Murray Hunter
Guest Editorial: The Malay Gentry
The Malay T20, shaped by the New Economic Policy, risks becoming disconnected social climbers, forgetting their roots while benefiting from state support without giving back to the Rakyat.
Oct 14, 2024
By Samirul Ariff Othman
The Indonesian independence struggle was deeply intertwined with the roles of the Javanese Gentry, known as the Prijaji, who held administrative and social power during the Dutch colonial period. These elites were educated, often Westernized, and placed in bureaucratic roles by the colonial authorities, allowing them to accumulate influence. However, the tides shifted as many among the Prijaji began to support the growing nationalist movement. Figures like Sukarno, himself from a Prijaji background, helped channel the aspirations of the common people into a full-blown independence struggle.
Sukarno’s vision on life and society emphasized the importance of justice and equity. He promoted Marhaenism, a socio-political philosophy named after a destitute peasant he met, Marhaen, symbolizing the underprivileged masses. Marhaenism became a rallying cry for Indonesia’s fight for independence, rooted in the idea that the country’s struggle was not just about freedom from colonial rule but also about addressing deep socio-economic inequalities.
The Javanese Gentry, despite their privilege, found themselves at a crossroads during the independence movement. Some, like Sukarno, embraced the call to arms and sought to align their status with the broader aspirations of the Indonesian people. Others remained tied to the colonial order, hesitant to risk their standing in the upheaval that independence would bring. This tension between tradition and revolutionary change mirrors the way many elites, across cultures, struggle with the pull of historical privilege versus the demands of a changing society.
Contemporary Malaysia
The Malay Gentry today faces a parallel challenge. The newly minted Malay T20 class—created almost out of thin air due to the New Economic Policy (NEP)—is increasingly out of touch with reality, often oblivious to the problems facing their fellow Malay brethren. Many among them can be seen as opportunistic social climbers, benefiting from state support without reciprocating the responsibility that comes with it. The NEP, while successful in uplifting many Malays, has also bred a class of elites who have distanced themselves from their humble beginnings, much like the Prijaji who were once criticized for being disconnected from the struggles of ordinary Indonesians.
Contemporary Malaysia, like Indonesia in its early post-colonial era, sees this growing divide between the elites and the masses. The socio-economic standing of Malays, especially those in the T20 category, reveals deep questions about social responsibility and the widening gap within the community. A sentiment of Kacang Melupakan Kulit is emerging—the notion that some among the T20 have forgotten their roots, their humble beginnings, and the fact that much of their success was funded by the Rakyat, the people. This disconnection is particularly striking when contrasted with Malaysia’s Chinese community, where the ethic of giving back—supporting schools like Chung Hwa, universities, and hospitals like Tung Shin—is deeply ingrained. The Chinese have built their own social safety nets, while many Malays remain dependent on government aid, vulnerable and susceptible to economic shifts, lacking the self-reliance that drives upward mobility in other communities.
Worse still, we’re now seeing the rise of spoon-fed elites—individuals who treat government money as if it’s their own, hogging scholarships and lucrative government contracts, and perpetually cycling through well-paid positions in Government-Linked Companies (GLCs). Many of them remain in these jobs well past retirement age, often failing to deliver, but leveraging their connections to political figures and parties. This patronage system, where unscrupulous elites engage in shameless self-promotion while remaining entrenched in positions of power, has become a festering problem. These elites continue to receive rewards, not because of performance, but because of who they know. It’s a closed loop of privilege, with little regard for merit or the broader Rakyat.
The gentry in Europe, for instance, were landowners and elites who sat just below the nobility, with wealth but also a strong sense of social obligation. They were expected to lead, to give back, and to serve their communities, which helped bind society together. In Indonesia, the Javanese Gentry, or Prijaji, held a similar role, often involved in administration and later the independence struggle. They had a foot in both worlds—advocating for the people while also maintaining ties to the old order. But even they, during Indonesia’s post-colonial era, faced accusations of being out of touch, disconnected from the very people they claimed to represent.
Back to Malaysia—there’s a growing divide within the Malay community. The T20, who have climbed the socio-economic ladder, seem increasingly isolated from the broader population, less likely to contribute back to the Rakyat. Unlike the Chinese, who have built a culture of philanthropy, many Malays rely on government assistance, which has fostered a kind of economic fragility. This dependency has made them more vulnerable to the ebbs and flows of political and economic change. The challenge for Malaysia is this: How do you encourage the T20 to remember where they came from, to re-engage with the broader community, and to recognize that their success is not theirs alone—it belongs to the people? The potential for these elites to become mentors, role models, and contributors to social equity is enormous. But until they do, the gap between them and the rest of the Malay population will only continue to grow.
——————————————————————————-
Samirul Ariff Othman
Sukarno’s vision on life and society emphasized the importance of justice and equity. He promoted Marhaenism, a socio-political philosophy named after a destitute peasant he met, Marhaen, symbolizing the underprivileged masses. Marhaenism became a rallying cry for Indonesia’s fight for independence, rooted in the idea that the country’s struggle was not just about freedom from colonial rule but also about addressing deep socio-economic inequalities.
The Javanese Gentry, despite their privilege, found themselves at a crossroads during the independence movement. Some, like Sukarno, embraced the call to arms and sought to align their status with the broader aspirations of the Indonesian people. Others remained tied to the colonial order, hesitant to risk their standing in the upheaval that independence would bring. This tension between tradition and revolutionary change mirrors the way many elites, across cultures, struggle with the pull of historical privilege versus the demands of a changing society.
Contemporary Malaysia
The Malay Gentry today faces a parallel challenge. The newly minted Malay T20 class—created almost out of thin air due to the New Economic Policy (NEP)—is increasingly out of touch with reality, often oblivious to the problems facing their fellow Malay brethren. Many among them can be seen as opportunistic social climbers, benefiting from state support without reciprocating the responsibility that comes with it. The NEP, while successful in uplifting many Malays, has also bred a class of elites who have distanced themselves from their humble beginnings, much like the Prijaji who were once criticized for being disconnected from the struggles of ordinary Indonesians.
Contemporary Malaysia, like Indonesia in its early post-colonial era, sees this growing divide between the elites and the masses. The socio-economic standing of Malays, especially those in the T20 category, reveals deep questions about social responsibility and the widening gap within the community. A sentiment of Kacang Melupakan Kulit is emerging—the notion that some among the T20 have forgotten their roots, their humble beginnings, and the fact that much of their success was funded by the Rakyat, the people. This disconnection is particularly striking when contrasted with Malaysia’s Chinese community, where the ethic of giving back—supporting schools like Chung Hwa, universities, and hospitals like Tung Shin—is deeply ingrained. The Chinese have built their own social safety nets, while many Malays remain dependent on government aid, vulnerable and susceptible to economic shifts, lacking the self-reliance that drives upward mobility in other communities.
Worse still, we’re now seeing the rise of spoon-fed elites—individuals who treat government money as if it’s their own, hogging scholarships and lucrative government contracts, and perpetually cycling through well-paid positions in Government-Linked Companies (GLCs). Many of them remain in these jobs well past retirement age, often failing to deliver, but leveraging their connections to political figures and parties. This patronage system, where unscrupulous elites engage in shameless self-promotion while remaining entrenched in positions of power, has become a festering problem. These elites continue to receive rewards, not because of performance, but because of who they know. It’s a closed loop of privilege, with little regard for merit or the broader Rakyat.
The gentry in Europe, for instance, were landowners and elites who sat just below the nobility, with wealth but also a strong sense of social obligation. They were expected to lead, to give back, and to serve their communities, which helped bind society together. In Indonesia, the Javanese Gentry, or Prijaji, held a similar role, often involved in administration and later the independence struggle. They had a foot in both worlds—advocating for the people while also maintaining ties to the old order. But even they, during Indonesia’s post-colonial era, faced accusations of being out of touch, disconnected from the very people they claimed to represent.
Back to Malaysia—there’s a growing divide within the Malay community. The T20, who have climbed the socio-economic ladder, seem increasingly isolated from the broader population, less likely to contribute back to the Rakyat. Unlike the Chinese, who have built a culture of philanthropy, many Malays rely on government assistance, which has fostered a kind of economic fragility. This dependency has made them more vulnerable to the ebbs and flows of political and economic change. The challenge for Malaysia is this: How do you encourage the T20 to remember where they came from, to re-engage with the broader community, and to recognize that their success is not theirs alone—it belongs to the people? The potential for these elites to become mentors, role models, and contributors to social equity is enormous. But until they do, the gap between them and the rest of the Malay population will only continue to grow.
——————————————————————————-
Samirul Ariff Othman
Born in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Samirul’s early education spanned the Asia-Pacific region. He attended pre-school in Thailand and elementary school at St. Mary’s International School in Tokyo before continuing his studies at MARA Junior Science College (MRSM) in Malaysia, a prestigious institution for high-achieving students. He is also an alumnus of Sekolah Sri Cempaka, one of Malaysia’s top private schools. Despite his global upbringing, Samirul remains deeply connected to his Malay Muslim heritage, which has profoundly shaped his identity.
*********
kt comments:
Poms, Indians and Malays share certain common values, one of which has been the classed or socially-stratified society, or in more crude form, feudalistic society.
The Indian system in this respect seems more emphasized because of its also caste (not just class) system, the difference being 'caste' has been divinely ordained (by Hinduism) while 'class' is just a secular aspect of history, hence India embraces such social divisions more passionately, and in some cases, even fanatically.
Tunku, Tun Razak, Dr Ismail, Hussein Onn, Ku Li were definitely members of the Malay Gentry. Thus they naturally assumed leadership roles in the Malayan fight for independence from colonial Britain.
But Mahathir was not, though he might or might not have considered himself one. He created the Malay nouveau riche which Samirul Ariff Othman (above) termed as the T20 (top 20% of Malaysian household incomes - High-income individuals. Household income of RM11,820 or more. Represents 1.58 million households)
No comments:
Post a Comment