I have to say I disagree with RPK's assertion in his post 'Liberating the Malay mind', that the Chinese can be as 'feudalistic' as the Malays, though I do agree with him that some Chinese are very 'clannish'.
![]()
Being 'feudalistic' is not the same as being 'clannish'. The former involves devoted allegiance to a 'liege lord' while the latter does not but is more about 'tribalism', where a striking example of clannish Chinese may be found in Sibu wakakaka. The Malay equivalent is Kelantan wakakaka.
The greatest example of feudalism in Malay history can be found in the tragedy of Hang Tuah.
Tuah was a bloke so devotedly or, if you like, blindly imbued with feudalistic allegiance to his liege lord, a tyrannical despot who had unjustly ordered Tuah's execution but unashamedly made use of him to kill Jebat when the last rebelled against the cruel and unjust ruler.
Ironically Jebat had rebelled because of the sultan's injustice to his best matey Tuah. And on being ordered by the tyrant, Tuah without any hesitation fought and killed his best friend, the very man who alone stood up for Tuah against the tyrannical injustice of the Malacca ruler.
 |
Jebat to Tuah: "But I laugh at your professed loyalty. Isn't it strange that though you upheld so blindly the orders of one who wanted you dead, here you are again upholding his command to kill the very person avenging you?" |
Now wouldn't you see Tuah as an idiot of the 9th Order, one without an iota of sense, balanced perspective, gratitude, brotherhood or kaamcheng, in killing the very man who militated against the sultan's unjust order to execute him (Tuah himself)? And to round up on Tuah's apparent imbecilic mentality he did the killing on the say-so of his oppressor.
But you'd be surprised because in general the Malays for hundreds of years didn't and don't think so. Rather, they adulated Tuah (many still do) for his unquestioning loyalty to his ruler. Kassim Ahmad, Azly Rahman and Mahathir are probably exceptions.
But far more importantly than feudalism per se, in the example of Hang Tuah must be the underlying near-absolute power that could be wielded by a ruler in a feudalistic society.
That's why in Malaysia (and the Malay world like the 'sultanate' of Jogjakarta) the Malay rulers have disproportionate influence in politics despite the legislated limits of their constitutional role.
When RPK talked about the four branches of Malaysian government, namely, executive, legislative, judiciary and the rulers, many believed he was talking cock in inserting the fourth.
But no doubt he was referring to the undeniable and near invincible feudalistic mentality of the Malays, rendering through their mindset a distorted version of the Westminster model to exist in real though not legal terms in Malaysia.
This is something DAP has to consider seriously. The last MB brouhaha in Selangor demonstrated the powers of HRH beyond his constitutional role and indeed beyond the mere issue of selecting a MB because the Heartland was watching, listening, probably applauding, and eventually will be voting.
Like it or not, the DAP must learn to suck on it. Ampun Tuanku.
Wakakaka (no don't do this with HRH, wakakaka).