the commenters who think that Mahathir’s remarks on Jews are somehow ‘necessary’ to maintain the peace. If I were living in Malaysia and he were my political leader, or if Malaysia were a country with any kind of Jewish population who are at risk, it would be important to be vocally and emphatically critical about his conspiratorial thinking.

However, for those of us in the Western world to focus on that aspect of his speech is to miss its importance, and to reveal oneself to the Muslim world as much less interested in Malaysia or the Muslim world than in correct attitudes towards Jews. It’s a matter of emphasis, really, and to react to a speech that inter alia implies that Jews manipulate by the world into focusing only on what’s good for the Jews by then focusing solely on this stray comment being not good for the Jews is not very good strategy, imo.

In sum, I think Krugman got the emphasis just right. The best solution is for right-thinking Malaysians to correct Mahathir’s demagoguery, rather than for it to be imposed from abroad.

Chris, I’m not sure what the level of discourse at Bristol Unversity is, but I’m pretty sure you would never tell one of your students he was behaving “like a tosser” in front of the whole class, even if that student had made some snide (but not insulting ad hominem) remarks, as Dan Hardie has sure done. If you did say something like this the whole class would jump at you and you would probably have to face disciplinary consequences. So why don’t you just admit that your choice of words was over the top and insulting and be done with it? I simply don’t agree that ad hominem insults are “perhaps” allowed, just because the medium is the internet.

Dan’s phrase was “a society which is both modern and Islamic”.

Only about 65% of Malaysians are Muslims, BTW. In Turkey, it’s more like 95%.

Doug M.

Dr.M is on his way out, but he still has an interest in maintaining the hegemony of his party — the Barisan National, and it’s most important constituent, the United Malay National Organization.

I’m suprised nobody has mentioned the rising strength of the Islamic party among Malays. UMNO’s share of the Malay vote has been steadily declining,a nd the BN is increasingly reliant on its Chinese and Indian components. Should BN no longer be Malay dominated, it’s legitimacy would be questioned.

Mahathir can’t out-compete the religious paty on piety. He can, however, attract votes from that party by using anti-semitism. Maybe Jew-hatred is the only way a secularist can win votes away from the Godly parties. (I’m not excusing, just explaining.)

Ikram Saeed (k312)

Straw man, Doug. I did’t say the worst case scenario is civil war or chaos in Malaysia. I said that a Chinese and Indian dominated government would have its legitimacy questioned (by Malays). The result would likely be a BN loss of power (which is a disaster scenario for Mahathir. I’m agnostic).

Until recently, UMNO had no serious competition for Malay votes. And the opposition party, DAP, was Chinese dominated. But in 1999, the PAS almost tripled its share of seats, entirely at UMNO’s expense (which went from 91 to 71 seats). At the same time, the chinese component of BN, the MCA, held its own and the chinese opposition DAP lost seats.

The net effect was to increase the influence of Chinese and Indians in BN, and decrease the influence of UMNO. Should this trend continue. the MCA and MIC may demand the government reasses the Bumiputra affirmative action policy.

If that happens, I expect that Malays will defect en masse to a party that will defend their interests (PAS, or maybe keadilean). Given the way Malaysia is Gerrymandered to favour rural Malays, a party that gets two-third of the bumiputra vote (40% of overall vote) and none of the Chinese of Indian vote could form the government.

It’s a real possibility, and though I don’t expect civil war, it would cause political strife. Even the first stage, a MCA/MIC controlled government will cause trouble. In Israel, Rabin came under criticism because he did not have a Jewish majority. And in Quebec, the defeat of the 1995 referendum was criticized because it had received a Francophone majority . And of coure, Fiji saw a coup when an Indo-Fijian was elected. Majority communities do not cede power without complaints.

I don’t know of Jew-hating will win votes in Terengannu or Kelantan or Perlis. I could see Mahathir thinking that it, along with anti-white and anti-western rhetoric could bolster UMNO’s prospects among rural Malays.

“Straw man, Doug. I did’t say the worst case scenario is civil war or chaos in Malaysia”

No, you didn’t. Dan did: “such a Malaysian government would last about three months before the political system fell apart and several hundred thousand ethnic Chinese were massacred.”

As to the power shifts under way in Malaysia, I certainly agree that they could cause political strife. However, it seems unlikely that the Malays are going to end up with a non-Malay-majority government. As you correctly point out, the system is gerrymandered to support rural Malays. UMNO may lose Malay votes to other parties, but there will still be far more Malay representatives than Indian or Chinese, and the PM will most certainly be a Malay.

You might end up with UMNO either imploding or being forced out of office, and an opposition coalition taking power… but, you know, that’s what democracy is about. Thailand has had several peaceful changes of government, and even Indonesia has had at least one. I really don’t see why Malaysia should be unable to handle it.

I note that neither Quebec nor Israel saw any internal violence after their elections, while the violence in Fiji long predated the election in question.

Point being, I find the blood-in-the-streets scenario farfetched, and a pretty weak reed for either Krugman or Dan to lean upon.

Doug M.