Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Khoo Kay Kim interview with Off The Edge

:: Off The Edge March 2005 | Picture by Danny Lim, Interview by Eddin Khoo & Jason Tan ::
Eddin Khoo: We would like to address the fact that so much dialogue concerning public life has reached a point of saturation. There appears to be no perspective from the past, no real attempt to understand contemporary trends and interrogate values. Why do you think that is?
Khoo Kay Kim: I think we have to accept that most people are narrow.
When the British were here, the education system attempted to broaden the outlook of the people, but of course that was confined to a rather small group — those who went to English school were smaller in number than those who went to Chinese or Malay schools. But I went through that system and, certainly, the teachers, many of whom were not graduates, in the course of their lessons would always try to introduce the pupils to a broader perspective of things.

That changed after Independence, where, in the name of nation building, there was a tendency to force the people to focus on the country almost to the exclusion of the outside world; and even when it is specifically about the country, there is a tendency to provide answers to the questions posed. However, education, as we understood it when I was in school, served to enlighten people, not make parrots out of them. Education should be enlightening, and I was also always encouraged to be an all-rounder. Many of us, in those days, participated in so many different activities while in school…

Jason Tan: So there were different schooling systems…
KKK: Absolutely. I would also attend Chinese school after sessions in English; and the Chinese schools then were highly politicised…

EK: There were many Maoists at that time...
KKK: Yes, I had teachers like that. And very anti-British; indirectly anti-capitalist, although the term was never used because we didn’t understand what it meant. So anti-capitalism was presented to us as anti-colonialism, that Westerners were unkind to the people of China…more the people in China than the people in Malaya…

EK: My next question is somewhat abstract and relates to the notion of the past. You have constantly spoken of the importance of the past and lamented that Malaysians suffer from a lack of it. How would you say a historical sense is forged and is it ever really possible for history to escape the influence of politics?

KKK: Well, politicians are very powerful people. They are able to sway the majority — the masses — since the masses are seldom very educated. Even in most developed societies where the masses are supposed to be fairly well educated, there remains a great ignorance of the outside world. The United States is a good example; it is not difficult for their government to hoodwink them. In Asian societies, it is even worse because a large majority are not well educated. And politicians today are so influential, they can tell people anything and most people would simply believe them.
My understanding of history is actually very simple; and it is this simple way that should actually be promoted. The problem is that history is not being promoted as a meaningful subject, rather as a subject to be tolerated, as though it is not of much value in comparison to other subjects. An economist, for example, once said ‘economic history is like driving a car by looking at the rear mirror’. My response: economics is like driving a car in pitch darkness with only the parking lights. And economists, for example, pretend that they can predict outcomes, but so many things, in the natural world for example, simply cannot be predicted.
So, when we talk about the future, most of the time we are all speculating, and who is right and wrong will eventually be obvious. But before that happens there is no way of ascertaining [this].
But what is history? History is memory; a person’s memory is history. Because memory is about what has happened, what you remember about what has happened. Experience is history; your experience of any­thing. Usually that experience is past and that’s why you call it history. History is also information; if you want to know about an event. History is also knowledge; what you know is usually what has already happened.
But we make history sound so useless and people are of the opinion that we don’t need to know about the past, we need only to have a sense of the future. My reply to them is: The future is important but when you look in that direction, what do you see? Darkness.

JT: This attempt at getting rid of our history…
KKK: A result of this misunderstanding…

JT: But why do we want to forget?...
KKK: They feel it is not important…

EK: Who is ‘they’?…
KKK: The man in the street. They indulge in this kind of very general conversation — ‘the future is important, we must forget the past’. As if you actually know what you’re doing when you’re going on, whereas the past determines the present and if you find it difficult understanding the present, it is because there is so little knowledge of the past.
The average person, however, thinks of history simply as what he studied in school. That is only a fraction and it is so badly taught that children never understand what history is all about. And without knowing what has happened, you cannot explain the present.

JT: You say people are susceptible — one question would be why are people so susceptible and are they more so now than before? And what is the role of education in this, especially when it is used as a tool to condition minds. What kind of role can history play here?
KKK: As I said, history can enlighten people. I’m not saying that if everybody studied history then peace is guaranteed. But to be enlightened, to be able to understand things; to be able to read, listen, make some kind of critical analysis, that is very important for me.

JT: What is dangerous is that history can also be rewritten…
KKK: It can be manipulated! And unless they have understood history, people would not know that the subject is being manipulated. People, after all, can be extremely naive.

JT: This susceptibility, where does it come from?
KKK: Society is often preconditioned by stories, general beliefs that are passed down from generation to generation. Sometimes, due to certain events, a society finds itself breaking up and they learn that certain beliefs are not true. But this doesn’t happen often. People can, for example, be very superstitious. Societies may reject certain traditions but these things can often continue for a very long time. It’s very difficult to break that.

Eddin Khoo: We would like to address the fact that so much dialogue concerning public life has reached a point of saturation. There appears to be no perspective from the past, no real attempt to understand contemporary trends and interrogate values. Why do you think that is?
Khoo Kay Kim: I think we have to accept that most people are narrow.
When the British were here, the education system attempted to broaden the outlook of the people, but of course that was confined to a rather small group — those who went to English school were smaller in number than those who went to Chinese or Malay schools. But I went through that system and, certainly, the teachers, many of whom were not graduates, in the course of their lessons would always try to introduce the pupils to a broader perspective of things.
That changed after Independence, where, in the name of nation building, there was a tendency to force the people to focus on the country almost to the exclusion of the outside world; and even when it is specifically about the country, there is a tendency to provide answers to the questions posed. However, education, as we understood it when I was in school, served to enlighten people, not make parrots out of them. Education should be enlightening, and I was also always encouraged to be an all-rounder. Many of us, in those days, participated in so many different activities while in school…

Jason Tan: So there were different schooling systems…
KKK: Absolutely. I would also attend Chinese school after sessions in English; and the Chinese schools then were highly politicised…

EK: There were many Maoists at that time...
KKK: Yes, I had teachers like that. And very anti-British; indirectly anti-capitalist, although the term was never used because we didn’t understand what it meant. So anti-capitalism was presented to us as anti-colonialism, that Westerners were unkind to the people of China…more the people in China than the people in Malaya…

EK: My next question is somewhat abstract and relates to the notion of the past. You have constantly spoken of the importance of the past and lamented that Malaysians suffer from a lack of it. How would you say a historical sense is forged and is it ever really possible for history to escape the influence of politics?
KKK: Well, politicians are very powerful people. They are able to sway the majority — the masses — since the masses are seldom very educated. Even in most developed societies where the masses are supposed to be fairly well educated, there remains a great ignorance of the outside world. The United States is a good example; it is not difficult for their government to hoodwink them. In Asian societies, it is even worse because a large majority are not well educated. And politicians today are so influential, they can tell people anything and most people would simply believe them.
My understanding of history is actually very simple; and it is this simple way that should actually be promoted. The problem is that history is not being promoted as a meaningful subject, rather as a subject to be tolerated, as though it is not of much value in comparison to other subjects. An economist, for example, once said ‘economic history is like driving a car by looking at the rear mirror’. My response: economics is like driving a car in pitch darkness with only the parking lights. And economists, for example, pretend that they can predict outcomes, but so many things, in the natural world for example, simply cannot be predicted.
So, when we talk about the future, most of the time we are all speculating, and who is right and wrong will eventually be obvious. But before that happens there is no way of ascertaining [this].
But what is history? History is memory; a person’s memory is history. Because memory is about what has happened, what you remember about what has happened. Experience is history; your experience of any­thing. Usually that experience is past and that’s why you call it history. History is also information; if you want to know about an event. History is also knowledge; what you know is usually what has already happened.
But we make history sound so useless and people are of the opinion that we don’t need to know about the past, we need only to have a sense of the future. My reply to them is: The future is important but when you look in that direction, what do you see? Darkness.

JT: This attempt at getting rid of our history…
KKK: A result of this misunderstanding…

JT: But why do we want to forget?...
KKK: They feel it is not important…

EK: Who is ‘they’?…
KKK: The man in the street. They indulge in this kind of very general conversation — ‘the future is important, we must forget the past’. As if you actually know what you’re doing when you’re going on, whereas the past determines the present and if you find it difficult understanding the present, it is because there is so little knowledge of the past.
The average person, however, thinks of history simply as what he studied in school. That is only a fraction and it is so badly taught that children never understand what history is all about. And without knowing what has happened, you cannot explain the present.

JT: You say people are susceptible — one question would be why are people so susceptible and are they more so now than before? And what is the role of education in this, especially when it is used as a tool to condition minds. What kind of role can history play here?
KKK: As I said, history can enlighten people. I’m not saying that if everybody studied history then peace is guaranteed. But to be enlightened, to be able to understand things; to be able to read, listen, make some kind of critical analysis, that is very important for me.

JT: What is dangerous is that history can also be rewritten…
KKK: It can be manipulated! And unless they have understood history, people would not know that the subject is being manipulated. People, after all, can be extremely naive.

JT: This susceptibility, where does it come from?
KKK: Society is often preconditioned by stories, general beliefs that are passed down from generation to generation. Sometimes, due to certain events, a society finds itself breaking up and they learn that certain beliefs are not true. But this doesn’t happen often. People can, for example, be very superstitious. Societies may reject certain traditions but these things can often continue for a very long time. It’s very difficult to break that.

EK: To ‘historise’ the problem of history today– You were one of the very important, prominent and early exponents calling for a more indigenous perception of Malaysian history, in terms of writing to address local needs and local concerns. Could you give us a sense of the kind of setting that compelled you to believe in the necessity of such a thing?
KKK: I grew up in a very multi-ethnic environment and became very conscious of culture; how you are indirectly forced to compare, in the sense that you have to make cultural adjustments to your behaviour — behave in one way with Chinese, another with Malays and again another with Indians — so I have come to know these societies very well.
But when I read the writing of, for example, scholars from the West, I found that they were not telling us about Malaysian society. An individual in Johor does not know anything about Kelantan, the one in Kelantan knows nothing about Negri Sembilan… A nation’s history must help, again, to enlighten.
People in Malaysia, above all, must know Malaysian society; I did not find this difficult but many foreign scholars did. I remember when I was working on the secret society wars in Larut, I discovered that most scholars simply saw the event as a battle between the two main groups — the Gee Hin and Hai San — but when I studied the documents, I realised that it was much more complex, the Gee Hin belonged to a particular dialect group and Hai San belonged to a different dialect group. They also had symbolic flags — red flag, white flag, red flag with white border — and one Western scholar looking at all this became very confused but I never found things like that difficult to handle. Chinese, Indian, Malay names, for example… no difficulty handling them. But when I began lecturing, I discovered that my students had terrible problems handling names. Malay students and Chinese- and Indian-educated students couldn’t handle Western names; the Chinese couldn’t handle the names of Indians, and cannot do so even today; the Indians could not deal with Chinese names. But I never found this a problem.
And this is what our society is all about — our multi-ethnicity. But you go to China and ask them about India, they know nothing and vice versa. But here we are so together, especially in a cultural and social sense. To me, our society is unique and Malaysians must know and appreciate this.

EK: So basically you’re saying you were integrated at a very deep level. But could you tell us something about your own experience as a student, how you were instructed and what that instruction revealed about your teachers — some of whom were very renowned — and what compelled you to decide that you needed to do something beyond what they were doing?
KKK: My history lecturers in university were the best.
I went to university intending to do English Literature. I studied philosophy but found these lecturers, and the ones in English, very dogmatic; and if those subjects — any subject — were to be taught in that way, there was no point… I was told that this was a good novel, that one bad, and I thought to myself: Why should you tell me, why can’t I decide for myself? So I began to get disillusioned with the other departments while my lecturers at the History Department were always willing to pose questions and allow us to try and present our own understanding of things. I remember doing essays quoting one or another person and would always find a note from my lecturer saying, ‘But what do you have to say?’
And I believe I’ve always been liberated and independent; even in school, I never liked to follow people but chose to do things on my own. I soon found that history allowed me to do that.

EK: When you decided to take up history and become a teacher yourself and experienced this need or desire to present a more national view of history, did you feel there were shortcomings in your predecessors or was it simply evolutionary to take the subject in a more indigenous way. Was it a reaction? What led you to believe that a National History was important?
KKK: From the very beginning, my lecturer in Malaysian history, later Professor, KG Treg­goning, was always challenging existing ideas — though later on I found that he himself possessed certain shortcomings — but he was always challenging and what he was actually saying was that the existing Malaysian historiography was simply inadequate and that it was time for us to rewrite Malaysian history. This happened at a period when Western scholars themselves were beginning to question Western writings of Asian history, in the early 1950s.
At first I didn’t want to become an academic, so I became a teacher and enjoyed a great deal of time with my students, especially in sports. When I entered university life again, I began to realise deeply and became convinced of this need to review Malaysian history.

EK: I would like to examine that. We speak a great deal about rewriting Malaysian history, presenting a new analysis, new perspective; but what, in essence, does that mean?
KKK: To me, it means explaining Malaysian society in all its complexity.
For example, when I first started teaching Malaysian history and looked at the existing syllabus in the university and existing books, I found that historians were discussing Malay society without discussing Islam. When I asked around, I was duly informed that the Islamic Studies Department did not allow those outside to teach anything about Islam. I also discovered that knowledge of Islam was concerned with ‘pure’ Islam, not ‘applied’ Islam — how Islam operates on the ground. So I started asking questions and learnt a great deal about the religion from my students. Students from Kelantan, for example, were important in helping me gain an understanding of pondok schools. I then wrote the first ever article on the subject of the development of Islamic education in this country.

EK: This was a path you adopted individually. You were the first lecturer [outside those in the Malay Studies Department] to conduct lectures in the Malay language and among the first to discuss, as you mentioned, the Islamic aspect of Malay life in great detail. This was part of the need to construct a National History .
I want to ask you about your involvement in the process of systematisation. There came a point in Malaysian history when the authorities began to demonstrate sympathy to views espoused by people such as you. They held that there was a need to formulate entire systems based on a commitment to realising these ideas [some would say ideology]. As a result, there was the convening of the National Cultural Congress, at which you delievered an address; you were involved in the founding of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia where the medium of instruction would be Malay, you took part in activities organised by Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka; you advised and were among the formulators of the New Economic Policy, helped to devise the Rukunegara.
In that transition between 1969 and 1972 the entire character of the nation changed, the History Department changed and many foreign scholars left, somewhat alienated; there was an infusion of a more national character. Much of this was inspired by genuine ideals but why did you think it was necessary for you to get involved in projects that brought the politicians and intelligentsia together to formulate your ideas, systemise them, create policies.
Why did you think it necessary at that time to work with the authorities?
KKK: At that time, we all believed that the scholars must make themselves useful to society. People often ask: What are scholars for? I hold to the view that scholars have a role in society and that is why I do not write only for learned journals. I also write in newspapers for the general audience. If I write in a journal, perhaps only 10 persons in the world would read my article.
The mid-1960s were a period when lots of foreign scholars were in the History Department at the University of Malaya and we used to frequently engage in discussion. Many of them were of a leftist persuasion and they were spreading Marxist ideas; for a while I was quite taken by these ideas — they sounded so sweet — nobody should be considered superior to another, the egalitarian society as was preached in Indonesia — sama rata, sama rasa; until I discovered that those who preached this did not actually practise it. And I lost faith in ideology but I still felt I had a role to play in explaining Malaysian society. And like many young people, I felt that nation building was important; that it was important for the people to be closer together because the reality was that we were separated — Malays, Chinese, Indians — although we met in public places, we played games together, I was nevertheless very conscious of the fact that we had Indian and Chinese clubs and on significant occasions, one group would carry on without the others.
That divide was quite dangerous.
I had, after all, lived through the 1945 ethnic riots, so 1969 was the second and I was actually very close to where intense fighting was taking place and I sensed that it would be very dangerous if society should carry on being divided in that way, ignorant of each other. I felt there was a role that scholars should, and must, play because scholars are supposed to be better informed and more neutral. Till today, I always say that academia is the last bastion of impartiality — if a scholar cannot be impartial, then he cannot do his work well.

EK: Some would say that this experience marked the collusion between the intelligentsia and political forces. Did you not have any misgivings about working with politicians? And it was, at that time, a climate of great intrigue and uncertainty…
KKK: Some can resist the politicians, others cannot. Because you are always aware that if you completely sell your soul, your rewards are great but if you don’t, chances are that you can be marginalised. Eventually it falls back on your own conscience — whether you want to behave like a sycophant and lose your integrity as a scholar; in other words you can no longer draw meaningful conclusions, whatever you say becomes quite obvious and meaningless to people to the point they almost expect what you’re going to say; or you can learn to say things without being too confrontational, even when you don’t agree with something or someone. There are times when you need to be polite if you hope to convince, since there is the need to be effective. As for politics… the direction that politics takes is not easily predictable.

JT: But you had a role in it…
KKK: I would like to think I had a role in the more positive aspects…

JT: And how effective do you think you have been?
KKK: I think on the whole it’s a very difficult position, and unfortunately the majority of academic scholars have taken the easy way out. They would prefer to do things as directed by politicians rather than engage the politicians in discourse…

JT: Why is that? What are the specific difficulties you might face?
KKK: When you, for example, try to impress upon a politician that certain ideas are worthwhile experimenting with (which is difficult in the first place) the politician would then weigh in his mind whether he wants to take the risk of trying to implement those or whether it is more important for him to adopt a more pragmatic approach to gaining votes. If I were to talk to a Malay politician, he would at once know that I could not help him secure votes among the Malays and if there is somebody else who can, then he would tend to listen to that person. It has happened on at least one occasion. I remember quite clearly — I once approached a minister for assistance for university activities… he knew me well… he smiled and simply walked away. And not many months later the Malay Studies Department received a considerable amount of money.
So politicians are always pragmatic. For them, getting the votes is always more important and they are not going to take risks. Therefore, I found that it is simply not as easy as I thought it would be 30 years ago.

EK: But surely you would have known that — that is the nature of politics…
KKK: Not in the beginning. When you’re young, you’re full of…

EK: Because you played a very significant role at that time in attempting to serve as a bridge to disparate groups and interests. You were a non-Malay who spoke flawless Malay, were willing to serve as the mediator for the Malay Language Society, then led by [Datuk Seri] Anwar Ibrahim; you moderated talks where [Tun] Dr Mahathir, then expelled by Umno and perceived as an ‘Ultra’, presided; non-Malays saw you as a sellout while Malays believed you were useful to them…
KKK: Yes, but Malays are also always very conscious that I am not Malay. And of course, the Chinese don’t like me because they think I don’t stand up for the Chinese; Indians are quite sympathetic, but again, to the Indians, I am not Indian. So, you see the problem with Malaysia. Unless you belong to a particular ethnic group, it is very difficult for them to accept you. This is what I am trying to break.

EK: But surely this is something that the system perpetuates…
KKK: Yes, our political system perpetuates this. And I always quote this example: An attempt was made in the mid-1960s to set up what was called ADMO — Alliance Direct Membership Organisation — to allow people who didn’t want to enter the Alliance by joining either MCA, MIC or Umno to enter the Alliance directly; but of course it never took off, simply because the existing political parties didn’t want to succeed.
I remember very well too, when the Alliance was formed after 1952, the Straits Chinese British Association, the Peranakan, wanted to join the Alliance directly without going through the MCA, and it was Umno who refused them.
This is the problem with Malaysia — we talk of unity, of nation-building but deep within, we cannot run away from this tendency to be very ethnic in our behaviour and thoughts.

JT: When would you say this system was set? Colonial times?
KKK: This perception I must correct.
The British were not responsible. In fact, they too did not know what to do with the situation. Of course they allowed people of different ethnic groups to enter the country for economic reasons but after some time they, too, didn’t know what to do. There were Brtitish officials who felt that the time had come for the people to get closer to one another but we refused — the Chinese wanted to be Chinese, Indians wanted to be Indians, Malays wanted to be Malays — more importantly, the Sikhs wanted to be Sikhs, the Tamils wanted to be Tamils… the MIC is a predominantly Tamil party till today.
This did not change even after Inde­pendence. And the political structure which came into being in 1957 was essentially a pragmatic one. I remember talking with Tun [V T] Sambanthan just before he passed away, and he said that the leaders then were very sure that after 1957, after Independence had been achieved — for they should not engage in any kind of disagreement before Independence otherwise the British would delay Independence — that succeeding generations would be different, they would come closer together. But they were wrong, it is very difficult to break that kind of hold.

JT: They were optimistic…
KKK: Yes, Tun Sambanthan used the term ‘euphoric’. With Independence there was euphoria and the belief that better things would come. They did not anticipate May 1969.

EK: Events such as the National Cultural Congress consolidated politics and the system into every aspect of our lives so that even more organic, cultural ways of integrating society — the ways of cabaret, bangsawan, P Ramlee — were being consumed by politics. At that time, you seemed to be so idealistic, romantic even, about the prospect of what politics and politicians would do… Now we have a system that is unimaginably powerful. Most of the critical issues affecting Malaysian society today — communalism, racial integration, religious tolerance — gargantuan issues affecting the very plurality of our society, appear to be irresoluble. Do you think we are actually able to conduct a meaningful dialogue with ourselves?
KKK: We have not been able to conduct a meaningful dialogue among Malaysians of various ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds simply because, in the first place, we still don’t know much about each other, in spite of so-called attempts to have an education system that gives priority to national unity — that was what the Razak Report of 1955 declared — but our education system has never given priority to national unity… Never! How we have arrived at this situation where everybody is simply crazy about scoring A’s, I don’t think the government is wholly responsible; it’s the people themselves.

JT: Is this [situation] encouraged by economic policies?
KKK: Well, you take the Chinese — there’s always this talk: If you study hard and do well in exams then you become very successful; but you see, if you look at the successful Chinese, many of them don’t have a particularly good education while well-educated Chinese end up like me, a professor, which, in the eyes of the Chinese, are not very successful people… success is measured in terms of wealth.

EK: Are you suggesting then that influence of the Chinese is so pervasive, because the culture of wealth is the culture that prevails today?
KKK: Yes. And the Malays are catching up…

JT: The problem is that now, if you don’t have a life, you can buy a lifestyle and that lifestyle is pitched by powerful forces and substitutes for your own history…
EK: So the paradox of the NEP is that Malays who have succeeded under the policy have simply become more Chinese?
KKK: Well… Chinese in the values they subscribe to.

EK: Those who have followed your writings have suggested that they find a vitality, adventurism, radicalism even, in what could be described as your ‘early’ work, written between the period of 1965 and 1980. They sense a significant shift following 1980 towards a more conservative style and tempered tone. Would you agree with that assessment?
KKK: Yes, and I think it’s a result of ageing. When you grow older, you tend to see things differently. Certainly, I don’t have the kind of optimism I had when I was young. I think I have become more philosophical and I can take adversity much better today than before. And when you reach the age of 60, you feel vulnerable, everything around you is so unpredictable. So even when we write, we don’t have the same confidence we had before. We become more philosophical…

EK: Some would say that Mahathirism had an influence; that it hindered scholarship, curtailed expression…
KKK : I can tell you this — honestly and without trying to soften anything — I was always very lucky. From day one, no one interfered with what I taught and though later there were some rules, after the University and University Colleges Act, that lecturers should not make statements unless they got permission from the vice-chancellor, I never did that. I always made statements and nobody ever stopped me.

JT: There was never any attempt to dissuade you?
KKK : Never.

EK: Not you personally; but in terms of the system, a culture of dissent was certainly suppressed…
KKK: Among students; yes.

JT: Did you at any point feel threatened that your career would be at risk if you said or did certain things?
KKK: Of course, I was very aware. I did not set out to be deliberately and openly anti-establishment. Some people did and still got away with it…

EK: One of the criticisms of Mahathirism was there wasn’t even a need to be anti-establishment; you simply needed to have been an imaginative, creative and thinking individual and you would have run into trouble with the system.
KKK: I was not in trouble. And I think most people would agree that whenever my opinion was solicited, I would offer an opinion that did not reflect the thinking of the majority of the people. I always had my own opinion about things and spoke accordingly.

JT: What of your colleagues? There were instances when some got into trouble?
KKK: Yes. There were those who, even without making statements, would get show-cause letters from the Public Services Department. So, even I am not sure how these things work. But I was never…

EK: The education system is in terrible crisis at the most fundamental levels. You get teachers who are implacably racist and intolerant; you get whimsical rules on a school to school basis — many of these rules simply ridiculous — that are rooted in fanatical interpretations of religion. The ministry has lost control of things, there is a visible rot in our institutions of higher learning. For many, the situation is almost bizarre and surreal.
How have we arrived at such a situation and is it possible to transcend it? In many authoritarian countries where dissent is suppressed, there is even a history of bloodshed involving campuses. Here we seem to simply produce mediocrity that perpetuates a ‘culture of nothingness’.
A very serious crisis...
KKK: Due largely to the politicisation of almost everything. This should not be. And I’m still saying it. I am still fighting against the politicisation of education. Politicisation is one thing, commercialisation is another — both have turned education into a farce, and I have said so repeatedly. But I have not given up hope and am trying to convince the authorities that if you allow these things to go on, our future will be in serious jeopardy. Look at China, it is westernising rapidly and if we only slack, they will just beat us hollow. They are even taking to English very seriously. So, if we slacken, we will be in deep trouble.

EK: And the authorities are receptive?
KKK: Well, I am testing them.

EK: But they don’t seem to know what to do and there are hard truths they don’t want to confront.
KKK: Maybe they don’t quite understand but the first step is already being taken to review higher education.

JT: But we need to understand how we got to this place in the first place...
KKK: Again, because of politics. Normally, when a country breaks away from the political control of a Western power, for many years attempts to adjust itself flounders — Myanmar and Sri Lanka are good examples; under British control these countries were doing very well, then they simply went down. We did not go down the same way but it’s still a major struggle…

EK: Would you say that Mahathirism has been inimical to the Malaysian experience?
KKK: I think people read a little too much into that. I don’t think he was able to affect society as much as people suggest.

JT: Not deliberately, but perhaps in his attitudes towards public life…
KKK: You see, politicians have their own ideas about how to make their work most effective — one will adopt one way, the other another — he, I think, like [Lee] Kuan Yew, believed the economy should be capitalistic but politics should be closely controlled. I actually think he believes in state control yet at the same time also encourages modernisation.

EK: He obviously did not believe in the importance of the past and referred to the past as ‘sentimental’. Technocrats, engineers, scientists were what we needed…
JT: And it is with him that the past has been cast aside, especially with regard the Malays?
KKK: Yes, you see, in the context of Malay society; if the past is emphasised too much it tends to be highly sentimental — biar mati anak, jangan mati adat — that kind of philosophy can be damaging to a society, and there was no way you would get Malay society to adjust to modernisation and globalisation if it continued to think like that.
My only unhappiness is that while there was a great deal of talk about helping Malay society to adjust to modernity, the steps taken were very ineffective; at the ground level, there were continuing attempts made to remind the community, in a very sentimental way, of their traditional past.
All that could have been changed with the education system but the system was not structured in a way that would enable Malay children to cope with the changing environment.

EK: But the interesting thing with regard the Malays, in particular – and this was where Mahathir was a real paradox because he wanted the education system to produce Malays who were ‘modern’ – but he entrenched a feudal political culture, one rooted in acquiescence.
KKK: No, I don’t think it is quite like that. He believed that his ideas were positive and could benefit the Malays but unless he could push them through, he would not be able to see the results.

JT: So in essence, he did not believe that his community would be receptive to his ideas…
KKK: Yes, because they couldn’t understand him. And this is true. I think the majority of the Malays could not understand him. His mind was composed differently, maybe because being brought up in a different environment — went to English school, his exposure to medical studies — made him look at things differently, but the majority of Malays could not grasp what he was saying. I know… I teach Malay students and if you have rather modern ideas, they just cannot follow.
And he always felt that time was not on his side. After all, he became Prime Minister quite late in life.

EK: One of the assessments of him is that ‘his past’ is beginning to catch up on everybody. The politics and policies of Islamisation, for example, privatisation…
KKK: But his ideas on Islamisation were sound but not always well received.

EK: But this is the contradiction — the ideas on Islamisation that were progressive and radical were always confined to very elite and closed-door situations. Where it mattered, in the Ministry of Religious Affairs, and their agencies, there is no difference between them and PAS?
KKK: Someone did pass a remark, the problem with Umno is that it’s always trying to be more Islamic than PAS.

JT: Why the need to play this game?
KKK: We should not look at Islam in Malay society merely on the basis of what’s happening now. You should go back to the past, to the turn of the century when there was this struggle between Kaum Muda and Kaum Tua — the modernists and the conservatives. Now they are talking about Islam Hadhari but that concept is very vague.
In fact, Kaum Muda was even more specific in its prescription for modernisation, but in the battle between the two factions, they lost. They said so many sensible things. They believed, for example, that the traditional pondok schools were not effective, so they started modern Islamic schools that they called madrasah — so the term madrasah was introduced and referred to modern Islamic schools. After some time, the conservatives took over the reins of these schools and instituted a very conservative culture. Then, there was conflict between the two groups and in the end, the authorities took the side of the conservatives because they felt the modernists would threaten the entire fabric of Malay society. So it’s very difficult for anyone who is trying to push through the idea of modernist Islam. The majority just cannot understand.

EK: So you look at the past 23 years as being essentially benign?
KKK: Well, there are some good things, some bad things…

EK: And these are?
KKK: I think, on the one hand, we have modernised our society quite a fair bit, at least in terms of infrastructure and the standard of living. If you compare Malaysia with other Southeast Asian countries, there is no doubt we are far ahead; but at the same time, I think there are problems being created largely by the overemphasis on capitalism which is very damaging. I think the capitalists are allowed to get away with murder… we’re beginning to find that healthcare is too expensive for the average person, meeting basic needs is getting increasingly difficult.
We go back to the old question that while capitalism is unavoidable — because if you don’t allow people the freedom to try and make profit then they have no incentive — you do have to impose control to some extent.

EK: You are representative of a generation that held true nationalist ideals. Do you believe that many of these ideals have been compromised and if so, by whom? Is there an element of frustration and bitterness that in spite of initial, genuine efforts to induce a spirit of integration, integrity and dignity as a nation, our society confronts serious crisis?
KKK: During the time of Tunku [Abdul Rahman] it was thought best to bring about developments slowly. It was important to preserve the status quo and they would gradually initiate change. He, for example, emphasised the Malay language but also didn’t want to see Bahasa overshadow English. But there were those who felt he was not moving fast enough, they were impatient and found ways of accusing him of neglecting the Malays.
Now that the 1969 episode is over and the policies that came about as a result of that event are in place, everyone is trying to play down the issue of ethnicity, but it remains a fact that the true Malaysian today is a very lonely person.

EK: That’s a very dismal situation. But you continue to engage. Are the authorities and politicians receptive to what you say?
KKK: They are polite to me. But the fact of the matter is, you don’t have much of a choice when it comes to politics and politicians. You may need to fight to get your views across but you must not lose hope. So many things can happen, the future cannot be predicted; you must hope for the best and cannot give up.
As for me, as long as I am not cast aside, I won’t give up and I will hope and work to make ours a better society.