There are few other living and active political giants in Southeast Asia, other than Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia and Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore.

One wonders if Mahathir and Lee Kuan Yew share the same philosophy. The Ultra Malay Mahathir and Radical Chinese Lee are almost always at odds with one another. From politics to policies, there seems to be infinite issues for them to brawl over and, even if there are none, they can’t seem to help pulling a mickey out of one another. But read between the lines and you will realize that they share the same philosophy – the same reductionist philosophy that subjugated the region into chains of colonization in the past.

Mahathir: Ideology of the Past?

But before going into the shared philosophy espoused by these leaders, it helps to first understand how a reductionist view on any subject would eventually lead to the perversion of an original idea. An idea or perception of a matter or subject is defined based on the senses and on our analytic thought. That, infused with cultural surroundings and historical impact produces the eventual paradigm in which we live. Now, that’s not very hard to follow, is it? However, no matter how accurate one’s senses in perceiving a subject, an observer with a reductionist view tries to simplify things by creating faulty arguments and slippery judgments.

Thus, when it comes to formulating a policy, a reductionist approach is, at best, dangerous on many levels. Firstly, a reductionist may not solve the problem at hand but instead exacerbate it by not fully understanding the mechanism in the first place. In other words, a reductionist would rush to ‘fix’ the problem based on first impressions, hence neglecting the intricacies of the initial problem. Secondly, even if the problem is solved, it will leave an aftertaste of resentment as its early mechanism was forcibly changed in order to facilitate its new functions. This “machinery” is forced to function based on the whims of the reductionist, rather than working naturally based on its mechanics. On a third level, a reductionist distorts an original idea by implementing the interpretation of the idea into a form either unfounded or too extreme in the earlier idea. This is because the reductionist digests the original idea only in its cosmetics instead of understanding the whole dynamics and principles of the idea. For example, such a view of sociology gave birth to Communism; a reductionist view of biology gave birth to Nazism, and a reductionist view of Islam gave birth to Islamic terrorism.

The same can be said about both Mahathir and Lee Kuan Yew.

In his book The Malay Dilemma, Mahathir espoused the view that Malays – particularly the rural ones whom he characterized as less competitive compared to the urban and racially mixed Malays – were somewhat lacking in intelligence as compared to others. By others, I refer to the Chinese, Indians, and Malays of racially mixed background. Therefore, in his assessment an open and competitive market environment would actually cause the Malays to be weaker than permitted by status quo.

Mahathir may have written The Malay Dilemma in the early years of his entry into politics, but his view remains unchanged. An example can be his recent comments – especially with regards to Premier Najib Razak’s drive to promote meritocracy – as a clear sign that he has yet to ditch his post-colonialist belief in social anthropology (which ascribes to the idea that certain races are born superior than others). Does Mahathir believe pure-blooded Malays to be superior to other races? No. In fact, he believed that pure-blooded Malays are somewhat incompetent when it comes to competition with other races. It was thus written in his book, and reiterated during his post-retirement era where he concluded that meritocracy would benefit only certain races, as compared to affirmative action which, in his opinion, would level the playing field for everyone. In his paradigm, to which I believe and presume many UMNO Old Guards still adhere, affirmative action is a must to ensure all races be able to stand together and fairly reap the nation’s economical benefits.

Lee Kuan Yew: Different Conception, Similar Perspective

In Lee Kuan Yew’s Hard Truth, the Singaporean Lion mentions that the Chinese people are resilient because they practiced, in the past, the law of ‘survival of the fittest’, where ‘the poor can’t get married and breed, while the smart and rich are able to breed’, thus eliminating the ‘bad genes’. He also concludes that the modern Chinese are thus resilient and smarter, as both traits are genetically and culturally inherent. Lee also mentions his loathing for liberal democracies, as they tend ‘to believe that all people are born equal’.

With all due respect to Mr Lee, I think he may have taken too literally the egalitarian principles of liberal democracies, instead of having it as a mere guiding principle. But that’s for another discussion. As for Mr Lee, his generalization of race (in which ethnic groups in China have different, region-based history, is forgotten) and his implicit belief that some races are born superior than others come to prove that his mentality is along the lines of the colonialists whom he and Mahathir both replaced. However, in contrast to Mahathir’s view, Lee believes affirmative action to be detrimental towards the more “superior race” as they are forced to accommodate to the more “inferior” ones.

Eerily, many of us still adhere to both of these mutually exclusive paradigms. In fact, I believe that they have made their  mark on both countries’ societies, especially with regards to  the Sino-Malay relationship. This has formed a bulwark to a dynamic relationship between the two races.

Frankly, however, both their judgments and flow of thought are, well, flawed. Firstly, having the self-belief of superiority to judge people based on race has shifted their attention away from the illness affecting a section of the population. By generalizing a certain problem to a particular race, one does not solve the problem at all as the remedy is not solving the cause of the problem. Rather, the focus has turned on the symptoms of the illness instead of its cause.

In this regard, Lee Kuan Yew is less guilty in the trajectory of this mindset in his administration. As for Mahathir, the affirmative action policy was already taking place when he came into power, thus giving him more impetus in administering it based on the post-colonial mindset. The economic strength and growth in the early 90’s may perhaps have dulled the people’s mindset from reacting towards such a denigration of thought. Economic success, in most cases, is defined as the wisdom and ingenuity of the leader. Both countries grew and grew while harbouring the post-colonial philosophy, which reared its head after various economic downturns. In other words, Malaysia and Singapore are merely growing shells, with no input of philosophical glue to actually coalesce the people together. The unity dances, songs and cultural festivals are merely facades. The ruling government decides how the races should interact. That’s a subtle line that both governments have failed to see.

In the Myth of the Lazy Native, Syed Hussein Al Attas hampered the thoughts harbored by the Western imperialists towards the natives. He motioned that the Western combination of fantasy, prejudice and refined scholarship gave basis to imperialism, whereby “[t]he image of the indolent, dull, backward and treacherous native has changed into that of a dependent one requiring assistance to climb the ladder of progress”. Hussein denounces the belief that the natives, i.e. the Malay, require constant assistance in order for them to be successful and civilized.  According to him, it was predicaments, history, location and time which shaped the people’s mindset. And unlike the Western Imperialist, Mahathir and Lee Kuan Yew, Hussein believes that the resilience and intelligence of a race is very much formed by its surroundings instead of by inherent qualities. This belief made its way into the early Gerakan Party that championed racial equality and a dynamic modern socialism approach.

Mahathir and Lee Kuan Yew may have been successful in managing their respective country, but the philosophy in which the countries were managed were only ‘good while they lasted’. The current threat to our joint 1culture, politics and dynamics rests on the development of a reformed philosophy and an ever-shifting paradigm. And the time for a major paradigm shift happens now.

It is somewhat apparent as to why liberal democracy may not be able to blossom any time soon within this region. What with most of the top echelons within the two countries still harbouring the belief that they know more than the others, and thus can decide on how to deal, interact and administer the populace. The worse part is that the view is implicitly shared by a large part of the populace. For a liberal democracy to bloom, the people would need a substantial amount of confidence, as well as more depth within their frame of mind to be able to harmonize in forming a functioning society. Hence, both governments have a large burden in educating the people on civil rights and social responsibility, along with managing their current development policies.

The time has come for the governments of this region to give birth to a new dynamic society, one that subscribes to a philosophy that is both progressive yet localized in its expression of culture – a brand of philosophy that may have had its origins in the centre-left movement of the 60’s, but gravely relevant to the present day.

‘The Myth of the Lazy Native should be reviewed in more recent and relevant terms. The myth is no longer true in the eyes of former colonial masters, but is sadly seen as fact by local leaders.


A maverick of his own brand! A wanderlust, debater and a workaholic; he wishes time has a reset button. Although non conformist in attitude, he accepts conformity as being one of the norms of a human being.

28 replies on “Mahathir, Lee Kuan Yew and The Lazy Native”

  1. the imported from pakistan have racial polarization, the chinese and Indian have to work exteme hard to Enter Unviersity What MCA doing pls explain?

  2. If we are successful in business, we have to give up something at dirt cheap prices to others so they too, can have a "fair" share of the pie which, they obviously did not bake. "You have. I want and I will take or grab if you do not give it to me". Sounds familiar? I am from that generation and I can tell you right from the start that the NEP was and still is a tool to legitamize "robbing".. If the reverse were to happen, heaven forbid, what would the Malays say and do?

  3. Non Malay Malaysians have for a long time sacrificed a LOT for this country. If policies implemented do not encourage their participation in the civil service, it is only natural that the non malays study damn hard or work damn hard to make it in life in Malaysia. We do not have special priviliges, no quotas we can hang on to. Yet we are always accused of 'controlling" the country especially the economy. d.

  4. Dont you dare to challenge Dr M and LKY, they both taken their country into a civilized and dignify country. They both not bow to any imperialist country like US and Brit
    Yes they both have their own weakness, don't you all. And what have you done for your country ???
    There is no Malaysia until 1963, but Malaya, Sabah, and Sarawak plus Singapore. Do you have a gut to go backward ??

    1. Here's a little something from the Constitution of Malaysia:

      Article 160(2) states that

      "Malay" means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay
      language, conforms to Malay custom and –
      (a) was before Merdeka Day born in the Federation or in Singapore or born of parents one of whom was born in the Federation or in Singapore, or is on that day domiciled in the Federation or in Singapore; or
      (b) is the issue of such a person;

      By the way, who is Malays ?? I f you are not lazy then read the history..
      DSabah, you should take your own advice and read the Constitution of Malaysia. If you don't have it, Google it (that's how I found it), or go to PerlembagaanKu MyConstitution. I reckon that mine's the old version (since it still included Singapore), but it's the only complete one I have (in terms of language, as in, it's in the original written context of the law, free to be intepreted)

  5. By the way, Malays are not lazy. Just that Mahathir has taken away all the apportunities and wealth from them !

  6. We can always argue who is the better leader. There is no end to it.

    But to me the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

    Singapore with no resources at all, is a developed country! And so wealthy! There are hardly any billion dollar scandal

    But under Mahathir, he has looted the country, up until today !

    In the name of the Malay people, Mahathir has screwed the Malay people. But then Mahathir is not Malay. Is he?

    1. im sorry…singapore is small island and they got help from american in term of economical and military support. it is true that singapore is very competitive on its own community and the right mentality among its resident to further developed their nation…but u must take other factors into account too…=)

  7. a simple analogy n comparison ill decide who is a better leader, MASloas millions- 477 millions in q3 2011 as reported. SIA makes billions WHY N HOW??? in 35 years from 1965 to 2000, LKY transformed an island without resources n no oil to a FIRST WORLD NATION. this is a fact??? DR M transformed malaysia into a billion dollar scandals nation starting in 1983- the BMF SCANDAL , now is the cow gate n PKFZ, billions were lost>> WHY. look at nation bulding here- who allowed millions illegals on our shores n destroyed our nation fabric??? can millions just walk in ?? who created all this mess n problems??? look at SINGAPORE ECONOMY- so vibrant- 1 $ SINGAPORE is = RM 2.4o . why such a big gap??? look at KL , PJ n klang valley public transportation systems. its a joke as as compared to singapore, daily massive traffic jams are common . why – even a monorail in maalcca dont run>>> why. so malaysians you decide who has done more for each nation???

  8. CUBA TENGOK!SIAPA YANG BUAT!Kita tidak mundur,tidak mengelak.Kewajipan,kita angkat,sanggup!Mari bertanding..

    Dasar pelajaran?Kita sanggup!Bahasa kebangsaaan?Ye!Dan saya nak sukacita baca nih…titah dari duli yang maha mulia…mengenai bahasa2 ibunda orang2 keturunan cina dan india.

    One important feature introduced last year” katanya,” in the field of education is in respect of teaching chinese and tamil languages in english medium schools.This is been keeping with the aim of my govt. to preserve and sustain the use and study of the languages of the various communities in this country.

    Nah…ni saya tengok ada harapan lah MCA kalau cakap begitu!Kalau tak cakap begitu habis MCA takda penyokong2 saje kosong semua!Baru bagus dengar tadi dengar demikian lembut rasa suaranya…(MPs laughing)

    Inilah dasar kita.BELAJAR BERSAMA-SAMA bahasa kebangsaan,bahasa persamaan.Tetapi,jikalau saya di rumah hendak cakap bahasa ibunda saya,takkan saya tidak taat setia kepada Malaysia!?Supaya menteri dari Sarawak,takkan dia kalau balik rumah panjangnya dia cakap bahasanya,dia tidak taat setia kepada Malaysia?!

    Saya tidak percaya..dia masih,selalu taat setia,(starts hitting table repeatedly)oleh sebab dia boleh cakap dalam bahasa ibundanya,dan penyokong2nya semua dengarnya banyaknya di ini..Sungai Rejang banyak penyokongnya semua cakap dalam bahasa tu!Walaupun ada sedikit salah,barangkali bunyinya.Kalau kita tak tahu barangkali ingat macam bahasa Melayu,tapi apa yang saya faham dijelaskan oleh menteri dari Sarawak…lain sikit,beza.Bukan ‘Jalan’,’jalai’ katanya(MPs laughing).Jadi,patut dia cakap demikian!Apa salah?

    Tetapi,bila kita berjumpa dengan ahli yang berhormat dari Johor selatan tenggara.mestilah kita cakap dalam bahasa kebangsaan,selepas tahun 67.Tapi,selepas tahun 67 pulak saya bimbang oleh sebab…apa sebab saya bimbang,tuan speaker?

    Kita ahli2 dari Singapura,Sarawak,Sabah,ada 10 tahun lagi,tunggu sampai 73 baru kita terpaksa gunakan dalam berucap dalam bahasa kebangsaan.Tapi saya bimbang jikalau menteri2 dari kerajaan pusat terpaksa cakap dalam bahasa kebangsaan bagaimana?Susah payah saya takut!(MPs laughing)Katakanlah ya…saya tulis dalam bahasa kebangsaan- surat hantarkan kepada menteri2 kerajaan pusat.Bukan buat kerja susah je,terpaksa dipanggil kawan terjemahkan.Tak terjemahkan dia tulis dalam bahasa Inggeris,abih TERJEMAHKAN balik masuk dalam bahasa kebangsaan.Nanti keliru ertinya semua..

    Kita dah siap,kita berlatih cukup.Kawan2 kita semua berlatih.Rakan2 saya semua berlatih.Hak2 keistimewaan?Kita SETAPAK lagi depan.Taat setia tak?

    Tetapi,saya mengakui saudara speaker,tuan speaker…’saudara’ kita gunakan di Singapura saja,tuan speaker.Minta maaf.(MPs laughing)

    SAYA mengakui,oleh sebab tidak cukup mahir dalam bahasa kebangsaan,lebih sesuai pada saya bercakap dalam bahasa Inggeris.Jadi,oleh sebab saya tahu banyak ahli2 berhormat dalam dewan ini faham bahasa Inggeris,biarlah saya menutupkan ucapan saya dalam bahasa Inggeris."

  9. PLEASE READ!The following is Lee Kuan Yew's last speech in Malaysian parliament in 1965.
    Source :

    "Kita terima bahasa Melayu menjadi bahasa kebangsaan,sanggup dengan sa-penoh2-nya.Kita tidak bantah hak2
    istimewa yang di-chatit di-dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia. Kita sokong dengan sa-penoh-nya Article 153. Apa guna tiap2 hari meluap2kan perasaan orang2 di-kampong yang bacha surat khabar Jawi sahaja?!Tidak-kah ahli2 dari UMNO tiap2 hari menggalakkan ra'ayat dalam kampong kata kita anti-Melayu.

    Kata Ahli Dewan inidari Kota Star Selatan, kita menjadi anti-Melayu. Sa-belum Malaysia, 1959,kita telah sanggup menerima bahasa Melayu menjadi bahasa kebangsaan Singapura,yang satu pulau 75%nye penduduk2 orang Cina atau keturunan Cina,10% keturunan India dan lagi 3% keturunan Pakistani,Ceylon dan lain2.

    APA SEBAB?Jikalau kita mahu negri kita menjadi negri Cina,apa sebab kita bercantum dengan Malaya menjadi satu negri dalam persekutuan Malaysia?Takda akal ke kita?

    Hmm?!Apa sebab kita hendak membantah atau mengancam orang2 Melayu…?

    Kewajipan kita ialah oleh sebab kita warganegara Malaysia,mahu meninggikan taraf kehidupan orang2 Melayu.Dan oleh sebab demikian,dicatit dalam perlembagaan 161 G.Saya baca dalam bahasa Inggeris dahulu lah.

    Nothing in clause 2 of Article 8 or clause 1 of Article 12 shall prohibit or invalidate any provision of state law in Singapore,for the advancement of Malays but there shall be no reservation for Malays in accordance with Article 153 of positions in the public service to be filled by recruitment in Singapore,or permits or licenses for the operation of any trade or business in Singapore

    Ertinya…oleh sebab…BELUM MAHIR LAGI TAPI MASIH BELAJAR!MAHU belajar bahasa kebangsaan,bersama-sama dengan aliran sejarah kita.

    Ertinya…hak2 istimewa yang dicatit dalam Artikel 153,caranya tidak sama di Singapura.Kita menolong orang Melayu dengan cara demokratik sosialias.Bukan bagi dia wang saja begini(hand gestures)..MENINGGIKAN KEBOLEHANNYA,KELATIHANNYA,PELAJARANNYA…supaya ia boleh berhidup dengan sama taraf dengan lain2 kaum di Singapura.

    Jikalau betul kita menindaskan orang2 Melayu,TIGA KAWASAN penduduk-penduduknya KEBANYAKAN ORANG MELAYU….pulau2 selatan,Geylang Serai,Kampong Kembangan,bagaimana PAP calonnya boleh menang?Betulke kita menindaskannya?Memerahkannya?!

    Jikalau tokoh2 UMNO betul sayang,kasihi rakyat jelata,bukan sayang hendak menahan penduduknya tetapi rakyat jelata,MARI KITA BERTANDING,menunjuk siapa yang ada rancangan,atau dasar atau policy yang boleh meninggikan kehidupan orang2 Melayu dan bumiputera lain supaya rakan kita dari Sarawak dan rakan koita dari Sabah.Mari kita bertanding.

    Kerajaan pusat dah menubuhkan satu apa…err…syarikat perumahan kerjasama…

    KITA TOLONG…rumah itu kita yang bina,kan?Dah bina,kita jual kepada syarikat ni untuk kerajaan pusat mendapat sedikit apa…pertunjukkan katanya…sama2 TOLONG…ye!

    Kalau kita tak mahu jual,bukankah kita menunjukkan kita tidak telus ikhlas?Tidak benar hendak menolongkan orang2 Melayu?Tetapi,mari kita bersama-sama bertanding dalam 3,4 tahun yang akan datang sebelum 1969 bulan 4.Mengikut perlembagaan ini mesti lagi berjumpa rakyat.SIAPA…yang membinakan lebih banyak rumah,rumah2 dan siapa menjualkannya lebih murah?Mari kita cuba…

  10. Lee Kuan Yew may be let off because of Singapore's present-day wealth (money, after all, soothes all ill will), but to say that he, for one reason or another, is more successful on the basis of Singapore's wealth alone is misleading.

    City-states are inherently more efficient in distributing capital by virtue of having a greater population density and Singapore's demographics, while mixed, is heavily skewed towards the Chinese which form three-fourths of the population.

    Add to this the legacy that the British left of a vibrant port relative to the region (forget all that tripe about Singapore being a backwater when he took over, that's like going to a party with an ugly friend to make yourself more attractive), Lee Kuan Yew had considerably less daunting challenges in many aspects.

    This will elicit many disagreeable views, of course, but I'm perfectly comfortable with that.

    And 'sides, all those claims about the peacefulness of Singapore is asinine, just as the claims of harmony in Malaysia are. The opposition is disproportionately minority and any racial issue is well-suppressed. The Singaporean state still does not trust a Malay to hold a gun in active combat, after all.

    Tis' a case of teh grass always being greener.

  11. After all that's been said and done by these 2 leaders, (and after all the analysis by scores of scribes weighing in on the achievements/non achievements of these 2 luminaries), the final judgement is for all to see :

    Singapore's citizens today continue to strive to even higher standard of living with its people living in peaceful co-existence without its leaders exhorting a certain sector of its populace to be fearful and distrustful of 'the others'.

    In Malaysia, the scenario is the exact opposite, with Mahathir foaming at the mouth and yet have the temerity to deny he is racist. But most could see that his rant is not of the thoughtless emotional, 'mengamuk' type, but one that is very deliberate, cool and calculating……… No prize for guessing why he's so 'driven' even at this ripe age of 87 years !

  12. To accuse LKY as "a reductionist would rush to ‘fix’ the problem based on first impressions, hence neglecting the intricacies of the initial problem" is clearly ridiculous. For the simple fact you can not understand Singapore's unique set of problems to accuse LKY that he doesn't understand his people to begin with.

    And do remember this, regardless of what philosophy you so freely ascribe to the two gentlemen, one used what he knows to lift all races and to ensure peaceful co-existence by integration and tolerance. The other, well..

    1. Huh, you must be kidding if you think LKY succeeded in raising all the races peacefully. We Singaporeans are treated like foreigners in our own country. The non-Chinese like myself, lagi worse (I don't want to go into details). For a start, 2.5 years of my youth gone down the drain just to serve the country. While Indonesians and Malaysians my age are already hitting management in their companies (many based in Singapore), I'm still struggling about at the entry level, thanks to having to serve the army to satisfy one man's paranoia.

      1. The disadvantages of a minority should not be confused with racial bias.
        The defence of a country isn't "one man's paranoia".
        If you are management material, plus or minus 2.5years isn't an issue. Women is 'handicapped' by bearing children over an entire term and maternity leave. Don't see them complaining that most of the senior corporate positions are dominated by male.

  13. The best way out for Malaysia is to allow non-malays migrate to Borneo freely and the malays in Borneo migrate to peninsula,cut off ties and shake hands, and wish each other the best.This endless argument and rhetorics who is better whatnot is really dragging the country down while neighboring countries are unitedly progressing.Another 10 years of debating,arguing,shouting,infighting will guaranteed one result – we are the bottom of Asean.

    1. I support your idea 100% and I am ready to move to Sarawak or Sabah where the people are much more civilized. Also the peninsula should compensate Sabah and Sarawak for 38 years of exploitation of natural resources without providing much in return.

    2. 1000 % support the idea, so the lazy Malay back to their nest in Peninsula, and the Borneon can built their own Kingdom. At the same time the Malay must compensate the Borneon 48 years of exploitation of our natural resources.

  14. There shouldn't be any comparison between the two !
    Especially so when you are assuming that the grand son of the pariah from Kerala, the shenanigan Mahathir a by product of a mixed blood is a Malay. This is so because the shenanigan's Indian grand father was unable to find an Indian to satisfy his lust and ended up having to marry a Malay. As a consequent nature thus made a mistake in the creation of this omnipotent racist, who is only a mixed blood, but in his quest to be recognized as a Malay he did everything against the non Malay just so to proof that he is a Malay.
    Above all he and million of other half breeds in Umno needed the deceitful and corrupted Umno morons to pass legislations to make him and the other half breeds to become man make Malays and not born Malays.Regardless of what they do nothing will ever change the true fact that they will always be mamaks and not Malays ! Only fools will turn away from the truth.
    Lee has on several occasions recognized his past errors but the shenanigan has never done so instead he even denied he is a racist and if you have to be a Malay to be chief or head of any government department you have to be a Malay. If that isn't the action of a typical racist what is ? especially so when 40% of the population of Malaysia are non Malays and are not reflected in the civil service accordingly when Malaysian history shows the non Malays are so much smarter.
    Any wonder why, not hundreds or thousands but million of these non Malays professionals immigrated, more so during the tenure of the shenanigan ? No doubt the morons are beginning to recognize this and is setting up Talent Corp. that is going round the world to plea with these professionals to return to serve the country and I might add, with lots of incentives and incentives. Needless to say the plan will meet with little or no success at all, they are professionals because they can think for themselves and their families' future in a country they left without any qualms. Why should they return to serve in a country that had never regarded them as citizens, when they know so well that once bitten twice shy ?
    Malaysia is the only country to allow, not hundreds or thousands but 1.3 millions of unskilled and unprofessionals into the country just to show how many people want to immigrate to Malaysia. It wouldn't be long before the entire country are filled up with these illegals as long as they vote the morons in Umno to remain as the watchdog of the country. Is there an immigration department ?
    What kind of a country filled with millions of these kind of citizens ?

    1. Is it any wonder why we're still backwards?

      Your comments are somewhat similar to the lines from Harry Potter.

      "especially so when 40% of the population of Malaysia are non Malays and are not reflected in the civil service accordingly when Malaysian history shows the non Malays are so much smarter."

      Do you have any evidence to show that the non Malays are so much smarter? How are you different from UMNO and Mahathir?

      1. I agree with you, meleis. Najib Manakau has failed to understand human biology. Intelligence comes not
        from racial belongings but from QUALITY EDUCATION, exposures and experiences arising from opportunities
        available to those luckier and more fortunate than others. The statement reflects a somewhat chauvinistic
        and condescending attitude of the past arising from people's ignorance particularly widespread in the 60s
        and 70s and especially after the publication of Mahatir's book "The Malay Dilemma". It is a sad situation that in
        2011, we still have people hanging on to such beliefs and especially from the Chinese and Indian citizenry.
        It is particularly sad especially when the Chinese and Indians are the ones most likely to have access to
        some form Western liberal tertiary education in some multiracial settings involving perhaps some 70 or more
        races that would have debunked such idiotic beliefs. Or, is this a case of a tertiary education being lost on
        some undeserving individual?

    2. Hey fucker if he not there where the malay gone..what u mean by pariah..indian not a pariah.pariah is who forgetten ppl did to u unstand..fuck u

Comments are closed.