This thesis analyses UMNO factionalism from the perspective of the elite’s manipulation of the various modes of nationalisms. This thesis argues that UMNO factionalism, which is seemingly a power struggle between competing UMNO elites, has been significantly shaped by contesting nationalist ideologies that reflect the unresolved questions of national identity in Malaysia. These two issues, that is, nationalism and UMNO factionalism, have shaped Malaysian politics in significant ways. UMNO factionalism has been related to such major political events as the 1969 ethnic riots, the introduction of the New Economic Policy, the UMNO split in 1987 and the Reformasi (Reform) movement in 1998. Frequently, the impact of these disputes extended beyond UMNO politics and affected wider Malaysian politics. At the same time, due to unresolved questions of national identity, nationalism has occupied a central position in Malaysian political discourse. There are ambiguities regarding the relationships among the various ethnic identities and national identity and between the individual and the larger Malaysian community that enable elites to construct and manipulate nationalist ideologies. In this thesis, the conflicting nationalisms are captured by five different concepts of nationalism – ethnocultural, civic and multicultural nationalisms in one group and collectivist-authoritarian and individualistic-libertarian nationalisms in another. The Malaysian Prime Ministers have constructed nationalist ideology to define the Malaysian nation in their attempts to resolve the unresolved problems of national identity. The challengers’ arguments, to mobilise the community, mirror the community’s (negative) responses to the Malaysian Prime Ministers’ nationalist visions. In addition, the ideological arguments in the disputes extend the dispute beyond the elites, involving the community as well. Furthermore, because of the ideological conflicts, these factional disputes affect the direction of government policies in significant ways. This study shows that UMNO factional disputes have followed this pattern of ideological conflicts, although the exact contents may vary. The 1969 factional dispute was a clash between Tunku Abdul Rahman’s shift towards multicultural nationalism and its challengers’ ethnocultural nationalism. Tunku Abdul Rahman’s nationalist vision moved away from ethnocultural nationalism in pursuit of national integration. The challengers, reflecting the Malay community’s response to the Prime Minister’s vision, took a strong ethnocultural Malay nationalist stance. The successful mobilisation of the Malay community by ethnocultural Malay nationalists contributed to the policy shift towards ethnocultural nationalism in the 1970s. In the 1987 dispute, Mahathir’s economic policy, which moved away from ethnocultural nationalism, was challenged by Razaleigh’s ethnocultural nationalist argument. After the dispute, Mahathir could only mobilise the community by tactically employing the rhetoric of ethnocultural Malay nationalism. In the 1990s, Mahathir’s attempt to define the national identity of Malaysia by constructing a civic Malaysian nation, Bangsa Malaysia, relieved the tension surrounding the ambiguous national identity of Malaysia. It was facilitated by rapid economic growth that ameliorated ethnic contests over limited economic resources. However, the collectivist-authoritarian aspect of Mahathir’s nationalism raised another nationalist question concerning the subordination of individual liberty and rights to the collective community’s will and interests – a nationalism that justified his authoritarian rule. There was tension between an increasingly confident civic Malaysian society and Mahathir’s collectivist-authoritarian control of the society. The 1998 UMNO dispute was a clash between Mahathir’s collectivist-authoritarian nationalism and Anwar Ibrahim’s individualistic-libertarian nationalism. The latter attempted to mobilise Malaysian society with his nationalist position (the Reformasi movement) which was expressed in the demand for liberal political reform. After the dispute, Mahathir was able to regain lost political ground through the politics of fear. It seems, however, that the fundamental question remains unresolved. This unresolved tension between the demand for individual liberty and rights and authoritarian control by state elites is likely to shape the ideological arguments in future UMNO factional disputes.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Boston University, 2005. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [418]-443).

Thesis (M.A.) -- University of Adelaide, School of History and Politics, Discipline of Politics, 2003. / Bibliography: leaves 73-79.

<p>This thesis will show how authoritarian governments rest legitimacy on their ability to create socio-economic development. It will point to some methods used to consolidate power by authoritarian leaders in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. An authoritarian regime that successfully creates development is strengthened and does not call for democratic change in the short run. It is suggested that the widely endorsed Lipset hypothesis, that development will eventually bring democratic transition, is true only when further socio-economic development requires that the economy transfers from being based on industrial manufacturing to knowledge and creativity – not on lower levels of development. Malaysia and Singapore have reached – or try to reach – this level of development today, but restrictions on their civil societies have still not been lifted.</p><p>This thesis describes modern political history in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia in a Machiavellian tradition. The historical perspective will give a more or less plausible idea of how authoritarian regimes consolidated au-thority and what role development policies played in the leaders’ claims for authority. The conclusion will give a suggestion on how the political future in these three countries might evolve. It will point to the importance of an active and free civil society as a means to develop the nations further, rather than oppression.</p><p>This thesis will try to point to the dos and don’ts for authoritarian regimes. The ideas of Plato, Machiavelli and Hobbes provide the structures and methods that authoritarian regimes apply. It will be shown that a regime will disintegrate when it fails to comply with Plato’s and Machiavelli’s ideas. Al-though ancient, Plato and Machiavelli provide methods and structures that seem to carry relevance to the modern history of Southeast Asia.</p><p>I will point to how authoritarian rule can be maintained in the long run. What is required from the political leadership, what are their strategies and methods? What makes people to tolerate or topple authoritarian regimes? Why do some authoritarian regimes successfully create development while others do not? These are some of the questions this thesis will try to an-swer.</p>

<p>This thesis will show how authoritarian governments rest legitimacy on their ability to create socio-economic development. It will point to some methods used to consolidate power by authoritarian leaders in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. An authoritarian regime that successfully creates development is strengthened and does not call for democratic change in the short run. It is suggested that the widely endorsed Lipset hypothesis, that development will eventually bring democratic transition, is true only when further socio-economic development requires that the economy transfers from being based on industrial manufacturing to knowledge and creativity – not on lower levels of development. Malaysia and Singapore have reached – or try to reach – this level of development today, but restrictions on their civil societies have still not been lifted.</p><p>This thesis describes modern political history in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia in a Machiavellian tradition. The historical perspective will give a more or less plausible idea of how authoritarian regimes consolidated au-thority and what role development policies played in the leaders’ claims for authority. The conclusion will give a suggestion on how the political future in these three countries might evolve. It will point to the importance of an active and free civil society as a means to develop the nations further, rather than oppression.</p><p>This thesis will try to point to the dos and don’ts for authoritarian regimes. The ideas of Plato, Machiavelli and Hobbes provide the structures and methods that authoritarian regimes apply. It will be shown that a regime will disintegrate when it fails to comply with Plato’s and Machiavelli’s ideas. Although ancient, Plato and Machiavelli provide methods and structures that seem to carry relevance to the modern history of Southeast Asia.</p><p>I will point to how authoritarian rule can be maintained in the long run. What is required from the political leadership, what are their strategies and methods? What makes people to tolerate or topple authoritarian regimes? Why do some authoritarian regimes successfully create development while others do not? These are some of the questions this thesis will try to answer.</p>

This research begins with the assumption that the political ideology of Malaysian leaders influences the design of state mosques and seeks to investigate the relationship between Malaysian leaders political ideas of Islam and their influence on the design of state mosques in Malaysia. Even though studies undertaken of state mosque in other Muslim countries show a relationship between state mosque and politics, there are no studies that describe the influence of politics on the state mosques in Malaysia. To date, the research on the state mosque in Malaysia focuses on six main aspects: these are descriptions of the state mosque in regard to its historical development; documentation of the state mosque in the form of measured drawings; classification of state mosque styles; theory for designing the state mosque based on religious sources; discussion on the technical aspects of the state mosque design; and discourse on the role and function of the state mosque in relation to social aspects. In contrast, the aim of this research is to determine: How are the leaders political ideas of Islam expressed through the design of state mosques in West Malaysia? A case study approach as defined by Yin (2003) was applied. Evidence for the case studies has been collected from archival records to gather data regarding political development and building policy which relates to three prominent leaders in Malaysia –Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Abdul Razak and Tun Mahathir Mohamad - while on-site observation, state mosque documents and interview were methods to collect evidence for three state mosques in Malaysia, which are the National Mosque, Penang State Mosque and Putra Mosque. Since this research deals with specific interpretations of the state mosque as a social-physical phenomenon and the need to understand how the structural relationship exists between the state mosques and social culture, a multi-disciplinary logic of inquiry combining the interpretive and structuralist paradigms was adopted. In association, a framework incorporating both semiotics and hermeneutics were developed to analyse, firstly, the symbolic meaning embedded in the design of the state mosques and their mundane settings and, secondly, to reveal the leaders intentions and associated actions during the creation of the state mosques. An analysis of the data exposed that there is a dialectic relationship between the leaders and the design of the state mosque in the period of post-independence in Western Malaysia. The investigation of the three state mosques also suggested that the political ideas of Islam as propounded by Malaysian leaders have a profound effect on determining the design of the state mosque. This study, therefore, offers new insights, which not only add to knowledge in this field by widening and strengthening the understanding of political and architectural historical theory in Malaysia, but also are valuable for range of associated fields including architectural semiotics and non verbal communication. This is because this research reveals deep understandings of the built form and material environment operating as a sign in a cultural and social context.

This thesis will show how authoritarian governments rest legitimacy on their ability to create socio-economic development. It will point to some methods used to consolidate power by authoritarian leaders in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. An authoritarian regime that successfully creates development is strengthened and does not call for democratic change in the short run. It is suggested that the widely endorsed Lipset hypothesis, that development will eventually bring democratic transition, is true only when further socio-economic development requires that the economy transfers from being based on industrial manufacturing to knowledge and creativity – not on lower levels of development. Malaysia and Singapore have reached – or try to reach – this level of development today, but restrictions on their civil societies have still not been lifted. This thesis describes modern political history in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia in a Machiavellian tradition. The historical perspective will give a more or less plausible idea of how authoritarian regimes consolidated au-thority and what role development policies played in the leaders’ claims for authority. The conclusion will give a suggestion on how the political future in these three countries might evolve. It will point to the importance of an active and free civil society as a means to develop the nations further, rather than oppression. This thesis will try to point to the dos and don’ts for authoritarian regimes. The ideas of Plato, Machiavelli and Hobbes provide the structures and methods that authoritarian regimes apply. It will be shown that a regime will disintegrate when it fails to comply with Plato’s and Machiavelli’s ideas. Although ancient, Plato and Machiavelli provide methods and structures that seem to carry relevance to the modern history of Southeast Asia. I will point to how authoritarian rule can be maintained in the long run. What is required from the political leadership, what are their strategies and methods? What makes people to tolerate or topple authoritarian regimes? Why do some authoritarian regimes successfully create development while others do not? These are some of the questions this thesis will try to answer.

This thesis will show how authoritarian governments rest legitimacy on their ability to create socio-economic development. It will point to some methods used to consolidate power by authoritarian leaders in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. An authoritarian regime that successfully creates development is strengthened and does not call for democratic change in the short run. It is suggested that the widely endorsed Lipset hypothesis, that development will eventually bring democratic transition, is true only when further socio-economic development requires that the economy transfers from being based on industrial manufacturing to knowledge and creativity – not on lower levels of development. Malaysia and Singapore have reached – or try to reach – this level of development today, but restrictions on their civil societies have still not been lifted. This thesis describes modern political history in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia in a Machiavellian tradition. The historical perspective will give a more or less plausible idea of how authoritarian regimes consolidated au-thority and what role development policies played in the leaders’ claims for authority. The conclusion will give a suggestion on how the political future in these three countries might evolve. It will point to the importance of an active and free civil society as a means to develop the nations further, rather than oppression. This thesis will try to point to the dos and don’ts for authoritarian regimes. The ideas of Plato, Machiavelli and Hobbes provide the structures and methods that authoritarian regimes apply. It will be shown that a regime will disintegrate when it fails to comply with Plato’s and Machiavelli’s ideas. Al-though ancient, Plato and Machiavelli provide methods and structures that seem to carry relevance to the modern history of Southeast Asia. I will point to how authoritarian rule can be maintained in the long run. What is required from the political leadership, what are their strategies and methods? What makes people to tolerate or topple authoritarian regimes? Why do some authoritarian regimes successfully create development while others do not? These are some of the questions this thesis will try to an-swer.