The Myth of the Lazy Native: A Study of the Image of the Malays, Filipinos and Javanese from the 16th to the 20th Century and Its Function in the Ideology of Colonial Capitalism

by Syed Hussein Alatas

The Myth of the Lazy Native is Syed Hussein Alatas widely acknowledged critique of the colonial construction of Malay, Filipino and Javanese natives from the 16th to the 20th century. Drawing on the work of Karl Mannheim and the sociology of knowledge, Alatas analyses the origins and functions of such myths in the creation and reinforcement of colonial ideology and capitalism.The book constitutes in his own words: an effort to correct a one-sided colonial view of the Asian native and his society and will be of interest to students and scholars of colonialism, post-colonialism, sociology and South East Asian Studies.

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Politics, Sociology, Anthropology, Race, Asia

277 pages, ebook

First published January 21, 1977

About the author

Syed Hussein Alatas (September 17, 1928 – January 23, 2007) was a Malaysian academician, sociologist, founder of social science organizations, and former politician. He was once Vice-Chancellor of the University of Malaya in the 1980s, and formed the Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia (Gerakan). Syed Hussein wrote several books on corruption, multi-racialism, imperialism, and intellectual captivity as part of the colonial, and post colonial, project, the most famous being The Myth of the Lazy Native.

Reviews

[Ridzwan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I spent close six years in primary school growing up under a Malay teacher who kept emphasising to us how Malays are inherently born with the tendency to be indolent, lazy and generally unproductive. Along the way, she introduced us to texts such as “The Malay Dilemma” by the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, detailing how inbreeding amongst the Malay community have given birth to a civilisation that is genetically inferior, inherently stupid and should not be expected to be on par with their peers that descended from East Asia. This is the justification, according to her, why Malays must make the effort to work even harder than other races to avoid this genetic anomaly that we have been cursed with. It suffices to say that “The Myth of the Lazy Native” is a book that I should have picked up much earlier on in life.

The construct of Malays as being a lazy community has sadly saddled itself deep into the crevices of our subconscious. Even amongst Malays, there is ample evidence in popular literature to show that we have largely taken on the belief that we are an inherently backward community.
But Syed Hussein Alatas shows us in this critique that here was upon of time in history where the Malays were admired for our economic finesse. Malays built the largest ships, were excellent merchants and spread our influence, culture and literature far and wide beyond this region. In 1518, Duarte Barbossa described the city of Malacca as “the richest sea port with the greatest number of wholesale merchants and abundance of shipping and trade in the whole word”. In a report dated 1637 to Holland on the situation in Makassar, Dutch merchant Hendrik Kerckringh described the Malays as people held in high-esteem and of great means who developed properties in the area.

But progressive colonial invasions by the Portuguese, Dutch and British marked the start of the decline in Malay economic activity. Crippled by forced monopolies and relocations, the Malay merchant class receded away from town centres into the rural areas taking on subsistence agriculture as a primary form of sustenance. In preferring rural agriculture over colonial industries and the colonial brand of capitalism Malays are branded as lazy, indolent and unproductive – especially when compared with indentured labourers from China and India. These constructs endured and evolved over the centuries to the form it comes in today – a general acceptance that Malays are lazy in comparison to other races.

This book constitutes in the author’s own words, “an effort to correct a one-sided colonial view of the Asian native and his society”. Scholars of colonialism, post-colonialism and sociology will find this book to be of immense interest.

['Izzat Radzi · Rating 5 out of 5]

"He works so hard, so steadily and so long, that when he does stop, his one desire is to rest, and he asked no more than to be allowed to do nothing. It is this complete relaxation of his that leads European visitors so ludicrously astray in their superficial judgement of the lazy native."
-Page 121, The study of national character.

Hasty generalisation yang dibuat oleh sejarawan yang membentuk bukan sahaja imej peribumi, malah kaum buruh yang lain.

Barangkali, mudah untuk dituduh kaum peribumi sahaja pemalas, melihatkan keterlibatan mereka yang jauh dari 'colonial capitalism'.

Perhatikan di bawah,
"Amongst the Chinese, there is proportionately greater number of indolent members amongst the upper class. Sons of millionaires, gamblers, playboys, mistresses: many of them are indolent. There are many indolent Chinese landlords who just wait at the end of the month to collect their rent. There are many indolent property owners, who buy plots of land and keep them, without doing anything to them, merely waiting for the prices to go up".
-Page 168, The distortion of Malay Character

Malah, sebenarnya, kaum penjajah kolonial dan pemerintah tempatan yang pemalas!
"The very Europeans who accuse the peoples of the colonies of indolence .. Surrounded by many servants, never walking but riding, needing servants not only to remove their shoes but even to fan them! And nevertheless they live and eat better, work for themselves and to enrich themselves, with the hope of a future, free, respected, while the poor colonial, the indolent colonial, is poorly nourished and lives without hope, toils for others, and is forced and compelled to work!"
-Page 99, The Indolence of the Philippinos

Tulisan Hussein al attas ini sangat kritis atas tulisan sejarah;
sama ada 'ilmuan' berasal dari penjajah kolonial atau dari 'ilmuan' selepas penjajahan kolonial sendiri,
tentang kaum peribumi.

Dalam satu bab, beliau walaupun menghargai sumbangan Abdullah Munshi dalam pemerhatiannya terhadap kaum peribumi, dalam masa yang sama mengkritik Abdullah yang tidak sama memerhatikan bagaimana kaum penjajah memonopoli perdagangan & memusnahkan aspek sosial & ekonomi peribumi di Melaka.

Benda paling awal disentuh, malah paling utama adalah ideologi mendasar di bawah cara faham mitos ini, iaitu cara faham kapitalis kolonial (the colonial capitalist ideology & mode of thought).

Ini boleh dilihat dalam kritik beliau terhadap Revolusi Mental (Umno) & The Malay Dilemma (Mahathir). Mereka tidak lebih hanya membuktikan ideologi penjajah kolonial telah tertanam dengan mendalam (deeply embedded) dalam diri mereka.

Bacaan lanjutan dari nota kaki :
- Ideology and Utopia (Karl Mannheim)
- The Indolence of the Filipino (José Rizal)
- Muqadimah (Ibn Khaldun)
- Hikayat Abdullah & Kesah Pelayaran Abdullah (Abdullah Munshi)
- The Failure of a Liberal Colonial Policy : Netherlands East Indies, 1816 1830 (D W Welderen Rengers)
- On Colonialism (Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels)

Bacaan lanjutan luar dari buku ini :
- Malay Ideas on Development : From Feudal Lord to Capitalist (Shaharuddin Maaruf)
- Contesting Malayness : Malay Identity Across Boundaries (Timothy Barnard)
- The Discursive Construction of Southeast Asia in 19th-Century Colonial-Capitalist Discourse (Farish Noor)

[Andrew]

If you live in Thailand, one thing you'll hear from both white people and locals is that Thai people are "lazy." If you ask for a clarification, they'll provide some anecdote about some guy they saw once. You will leave the conversation with a dimmer view of other people's perceptions.

Turns out a Malaysian scholar named Syed Alatas (who I found out about because he got name-checked by Edward Said) got these same bad vibes decades ago, and then wrote a remarkably well-written, thought-provoking book about it.

Furthermore, Alatas is interesting not only in the way he traces the origins of the myth of the lazy native, but also in the way he analyzes the self-colonizing mindset of native leaders. He's especially unforgiving with Mahathir bin Mohamed and his "cultural" explanations of underdevelopment.

[Zayn Gregory · Rating 4 out of 5]

An anti-colonial short-course for Malaysians in one volume. The Myth of the Lazy Native was an influential book in post-colonial studies, published a year before Edward Said's Orientalism [1] . Syed Hussein Alatas trawls through centuries of original sources to find the sources of the persistent idea that Malays, and other native peoples, are lazy. Some of the key points that struck me were:

1. At the time of first contact with Europeans, the peoples of the Nusantara were active economically and were engaged in long-distance trade far beyond the archipelago on their own boats with their own capital and with the ability to defend their own interests. Ocean-going vessels, arms and munitions were manufactured locally.

2. European monopoly shut down thriving multi-national trade zones, impoverishing and over centuries eliminating the indigineous trading class, eventually reducing native society to peasants and rulers. Alatas finds clear and detailed discourse from Ibn Khaldun 700 years ago describing the ill effects of mercantile colonialism (specifically the ruler engaging directly in trade) and promoting a role for the ruler that corresponds closely to the way the trade ports of the archipelago were in fact run. Which isn't to say the sultans of the region had read Ibn Khaldun, but it does make it hard to believe the colonial regimes didn't know exactly what their policies would do to the locals.

3. Only after the region was thoroughly dominated by European powers do observations about the laziness of the locals begin to emerge.

4. The heart of the matter. Laziness as used by European observers meant, and could only mean: non-cooperation with colonial exploitation. The Malays would rather live on their own terms in their village than work under near-slavery conditions in the plantations and mines. If the labor arrangement wasn't to their satisfaction, they would simply walk off [2] . This was not an option for the hundreds of thousands of Chinese and Indians who were brought in as indentured laborers, often from even more dire situations back home, and worked to death under appalling conditions until their debt was repaid. For this, they were labelled as "industrious".

5. By the 19th century, European observers were also recording instances of decadent, corrupt, and oppressive behavior from the hereditary Malay rulers, the sultans and rajas. Alatas makes an interesting point: under the terms of colonial domination, the local rulers were unable to conduct diplomatic relations, unable to regulate the economy, unable to wage war, unable to perform any of the functions by which their social class had distinguished itself in the past. Hollowed out and on a short leash, stagnation and slide into decadence seems more understandable.

6. Alatas expresses a view I have encountered more than once, that Malaysia is at a disadvantage somehow because it did not fight a war to gain independence. Personally, I think Malaysia came out ahead from having a peaceful transfer of power, and the diplomatic skills that made that happen deserve to be honored in the national historiography. But he does make a compelling argument that there was no real ideological break between the old colonial masters and the local elite that took their place. This brings us to the last point.

7. The image of Malays as lazy has persisted to the present day because it fits the political needs of the current power structure. It works like this:

Malays are lazy.
Because they are lazy, they are bound to lose in unrestricted competition with Chinese Malaysians.
Therefore, the Malays must elect a government that will protect them.

One could argue Malaysia's reliance on imported labor for all the most wretched jobs in the country is a hold-over from the colonial system too. The Myth of the Lazy Native came out after Tun Dr Mahathir's "The Malay Dilemma", which he scathingly critiques, but before Mahathir's rise to ultimate power. 40 years later, the myth of the lazy native is just as entrenched as ever, to the extent that it rarely needs to mentioned explicitly.

 

_____________________________

 

1. See Farish Noor's obituary for Syed Hussein Alatas.
2. In, I believe, Tarling's Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, it is mentioned that a key check to the power of the Sultan was that his people could simply sail away down the river or off to a different island if they were unhappy with his rule.

[Ahmad Abdul Rahim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Buku the Myth of the lazy native atau terjemahannya Mitos Peribumi Malas adalah sebuah buku kajian sosiologi karangan syed hussein al attas. Ia diterbitkan pada tahun 1977.

Terdapat beberapa sis yang aku boleh gunakan utk menceritakan buku ini iaitu sosiologi, sejarah dan juga akademi (ini adlaah pengkategorian secara arbitrari). Di setiap sisi tersebut, buku ini berjaya dgn cemerlang

Pada takah sosiologi, buku ini berjaya dgn memaparkan dengan cemerlangnya fenomena colonial capitalism. Kapitalisme kolonial tidak seperti fenomena kapitalisme di Barat. Kapitalisme kolonial menindas rakyat tempatan, menggalakkan monopoli, membantutkan ekonomi dgn cuba mengekalkan bentuk perusahaan agrikultur di negara2 jajahan. Ini berlainan di Barat. Walaupun industri revolusi di barat juga menyaksikan tahap kehidupan yg menyedihkan, tetapi proses kemajuan berlaku dimana sains dan teknologi di manfaatkan dan dikembangkan. Tidak pula di negara2 kolonial. Mereka dipaksa berada kekal sbg negara agrikultur tanpa berkembang kpd perusahaan industri dan perkilangan. Barang2 eksport mereka juga diterhadkan kepada barang2 mentah. Semua ini tidak menggalakkan pengenalan cara2 pengeluaran yg moden.

Kolonial kapitalism juga menghancurkan kelas pengusaha atau trading class. Melayu, jawa, dan org filipina dahulu terkenal sbg bangsa peniaga. Kemuncak ini adlaah pada abad ke15. Sejak kedatangan penjajah, khususnya Belanda, golongan usahawan ini telah dilabrak. Mereka hilang dari kewujudan. Belanda telah memonopoli perniagaan2. Mereka juga telah menjadikan raja2 dn org besar2 negeri jajahan mereka sbg sebahagain daripada struktur operasi mereka. Ini dicapai dgn beratus2 dn bermacam2 jenis perjanjian. Walhasil tiada perdagangan bebas. Ekonomi tersekat. Dgn lesapnya golongan usahwan, tiada lagi perintis bg kelahiran golongan pertengahan (middle class), suatu prasyarat penting bg mewujudkan pembangunan dlm mana2 masyarakat. Maka, gol yg kekal adalah gol2 bawahan spt nelayan, petani, kraftangan dll. Pendek kata, struktur masyarakat terubah.

Persekitaran Ciptaan kolonialis ini telah membunuh inisiatif dn motivasi rakyat tempatan. Rakyat2 di negara jajahan telaj melakukan protes bisu. Mereka enggan bekerja dalam perusahaan penjajah yg melayan mereka spt hamba. mereka tidak cuba utk mengumpul kekayaan kerana takut akan dirampas oleh gol penguasa2 iaitu penjajah. Justeru secara luaran, tampak seolah2 rakyat tempatan adlah pemalas. Kemudian kolonial atau penjajah telah menggunakan fenomena ini sebagai pretext untuk mereka menjajah negara2 ini. Inilah yg dinamakan Penulis sebagai principles of misplaced responsibility. Prinsip peralihan tanggungjawab secara salah. Tanggungjawab dan beban kesalahan sebahagian besarnya patut terletak pada penjajah2 ini, bukannya subjek jajahan mereka.

Inilah dia MITOS PERIBUMI MALAS.

Dari segi sejarah, buku ini begitu cemerlang di dalam memaparkan perubahan struktur masyarakat sekitar abad ke-16 hingga ke-19. Begitu banyak sejarah2 lama melayu, jawa dan filipina digali demi menunjukkan bahawa suatu perubahan yg artificial telah mengambil tempat. Ia tidak natural. Negara2 jajahan ini mempunyai potensi utk maju dgn inisiatif sendiri. Jepun telan membuktikan hal ini melalui pemulihan Meiji. Mereka telah maju, tanpa pernah dijajah oleh mana2 kuasa Barat pun.

Dari segi akademik, buku ini begitu ghairah di dalam berbahas ttg soal objektivit dn subjektiviti seseorang pengkaji itu. Menurut penulis, walaupun objektiviti mutlak adalah tidak mungkin, itu tidak bermaksud suatu konklusi yang tepat tidak mungkin dicapai. Manusia tidak mungkin objektif sepenuhnya di dalam renungan, tetapi itu tidak bermaksud renungan mereka itu purely subjective.

Hal ini penting difahami demi menunjukkan bahawa fenomena colonial capitalism adalah sesuatu yg tidak patut berlaku. Dan ia tidak boleh dirasionalkan semata2 atas sebab "kejahatan yg diperlukan" (necessary evil).

Arghh, tension aku sebab buku ini best gila.

Satu lagi part yg aku suka adalah topik penjualan candu, di mana penjajah merupakan monopoli dalam perusahaan ini. Semua ini demi mewujudkan kebergantungan oleh subjek jajahan kepada penjajah. Juga disebabkan oleh kebangkitan gol2 liberal dan human rights di negara penjajah yg mula menentang aktiviti penjajahan secara moral. Jd untuk shortcircuit argumen2 gol liberal, kerajaan (yg dikawal oleh penjajah) jual candu supaya rakyat akan tunduk patuh pada mereke secara sukarela.

[Syahiran Ramli · Rating 5 out of 5]

Doktrin Melayu malas, Melayu tidak menepati masa (janji Melayu), Melayu lemah, dan bermacam lagi sifat-sifat negatif yang ditabur bukanlah perkara yang baharu. Pandangan negatif kolonial Barat (British) terhadap masyarakat Melayu sememangnya meninggalkan kesan sehingga kini seolah-olah itulah sifat yang ada pada masyarakat Melayu (tidak ada pada bangsa yang lain).

Malah yang menyedihkan lagi bahawa orang bijak pandai, ilmuwan, pemimpin politik sendiri juga terpedaya dan percaya dengan pandangan kolonial tersebut. Bukan setakat membenarkan, pandangan kolonial ini ditanam dalam minda masyarakat, tidak ada pula kajian untuk tidak membenarkan tuduhan tersebut, dibawa pula dari turun temurun sehinggakan cucu cicit percaya bahawa nenek moyangnya lemah, malas, mungkir janji dan sebagainya.

Hal ini menyebabkan penulis Syed Hussein Alatas di dalam bukunya Mitos Peribumi Malas (terjemahan The Myth of The Lazy Native) mengkaji atas sebab munasabab mengapa pandangan skeptikal terhadap orang peribumi (Malaysia, Indonesia dan Filipina) sering kali berputar terhadap isu kemalasan yang tidak ada penghujung lagi merimaskan. Pandangan sebegini dikritik oleh penulis dengan menyatakan bahawa sifat malas ini bukan terletak pada sesuatu bangsa sahaja malah sifat tersebut akan ada pada semua individu tidak kira warna kulit, bangsa dan agama.

Tuduhan sifat malas yang dilemparkan oleh kolonial pada masyarakat Melayu satu ketika dahulu merupakan perkara yang tidak masuk akal dan kelakar. Masakan tidak, tuduhan malas berpunca daripada sikap masyarakat Melayu yang tidak mahu berkhidmat (bekerja) dengan kolonial dalam sektor perlombongan terus digelar pemalas. Tidak seperti imigran yang dibawa oleh kolonial, mereka patuh untuk bekerja dengan tuan barunya. Masyarakat Melayu lebih senang mengusahakan tanaman sendiri, memelihara ternakan, menjala ikan daripada menguntungkan pihak kolonial yang akhirnya dibawa ke negara asal kolonial. Bagaimana tuduhan malas ini boleh diterima sedangkan masyarakat Melayu bekerja setiap hari?

Jika benarlah apa yang dikatakan oleh kolonial terhadap kemalasan masyarakat Melayu berkhidmat di sektor perlombongan, mengapa di Kinta sendiri pada awal 1890-an terdapat 350 buah perlombongan milik orang Melayu? Jawapannya mudah, masyarakat Melayu tidak mahu menjadi kuli pada kolonial. Tuduhan sebegini sememangnya tidak asing bagi kolonial dalam kunjungan seorang wanita Inggeris di Malaya selama seminggu pada tahun 1879. Memetik dalam di dalam buku ini;

"...Kaum wanitanya bermalas-malasam di rumah, beberapa di antaranya membersihkan ikan, yang lain menumbuk padi, tetapi mereka tidak bekerja, dan wang yang diperlukan untuk membeli baju dapat dicari dengan menjual pengesat kaki atau buah-buahan hutan"

"Dapat kita tanyakan pada penulis tersebut, apakah yang diertikan dengan kerja di sini? Apakah membersihkan ikan dan menumbuk padi bukan kerja? Bekerja di sini bererti mencari nafkah di luar rumah. Apakah membuat pengesat kaki dan menjual buah-buahan bukan kerja? Jelas kiranya bahawa bekerja di sini bererti kegiatan yang diterapkan oleh kapitalisme penjajah. Dia menganggap mereka bekerja jika kaum wanita menjadi kuli atau pembantu milik ladang Inggeris atau pegawai di pejabat".

Daripada pandangan sebeginilah kita boleh tahu bahawa pandangan 'bekerja' yang dimaksudkan oleh kolonial hanyalah apabila bekerja di bawah mereka atau menjadi kuli ladang dan lombong. Jika tidak, bukan kerja namanya bagi pihak kolonial.

Penulis juga mengkritik buku Revolusi Mental terbitan UMNO (tidak diketahui penulis) dan Malay Dilemma tulisan Tun Mahathir yang menambah rumitkan lagi pandangan kemalasan masyarakat Melayu ini. Di dalam buku Revolusi Mental, tertulis bahawa masyarakat Melayu 'tidak mampu berdikari', 'inisiatif', 'ketepatan waktu' kerana dahulunya perkataan tersebut tidak ada di dalam kamus Bahasa Melayu. Sangat-sangat tidak munasabah alasannya. Penulis menyatakan dalam petikan berikut;

"Ini merupakan kenyataan yang menyolok kerana 'inisiatif' dan 'berdikari' ditunjukkan oleh kaum Melayu sepanjang sejarah. Pengharungan laut, kegiatan pertanian, pertempuran, perompakan, diplomasi, perdagangan, dan organisasi sosial, mungkinkah terjadi tanpa rasa kepercayaan diri dan inisiatif?"

"Kalau begitu, sebelum datangnya Islam, masyarakat Melayu tidak sama sekali, kerana tidak ada kata Melayu untuk 'fikir'. Kata Melayu 'fikir' sekarang ini berasal daripada bahasa Arab!"

Begitu berat tuduhan yang dilemparkan oleh kolonial yang sehingga hari ini sukar untuk dipadamkan. Tuduhan sebegini menyebabkan masyarakat Melayu dipandang rendah oleh orang lain sedangkan perkara sebegini tidaklah masuk dek akal jikalau kita menelusuri sejarah panjang satu ketika dahulu. Sebagai generasi baharu, menjadi tanggungjawab untuk memperbetulkan tuduhan sebegini bagi meletakkan kedudukan yang sebetulnya, bukan hanya mengiyakan semberono tanpa menyelidik.

[Nuruddin Azri · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sebuah lagi karya penuh berani oleh Syed Hussein Alatas. Idea utama yang dibawa oleh penulis ialah pembebasan cara fikir (mindset) orang Asia daripada cara fikir dan sistem yang ditanam oleh penjajah. Dengan kata yang lebih tepat, ia adalah sebuah dekolonialisasi melalui minda masyarakat. Perlu diketahui, dekolonialisasi berlaku pada kebanyakan negara dan mencakupi perbahasan yang luas.

Jadi, pada awal buku ini, penulis membawa pembaca menyoroti latar kehidupan masyarakat Melayu, Jawa, Filipina dan masyarakat Asia lain dari sudut kesusahan kehidupan mereka pascakolonialisme yang seolah-olah dicatur baik oleh pihak penjajah.

Hal ini bertambah parah apabila cara fikir mereka diubah dengan pelbagai dasar yang diperkenalkan oleh penjajah. Misalnya, bangsa Melayu yang pada asalnya (sebelum dijajah) tidak mempunyai sikap malas, didoktrinkan oleh pihak penjajah bahawa mereka mempunyai sikap malas apabila gagal menghasilkan keuntungan yang tinggi sedangkan pihak penjajah itu sendiri yang meletakkan bangsa Melayu ini di dalam kerja-kerja yang bertaraf bawahan.

Rona minda terjajah ini terpateri pada karya Revolusi Mental dan The Malay Dilemma apabila kandungan kedua-dua buku ini meneguhkan lagi keyakinan bahawa masyarakat Melayu tidak mampu menepati masa (sedangkan ia tidak diletakkan pada tempatnya yang betul) dan sesetengah peribahasa melayu yang melunturkan lagi semangat bangsa Melayu untuk bangkit mengubah nasib mereka.

Jadi, klausa peribumi Melayu itu pemalas ini hakikatnya merupakan satu mitos yang dicipta oleh pihak penjajah bagi memundurkan bangsa-bangsa Asia dalam keadaan separa sedar (unconsciously) dengan cara menjadikan kemahiran, ilmu dan keupayaan bangsa Asia pada skop yang terhad semata-mata.

Dalam masa yang sama, golongan penjajah seperti mereka diletakkan di taraf elit dalam hierarki masyarakat semasa era penjajahan. Dari sudut kesihatan, mereka mendapat perkhidmatan yang terbaik dan ini terbukti dengan sedikitnya nisbah penyakit malaria, tuberkulosis dan venereal disease (penyakit yang tersebar melalui alat sulit) yang menimpa mereka berbanding masyarakat peribumi yang lain.

Layanan ini bukan sahaja terpakai dari aspek kesihatan sahaja, bahkan ia berlaku dari segenap aspek kehidupan golongan mereka. Sebagai contoh, lihat sahaja jurang perbezaan yang berlaku terhadap sesetengah restoran elit, hotel-hotel mewah dan perumahan-perumahan kelas pertama yang wujud di Tanah Arab atau Tanah Melayu. Inilah kesan-kesan tinggalan yang menjadi tempat mereka menginap suatu ketika dahulu.

Solusi akhir yang ditawarkan penulis ialah membawa pembaca menjejaki semula akar ideologi kolonial kapitalisme yang menjalar dalam rata-rata masyarakat Asia. Golongan intelektual pula perlu berfungsi bagi membetulkan semula sisi negatif dan imej sebenar Melayu yang telah rosak ditarah oleh pihak penjajah.

Kelewatan golongan intelektual untuk berfungsi secara efektif dan menyuarakan hal ini bakal mengakibatkan luka yang lebih parah bagi masyarakat mereka. Hanya setelah ketibaan Eropah pada abad ke-16, barulah wujud komuniti intelektual yang berfungsi. Ia adalah agak lambat jika dibandingkan dengan kesedaran intelektual yang wujud lebih di awal di Itali (iaitu pada abad ke-15) dan di Greece.

[Azimah Othman · Rating 4 out of 5]

In between another read I picked up this book. While it it is not the easiest of read, I found it very compelling. There were many pauses to reflect and at times to reread a rendering . A lengthy introduction and an even more lengthy conclusion epitomise the care taken by the author in getting across his much scholastic approach to an important phenomenon arising from an epoch in the history of the Malay Archipelago. In retrospect, I thought I should have started this note from the start of the reading and build on it as I progressed.........

While there were some differences in the history of the people of the Archipelago, there are also many similarities especially during the days of colonialism. While the foreigners came and observed and formulated their opinion about the natives, the natives too had their opinion about themselves except that they were not directly expressed. Hence, ideas about the natives much of which survive till today were greatly based or influenced by what the foreigners said.

The book describes the various effects of conquest by the Portuguese, Dutch, English as well as the Spaniards in the case of the Phillippines with a little more elaboration on the Malays....after all studies on the Filipinos have already been made by Rizal way back. While the the colonials were successful in making slaves of the Filipinos and Javanese in their own countries, the Malays had succeeded in providing a wall of silent protest. Hence, indentured labours or slaves if you will, were brought in from China and India to work in the plantations and mines.

The issue of national character and concept of industry and indolence are extensively researched and carefully espoused. In comparison with earlier publications that touched on similar issues viz. Revolusi Mental (Mental Revolution 1968) and The Malay Dilemma (1970), they were both motivated by politics. The former is a product of 14 authors and the title was taken from a bock and term coined by the late Sukarno of Indonesia. The author opined that the latter is a little more intellectual it it's analysis though both are devoid of proper research. The former has many inaccuracies and devoid of intellectual depth which results in ridiculous conclusions, to say the least. In effect they were congruous with the impressions and opinions of the west and embraced western economic ideas en bloc.

I was much astonished by the discourse on the disappearance of the indigenous trading class 200 years after the coming of the Portuguese and Dutch. By the time the British came, none was around. What can you say about a people who for say, five or six generations have not seen open trade? During pre-colonial days, many of the rulers were tyrannical but they did not monopolize trade in the way the colonials did.......

[Tidak Selain Buku · Rating 5 out of 5]

Teruja melihat tajuk karya monumental Syed Hussein Alatas ini membuatkan saya menyahut cabaran rakan-rakan untuk membedah karya setebal hampir 300 muka surat ini. Perasaan yang bermain dalam fikiran saya sebelum membaca buku ini ialah rasa lemah bergelar seorang Melayu di bumi bersejarah yang sentiasa mekar dengan semangat perkauman.

Namun, membaca dan meneliti serta menanggapi karya agung tulisan sarjana terkemuka seperti Syed Hussein Alatas membuatkan seolah-olah saya terpujuk dan buku ini membuatkan seolah-olah saya sedang berdialog dengan sang penulis walau Syed Hussein sudah kembali ke rahmatullah sedari 8 tahun lalu pada usia beliau 78 tahun.

Saya akui sedikit terkilan kerana menangguhkan pembacaan ini sehingga tidak berkesempatan menemui sang oksidentalis ini dan bertanya lebih lanjut huraian yang dimaksudkan beliau. Kupasan ini sebenarnya lebih kepada pemahaman saya selaku pembaca kerdil karya magnum opus Syed Hussien yang setanding dengan karya mendiang Edward W. Said, sarjana Palestin iaitu “Orientalism”.

Lantaran ilmu yang terbatas untuk mentafsir setiap kosa kata akademik yang tinggi dalam makalah ini maka pemahaman saya juga dikira sangat terbatas. Penulisan yang mengambil masa yang panjang untuk disiapkan iaitu hampir 7 tahun akhirnya berjaya diterbitkan pada tahun 1977 dalam edisi bahasa Inggeris yang mengguna pakai tajuk “The Myth of the Lazy Native: A Study of the Image of the Malays, Filipinos and Javanese from the 16th to the 20th Century and Its Function in the Ideology of Colonial Capitalism”.

Karya ini sememangnya sebuah penulisan ilmiah dalam bidang sosiologi pada asalnya sebelum diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Indonesia oleh Ahmad Rofie pada tahun 1987 dan diubah suai ke bahasa Malaysia oleh DBP hasil suntingan Zainab Kassim 2 tahun selepas Ahmad Rofie.

Syed Hussien yang merupakan pengkaji wacana oksidentalisme iaitu memahami Barat dengan menguasai ilmu-ilmu mereka serta mencabar kesarjanaan sedia ada telah membuktikan perkara tersebut dengan makalah ini menerusi penulisan yang mengguna pakai pendekatan sosiologi pengetahuan untuk mengkaji citra kolonial dan fungsinya dalam penyebaran mitos yang telah dijadikan sistem anutan penulis-penulis Barat dalam menanggapi masyarakat peribumi terutamanya Melayu.

Terdapat juga pendapat yang bersetuju bahawa buku ini adalah satu ‘counter argument’ kepada buku karangan Stamford Raffles yang bertajuk ‘The Lazy Native’. Beralih kepada persoalan pokok tujuan buku ini, Syed Hussein menulis bahawa wujudnya keperluan suatu usaha untuk membetuli pandangan kolonial yang bias tentang masyarakat peribumi Asia yang merangkumi penduduk di Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand dan Filipina.

Syed Hussein juga berpendapat sudah tiba masanya suatu hasil penulisan yang cermat yang mengandungi hujah yang komprehensif bukannya bersifat dangkal untuk menanggalkan semua stereotaip yang dilempar ke atas kaum peribumi yang lemah ketika itu. Kelemahan ini telah diperluaskan lagi oleh ideologi kolonial untuk menutup moral dan peradaban yang dicapai sebelumnya. Sementelah juga untuk menjengah ke dalam aspek negatif kolonial yang terpalit jelas pada imej pemerintahan mereka semasa era penjajahan berlaku.

Dalam buku ini, penulis membina beberapa konsep sosiologi untuk mendefinisikan fenomena yang berlaku ketika itu. Mengungkap doktrin yang berkembang luas dalam kalangan peribumi, maka Syed Hussein telah membawa konsep ideologi kolonial. Konsep kolonial kapitalisme dibentuk untuk menjelaskan beza antara kapitalisme Barat dengan kapitalisme yang dibawa masuk oleh kolonialis yang telah membawa perubahan yang banyak sekali dalam struktur peribumi dari aspek monopoli dan dominasi ke atas penduduk peribumi.

Selain itu, konsep ‘captive mind’ atau minda tertawan juga diperkenalkan yang merujuk kepada sikap kaum elit Melayu pada masa tersebut yang terasimilasi dengan budaya dan cara pemikiran yang dibentuk Barat sehingga melupakan aspirasi kaum masyarakat serta konsep ‘malas’ yang diberi makna yang sederhana yang sesuai dengan maksud pandangan emik (native’s viewpoint) masyarakat tempatan.

Syed Hussein banyak sekali mengkritik perubahan negatif yang dibawa masuk oleh penjajah antaranya telah mengubah tata feudal kepada nada yang kurang sifat perkauman namun telah meninggikan status sosial kaum penjajah kulit putih yang mana telah membentuk satu penyusunan stratifikasi sosial atau kasta sosial dalam masyarakat yang harmoni sebelum daripada itu.

Ini bertentangan dengan kolonial yang berlaku di Eropah di mana kekuatan feudalisme rosak sama sekali dan menjadikan masyakat di sana lebih bersifat ‘laissez faire’ dalam sistem pemerintahan, ekonomi dan undang-undang. Hasilnya, sifat masyarakat Asia Tenggara yang relatif statik (ekonomi, pendidikan dll.) adalah akibat penjajahan Barat telah meratah sifat perbauran yang wujud sebelumnya hasil interaksi antara agama dan kebudayaan yang diterima orang Asia sebelum pada itu sehingga mewujudkan interaksi antarabangsa (Arab, Cina, India, Parsi dll.) di luar lingkungan hubungan kolonial.

Istilah malas atau dalam definisi oleh Jose Rizal iaitu little love for work and lack of activity yang menjadi topik utama dibahaskan dengan panjang lebar oleh penulis. Masyarakat Melayu yang digelar ‘fatalis’ iaitu berserah pada takdir tanpa mahu berusaha serta secara keliru telah mendakwa pemikiran atau unjuran Islam yang membentuk pemikiran ‘rezeki secupak tidak boleh segantang’.

Beliau merangkumkan bahawa malas yang didakwa ke atas masyarakat peribumi itu sebenarnya tidak sah untuk digeneralisasikan ke atas semua secara borong hingga mengundang rasa skeptis dan stereotaip yang menjadi penghalang hubungan harmoni antara kaum sehingga kini. Hakikatnya, malas yang dilemparkan ke atas masyarakat peribumi adalah kerana penolakan untuk bekerja sebagai buruh di ladang hingga Barat terpaksa mengimport imigran Cina dari Tanah Besar dan imigran India dari sana untuk menjadi buruh kasar Barat.

Tuduhan ini sama sekali tidak berasas dan puncanya juga kabur, adakah penolakan untuk bekerja di bawah penjajah kerana sudah terbiasa bekerja sendiri menjadi nelayan, petani, pemilik tanah yang meski sempit namun bebas dikira malas? Dan sikap serakah terhadap wang yang sama sekali tidak terdapat dalam kalangan peribumi juga dianggap pemalas? Sedangkan penolakan itu tujuannya ialah kerana tidak mahu diperalati untuk memperkayakan kolonialis di samping ketekunan atau kerajinan itu disamakan dengan keserakahan, maka peribumi perlu tunduk?

Syed Hussein mendapati amat sulit untuk menggelar peribumi sebagai malas disebabkan keengganan sama sekali bukan malas serta ditambah dengan faktor kedudukan dalam politik, ekonomi dan pentadbiran kolonial telah menghalang berlakunya mobiliti peribumi. Buku yang mempunyai 12 bab membincangkan satu persatu hujah-hujah kajian yang sama sekali tidak sesuai dengan analisisnya.

Pengkaji-pengkaji yang menulis sejarah serta citra masyarakat ketika itu bersikap etnosentrik iaitu pandangan yang melihat cara diri sendiri itu adalah betul dan baik daripada masyarakat atau kelompok sosial yang dikaji. Di samping pandangan yang tidak berdasarkan oleh kajian lapangan yang hanya mengutip nota-nota pelawat ke negara ini seperti yang ditulis oleh Karl Marx dan Engels dalam buku On Colonialism serta ditambah dengan kritikan terhadap agama Islam dan Al-Quran sebagai agama palsu tanpa beri penjelasan.

Kesemua ini telah membawa kepada berjayanya strerotaip yang negatif yang telah merosotkan cara pandang antara sesama masyarakat seperti; orang Melayu = malas; orang Cina = mudah disogok; orang India = penakut dan suka bercakap berbelit-belit. Konotasi negatif ini melingkari pengalaman seharian kita dan telah disosialisasikan dan diasosiasikan dalam masyarakat hingga timbul pelbagai masalah perkauman hasil dari konotasi negatif generalisasi ini.

Meskipun begitu, Syed Hussein tidak menolak ada unsur kebenaran di dalamnya namun tidak mewakili seluruh gambaran masyarakat hatta kebanyakannya adalah refleksi sikap golongan elit dan kolonialis itu sendiri. Kritikan Syed Hussein ini adalah menjurus kepada salah anggap penulis kolonial yang memahami bahawa kolonialisme merupakan alat perubahan masyarakat walhal tanpa menafikan manfaat yang dibawa, kolonialisme sebenarnya telah merintangi perubahan sosial kerana telah mempertahan unsur-unsur feudal dalam masyarakat tradisional kepada tata feudal yang sesuai dengan tujuan mereka terutamanya dalam hal-hal politik.

Dalam bab-bab terakhir buku ini, Syed Hussein mengkritik golongan kelas menengah yang menjadi pemimpin masyarakat ketika itu yang sama sekali menunjukkan sikap ‘captive mind’ apabila sewenangnya mengkritik dan menganalisis masyarakat dengan paradigma kapitalis kolonial apabila menyalahkan masyarakat Melayu yang mundur ketika itu sedangkan mereka sendiri melupakan tanggungjawab sebagai ‘kerajaan’ yang sepatutnya berusaha sehabis baik membantu masyarakat.

Buku ini seharusnya tidak menjadikan kita berpaling ke belakang dan mengidamkan semangat zaman dahulu muncul di depan mata, tetapi sebagai ilmu untuk meluaskan dataran horizon pemikiran agar dapat berusaha memperbaiki faham kita terhadap sejarah lama antara mitos dan fakta. Justeru, pandangan sejarah kita haruslah di transisi agar sejajar dengan ketamadunan lama lewat sekarang ini di mana sejarah dianggap sangat tawar oleh masyarakat kini.

Walhal tanpa memahami sejarah dan mengambil ibrah, kita tak akan sama sekali mampu untuk berubah.

Disediakan oleh: Aisyah Jaafar (Calon PhD - Sosiologi)

[Syed Zulfaqar]

Saya kira dalan pendahuluannya, Alattas mengemukakan satu aspek kesarjanaan yang amat penting. Kesarjanaan katanya tidak dapat lari dari pengaruh ideologi. Ideologi secara ringkas adalah satu sistem fikir untuk mengabsahkan aturan sesuatu benda (iaitu bagaimana seharusnya sistem-sistem masyarakat seperti pendidikan, sosial, ekonomi, dan politik diatur). Tetapi dia membezakan antara pengaruh positif dan negatif sesuatu ideologi. Penulisan dan bahan kesarjanaan zaman kolonial merupakan bukti kepada pengaruh negatif ideologi pada kesarjanaan. Alattas merujuk penjajahan dan ekonomi kapitalisme-kolonial sebagai ideologi paling berpengaruh pada zaman kolonial. Justeru, penjajah walaupun beretorik kebebasan, liberal dan demokrasi di negara mereka mudah sahaja memandang ringan aspek buruk penjajahan dan hanya mengetengahkan bunga-bungaan dan taman indah penjajahan. Misi mereka katanya adalah proses pentamaduanan masyarakat pribumi yang tidak rasional, buta ilmu dan malas. Ya, konsep pribumi malas hujah Alattas, merupakan mitos yang dicipta penjajah untuk mengabasahkan penjajahan dan eksploitasi dan polisi mereka di tanah jajahan. Inilah tesis utama buku ini.

Bagaimana pula ideologi dapat berperanan positif dalam kesarjanaan. Alattas tak begitu menjawab persoalan ini. Tetapi dia cuba merungkai bagaimana seharusnya sarjana berhadapan dengan ideology yang mungkin mempengaruhinya. Kata Alattas pertamanya seorang sarjana perlu sedar dan jika perlu berterus terang tentang upaya dan peranan ideologi dalam menentukan lanskap penulisan atau karyanya. Bilamana mereka sedar kata Alattas, ideologi takkan mempengaruhi teknik kajian dan hasil dapatan beliau. Tetapi katanya ia cuma akan menentukan apa yang paling penting iaitu persoalan apa yang ingin dia jawab dan ketengahkan. Ini sebaris dengan apa yang dikatakan Zinn bahawa “sejarawan mempunyai logam yang sama. Tetapi nilai mereka yang akan menentukan samaada mereka akan menempa cangkul atau pedang. Dan dalam proses menempa itu kedua-dua mereka tetap akan menggunakan alat dan teknik ukuran yang sama”. Kesimpulannya, pemilihan isu tidak dapat tidak adalah sesuatu yang (atau perlu) subjektif manakala kaedah pengkajian perlu sentiasa objektif. Alattas sendiri berterus terang tentang ideologinya “bahawa dia yakin keburukan dari penjajahan itu lebih utama dari kebaikannya” justeru menjawab pemilihan topiknya.

Akan tetapi hakikatnya, Alattas sebenarnya tidak menjawab bagaimana sesuatu ideologi itu boleh berperanan secara positif atau negatif. Bolehkah kita katakan bahawa ideologi Alattas itu positif dan ideologi penjajah itu negatif? Mungkinkah hanya pada perspektif Alattas ianya negatif manakala positif pula pada perspektif mereka? Inilah yang cuba dilakukan oleh Howard Zinn dalam merangka kaedah pensejarahan melalui adikaryanya The Politics of History. Zinn mengadvokasi “value-laden historiography” atau pensejarahan berteraskan nilai. Sesuatu ideologi itu justeru hanya boleh diukur kepositifan atau kenegatifannya dengan merujuk kepada satu set nilai. Kalau ianya mendokong nilai itu maka ia sedang berperanan positif. Kalau ianya bertentangan dengan nilai maka ia berperanan negatif. Tetapi siapakah yang dapat menetukan apakah set nilai yang perlu kita pakai? Di sinilah pemikiran Zinn didapati bermasalah dan mendapat kritikan keras. Zinn mengetengahkan nilai-nilainya sebagai antaranya: menghapuskan peperangan, kemiskinan, perkauman, dan halangan kepada kebebasan individu. Zinn justeru dituduh sebagai cenderung kepada ‘moral absolutism’. Ya benar, didalam dunia sekular tiada siapa yang punyai autoriti untuk katakan sesuatu nilai itu sebagai absolut atau mutlak (apa yang Zinn gelar sebagai ‘ultimate values’). Asas kepada kemutlakan moral tiada dalam citra sekularisme (adakah mungkin citra agama mampu melakukannya dengan mengasaskan nilai kepada Tuhan?). Akan tetapi, nilai-nilai yang diutarakan Zinn bukan tiada asasnya. Katanya, kalau matlamat ilmu sains sosial (termasuk sejarah) itu adalah untuk memberi khidmat kepada manusia, maka nilai yang memandunya perlulah juga mengarah kepada pengembangan kebahagiaan manusia. Manusia yang rasional bagaimanapun, tidak mungkin untuk tidak bersetuju dengan nilai-nilai yang Zinn gariskan. Jadi, hanya pensejarahan berteraskan nilai yang dapat mengukur pengaruh ideologi pada kesarjanaan seperti yang diutarakan Alattas. Hanya apabila nilai kita: bahawa penjajahan adalah salah dan tidak mampu untuk diabsahkan dapat kita katakan bahawa mereka yang cenderung dan cuba mengabsahkan penjajahan telah dipengaruhi oleh pengaruh negatif ideologi. Sebenarnya kesimpulan yang lebih tepat ialah tiada pengaruh baik atau buruk sesuatu ideology, yang ada cuma antara ideologi yang baik atau buruk. Sepertimana yang ada cuma antara nilai yang baik dan nilai yang buruk.

Dalam buku ini, Alattas cuba melakukan apa yang beliau katakan sebagai sosiologi ilmu pengetahuan (sociology of knowledge) terhadap mitos pribumi malas bagi menyelusuri susur galur kemunculan dan perkembangannya. Kajian sosiologi tentang mitos ini dijalankan pada masyarakat pribumi Malaya, Filipina dan Jawa dengan meneliti karya-karya kolonial pada zaman penjajahan. Beliau juga cuba menangkis imej yang diberi kolonial ini dengan meneliti realiti sosiologi pribumi di tanah watan mereka. Di Malaya, mitos ini muncul akibat daripada keengganan masyarakat Melayu untuk menerima upah bekerja di ladang-ladang tanaman komersial penjajah. Keengganan mereka inilah yang disifatkan penjajah sebagai malas. Bagi penjajah, kerja di lading-ladang mereka adalah simbol pekerjaan yang tetap, usaha keras dan pembangunan ekonomi semasa. Hakikatnya, layanan buruk terhadap buruh, kemampuan memilih pekerjaan yang lebih baik, kepuasan harta pada sekadar memenuhi keperluan dan faedah ekonomi yang dilihat hanya menguntungkan penjajah yang menyebabkan masyarakat pribumi Melayu enggan bekerja sebagai buruh penjajah. Di Filipina, penulis-penulis kolonial kebanyakannya terdiri daripada golongan paderi. Persaingan antara paderi tempatan dan paderi Sepanyol keatas kekuasan sesuatu parish mendorong kepada peng-imejan buruk kepada pribumi Filipina. Mereka digambarkan sebagai inferior dan tidak mampu menandingi paderi Sepanyol. Hal ini bukan kerana kesolehan paderi Sepanyol itupun, cuma penguasaan daripada paderi Sepanyol juga bererti kelangsungan penguasaan Sepanyol kepada Filipina. Paderi ini merupakan agen terbaik untuk memantau kegiatan di tanah jajajahan bagi pihak kolonial. Di Jawa pula, mitos pribumi malas lahir daripada konflik antara ahli parlimen Belanda dalam melulusakan usul buruh paksa di Jawa. Dalam perdebatan itu ahli parlimen pro-buruhpaksa menyenaraikan hujah-hujah mereka. Salah satunya, kata mereka, orang-orang Jawa ini memang sifatnya malas, dan tidak mahu bekerja melainkan dipaksa. Kegawatan ekonomi yang melanda Belanda ketika itu mendorong polisi ini diluluskan. Pribumi justeru bukanlah malas seperti yang digambarkan. Mereka dituduh malas kerana enggan bekerja didalam sistem ekonomi yang hanya menguntungkan penjajah. Mereka dituduh malas kerana mereka hanya cuba bak kata Chomsky merujuk kepada revolusi di Cuba, ‘to take matters into their own hands’.

Salah satu kebijakan Alattas bagi saya adalah apabila beliau dapat melukis persamaan antara ideologi kolonial dan kelas pemerintah melayu pasca-merdeka. Kata Alattas, kelas pemerintah melayu tidak dapat melepaskan diri dari belenggu pemikiran kolonial kerana mereka memperoleh kemerdekaan tanpa perjuangan sepertimana di Indonesia dan Filipina justeru tiada juga perjuangan yang dilakukan untuk membebaskan pemikiran mereka. Hal ini jelas dilihat dalam karya Revolusi Mental terbitan UMNO dan Dilema Melayu karya Dr Mahathir. Mereka menyenaraikan dan mengkritik sikap-sikap Melayu yang kebanyakkanya didapati daripada isu-isu terpencil yang kemudian digeneralisasikan. Kata mereka Melayu tidak akan maju jika sikap seperti menepati masa, tidak mahu bersaing dan malas masih menghinggapi mereka. Bagaimanapun, jika diteliti ada dua faktor yang mungkin menyebabkan Melayu mundur, sikap mereka ataupun kegagalan sistem yang ada. Nampaknya, golongan aristokrat ini cuma menumpukan kepada aspek pertama tanpa menyentuh keberangkalian kepada aspek kedua. Langsung tidak disentuh keberkesanan perlaksanaan polisi-polisi yang dijalankan oleh kelas pemerintah. Jadi apabila Melayu mundur, Melayu itu yang salah bukan sistem yang ada. Sistem langsung tidak ada dalam perbincangan mereka. Hakikatnya, masyarakat Melayu melihat semakin banyak kekayaan yang dikumpul oleh pribumi kelas pemerintah serta tauke-tauke yang rapat dengan mereka. Bagaimana Melayu kelas atas boleh jadi lebih kaya, adakah mereka lebih rajin daripada Melayu kelas bawah? Alattas menegaskan bahawa hakikatnya didalam sejarah, imej malas ini hanya layak diletakkan kepada pribumi kelas pemerintah. Merekalah yang bersenang-lenang sedang rakyat membanting tulang mengusahakan perusahaan untuk mereka.

Buku ini saya fikir penting dan wajar dijadikan bahan bacaan wajib di sekolah. Buku ini mampu mengupayakan masyarakat yang semakin hari melihat masa depan semakin kelam buat mereka. Jika, golongan pemerintah Melayu ikhlas untuk mengupayakan bangsanya, mereka patut jujur pada kelemahan-kelemahan mereka. Buku ini adalah satu permulaan baik buat kita menebus kembali harga diri bangsa!

[Iza B. Aziz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kenapa agaknya gelaran malas dan Melayu seperti tidak boleh dipisahkan? Tanggapan tersebut hadir dari mana dan dari siapa? Jika Melayu, Jawa dan orang Filipina itu benar umumnya malas, mungkin mereka sudah lenyap di muka bumi.

Penguasa kolonial adalah jawapan kepada stereotaip ini. Tuduhan malas yang tidak berasas ini digunakan atas alasan penolakan kaum peribumi untuk melakukan kerja-kerja ekonomi kolonial. Malas juga digunakan sebagai "menghina" gaya hidup dan cara kerja yang berlawanan dari bentuk kolonial-kapitalis Barat.

Malah, Prof. Syed Hussein Alatas membongkar sistem tidak berperikemanusiaan terhadap pekerja imigran Cina dan India di Tanah Melayu. Pemerasan dari candu, arak dan hutang dimanipulasi secukup-cukupnya. Lebih menakutkan kesan perlakuan pemerasan ini diubah suai menjadi keuntungan besar kepada pemerintahan kolonial!
_____________________
Kita sering mendengar dengan kata "Melayu malas atau Melayu mudah lupa" bukan? Bab 11 merupakan kritikan terbaik untuk buku Revolusi Mental dan The Malay Dilemma yang ditulis oleh Tun Mahathir Mohamad. Tidak mengejutkan buku-buku ini ditulis untuk penyebaran gagasan kapitalis dan bersudutkan falsafah kaum elit semata-mata.

Mitos Peribumi Malas turut memaparkan penyakit etnosentrik beberapa ilmuwan dan penganalisis Barat. Pesanan Prof. yang paling berbekas pada saya ialah sebarang bahan ilmiah yang dipengaruhi ideologi tertentu tidak boleh dianggap sebagai ilmu pengetahuan yang mutlak. Ia boleh menyimpang, tidak kritis dan diwajarkan untuk mencapai matlamat tertentu.
_____________________
Jika kita mendengar kutukan malas, layu dan mudah lupa. Jangan mudah berang, kerana sedarilah mereka yang bercakap itu terbuai dengan kesedapan kuasa dan pengaruh bobrok Imperialisme.

Malas itu bukan identiti kita. Malas itu hanya karut dari hantu putih dan kamcheng mereka. Teguhkan usaha, mandiri dan sentiasa ingat kerajinan jua dituntut oleh agama. Semoga ramai lagi dapat membaca Mitos Peribumi Malas.
_____________________

[Grace · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 rounded up

Picked this one up at a local bookstore in Malaysia, and it was a dense read! Quite academic, and very well-researched, if occasionally a little repetitive and overly-long. It was eye-opening to see the ways that the myth of the "lazy native", particularly in Southeast Asia, were viewpoints by and because of colonial capitalism and the way those capitalist colonizers view the world. A little dry, but worth the read.

[elly · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The refusal of a slave to work with enthusiasm is natural. But the desire of a man to let others do his work for him by force is true indolence." ⁣
⁣
#bookreview 📖: ‘The Myth Of The Lazy Native’ by Syed Hussein Alatas 🙇🏽‍♀️ Wow, I cannot believe it took me this long to read this book. As mentioned by @nonfirqtion in her recent post, it truly urged me to be reflective of my own learning and how it is definitely never simply about “being woke”. There is real work to be done. So much work - to challenge the injustices propelled by toxic systems and ideologies. In a world that is ever-changing and increasingly volatile, every individual “wokeness” has to lead to actionable moments that can close the gap between “those who have” and the rest who do not. ⁣
⁣
“A life of leisure and little physical effort was reserved for the ruling class, both among the natives and the colonial rulers.”⁣
⁣
🙇🏽‍♀️ Emphasising on the necessity of tracing the image of “the lazy native” to its ideological roots and circumstances surrounding them, Alatas critically brings forth the realities of the unending bias held by colonial powers, over their native people. Class divides among the natives were also discussed in depth by the author thus examining the phenomenon of internalised inferiority complex within the Malay elites (by referencing to the ‘Revolusi Mental’ manifesto by UMNO, largely). ⁣
⁣
Reading this book was not an easy feat. I found myself questioning a hell lot of my preconceptions of being Malay in Singapore, and beyond. And to find my doubts clarified, and my anxieties acknowledged, was definitely humbling.⁣

“If we generalize about the character of a community on the basis of the action of a few individuals, then we are in for real confusion. Malays are prone to steal because some steal; Malays are lazy because some are… Cultural and psychological factors may explain it although the cultural factors may not have a direct influence. But this has nothing to do with the collective character of a community.” ⁣
⁣
🙇🏽‍♀️ It is always dangerous to generalise negative assumptions, and worse, spread it like wildfire. Many of us are unfamiliar with the social sciences, and the rigour these academic fields require to prove a certain hypothesis to be true. At best, we work with our prior knowledge, which often include preconceived biases made from sweeping generalisations after one or two observations. This is why it is crucial for us to question the motivational source to (continuously) paint the Malay community in many negative colours, so that we can come to question if the party (or parties) in power fails to realise its objectives in upholding true equality and justice.⁣

[Niena Aniesza · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kisah-kisah peribumi malas, yang dicatatkan oleh penjajah dalam buku-buku mereka bagi tujuan memberitahu bahawa pentingnya penjajahan ke atas Tanah Melayu dilakukan, dan bagaimana dengan penjajahan tersebut, penjajah berjaya membawa masuk kemajuan ke atas Tanah Melayu. Hal ini tidak benar kerana orang Melayu ketika itu telah pun menjadi petani dan pedagang, bahkan Bahasa Melayu telah pun menjadi lingua franca ketika itu.

Sesiapa pun sukar untuk bekerja keras, apabila setelah berpenat lelah, segala hasil usaha mereka dirampas oleh orang asing. Keengganan masyarakat peribumi untuk bekerja dengan puak kapitalis, disebut sebagai malas oleh bangsa Eropah.

Peribumi malas adalah suatu mitos, bahkan Islam tidak menyukai umatnya menjadi malas. Orang yang dapat mematahkan kemalasan yang ada dalam dirinya adalah orang yang berani.

[S.M.Y Kayseri · Rating 4 out of 5]

This might be one of the rare polemical books that I have read, and truly enjoyed. I generally categorised books into 2 broad categories; polemical and encyclopaedic. Polemical books sets out to answer a question, while encyclopaedic sets out to define an idea. Polemical books in general are a posteriori ruminations, as it is one voice against another voice, while encyclopaedic books, as a rule appeals on a priori concepts. So, Kant instead of Sartre and Goethe instead of Camus. As everybody have limited time in reading and in life, I certainly think that I have no enough time to read the former which merely an answer to another answer, and thus ad infinitum.

But this book is the exception, as the author clearly puts out a provocative title, but the thrust of the argument transcend way above from being merely polemical, but an earnest effort to delineate an idea.

An idea on how the entire perception to a race of a group of people can easily be created and perpetuated.

Malaysia is a multiracial country, and it has been so even prior the coming of the Europeans. Its location strategic, its ports open and its armies mighty, this important fact has been forgotten, even among the Malays themselves. The Malay language, which once the lingua franca of the region spoken by many races, now reduced to be only employed when one about to utter a joke. And when one in the right circle, one can see that they can converse among each other in perfect English, but when the time comes to utter one word, that word is uttered in Malay.

Malas.

Perhaps this is just a coincidence, but then you have the ”hangat-hangat tahi ayam et cetera, suddenly spoken in its mother language when the conversation moved to a specific theme; a theme of indolence.

And so, alAtas in this major work, which perhaps can rightly be called as his magnum opus, explored the idea of association between indolence and the indigenous people of the Archipelago.

The thesis put forth by alAtas is clear and simple; the narrative of the natives as indolent and lazy are initiated by the colonialists when the natives refused to be part of the apathetical machine of capitalism. The myth later is perpetuated by the ruling elites of the Malay themselves, part of the captive mind as described by alAtas, to justify on their shortcomings as the ruling parties.

At a fundamental level, it is absurd to agree with the brute idea of the Malays as completely lazy person, for their families have to survive somehow, and thus the Malays definitely have to put up some work for sustenance. Then, the Malays are blamed for not being industrious enough, felt satisfied merely for working 2 months in the year in the paddy field at a sustenance level. But then, as alAtas put forth in his analysis, the total working hours of a Malay paddy farmer is almost the same with a civil servant in the early 1900’s. But definitely the working hours of the farmer is not as luxurious as the civil servant who can spent more time loafing in or out from the office. AlAtas provided a powerful picture of a Malay tukang arang who piled on his shadows two great sacks of coal, spent almost an hour or two walking to the town and to find buyers. By the time buyers were found, it is almost evening and the tukang arang rightly deserves some rest. But then, his colonial masters stumbled upon his rest, smoking cigarettes and drinking tree, and called the man lazy. How is it physically possible for the tukang arang to sell more than 2 sacks of coal in a day? Thus, the problem did not lie in the type of industry the Malay worked in, and the reason why there’s such paucity of Malay merchants would be elaborated in the latter part of this essay, but in what his white masters demanded of him.

The industry the Malays worked in; the paddy field, the rubber-tapping and the mat-marking were certainly not lucrative in the eyes of their masters, and most importantly where not the type of industry the white masters wanted them to be. Colonialism thrived upon capitalism, but capitalism demanded the minimizing of costs at any costs, while at the same time maximizing the profit. Why should the Malay have anything to do with an industry they certainly cannot benefit anything from; much more back-breaking and less lucrative for them and for their country?

The masters were quick to praise the Chinese and the Indians not merely for their industriousness, but for their readiness to be part of their inhumane capitalistic programs. Immigrants from China and India were collected through devious schemes, once heavily shackled in debt, they were forced to work in the cash crops fields and the mines. A third of their annual pay were spent for their involuntary fare to Malaya, and the rest of the paltry pay were ravenously taken by their other creditors. Opium trade was sanctioned with a specific target to the Chinese vulnerable populations, and it was the toddy to the Indians. The immigrants were thrown into shacks of horrendous condition. It was not unknown that the heads of the slum sodomises the practically debt-slaves. For all the work and sacrifices, the immigrants were called as the “mule of nations” by the colonialists.

The image of the indolent natives are perpetuated by the colonialists due to the natives’ refusal to be subjected to the abhorrent working condition. There are no sparse report on how well the Malays fared in civil services or driving, which attested by some to be better than most Europeans at much less the cost.

There are also some murmurings regarding the laziness of the Malays due to their virtually non-existent participations in commerce. But anybody is very quick to forget on how the Malays are expert traders and seaman, who by the 14th century has travelled as far as the Madagascar in the west and to China in the east. It was the conquest by the Europeans who virtually wiped out the Malay middle class by monopolizing the trade, by forcing all produced to be sold at the colonial office at a fixed price.

In conclusion, the myth that the natives of Archipelago is indolent is a devious social construct derived from colonial point of view with healthy spattering of western dominance. Alatas used the concept captive mind to refer to a set of intellectuals that conform to the ideology of its suppressor without critically analyzing them for whatever motive. For the ruling party, either the red one or the turqoise one, this narrative is expedient for them to shift the blame to the Malays and their inherent tropic indolence. For the colonialists, this narrative served as the justification for their civilising vampirism onto the motherland, for the native is too indolent like a newborn calf with jelly appendages. For the multiracial society in the Archipelago, this serves as a fuel for standup comedies and in-between coffee sips between nepotistic businessmen. We talk of the white guilt but we haven’t talk enough of the Malay guilt upon themselves, held thrall and captive by the images conjured by their captors. It is indeed a case of Stockholm syndrome.

[Qian Ling · Rating 4 out of 5]

在马来西亚，关于族群的刻板印象从来不陌生：马来人被说懒惰，华人被指狡猾，印度人则常被贴上犯罪的标签。那么，马来人、爪哇人和菲律宾人“懒惰”的形象究竟是从何而来？他们是否真的因为地理条件优渥，不需拼命劳作就能生存，从而养成了所谓的“民族性懒惰”？

马来学者 Syed Hussein Alatas 在 1970 年代的著作《懒惰土著的迷思》里，给出了有力的解答。

他指出，“懒惰土著”的说法并非事实，而是殖民主义的产物。殖民资本主义为了合理化自身的统治与经济需求，建构了这种负面形象。实际上，当地人并非不愿意劳动，他们长期以来从事稻作和渔业，付出的体力丝毫不比种植园工作少。他们拒绝的，只是殖民者强加的八小时制的种植园劳动体系。在某种意义上，这是一种消极抵抗。

由于土著不愿进入种植园体系，殖民者才大规模引进华人和印度契约劳工，形成了今日东南亚多元族群社会的基础。

阿拉塔斯也批判了马来政治精英的话语，比如《精神革命》与马哈迪的《马来人的困境》，认为这些书籍延续了殖民者的意识形态，并为新经济政策背书。换句话说，“懒惰”的标签从殖民时期起就被制度化、政治化。

但是，把所有责任都推诿给殖民者，是否又过于简化了问题？殖民叙事固然塑造了“懒惰”的形象，但一个群体在长期的社会、政治与经济环境中，也可能逐渐内化这些外部评价。当这种叙事被不断重复，并在政策中被合理化，它就会在现实生活里发挥真实的影响。于是，一部分马来人可能真的在潜移默化中接受了“特殊待遇理所当然”的逻辑，反而被困在殖民者留下的框架中。

读完这本书，我最大的感触是：标签不是天生的，而是历史与权力塑造的。但我们也要思考，除了揭穿殖民神话，还能否推动群体自身的主体性，让他们摆脱这种被赋予的叙事？理解这一点，或许才是我们重新思考族群关系与社会结构的真正起点。

[Mafuzah · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author added Jose Rizal's statement on the accusation of Malay indolence.

"The very Europeans who accuse the peoples of the colonies of indolence (and I am no longer referring to the Spaniards but also to the Germans and Englishmen), how do they live in the tropical countries? Surrounded by many servants, never walking but riding, needing servants not only to remove their shoes but event to fan them! And nevertheless they live and eat better, work for themselves and to enrich themselves, with the hope of a future, free, respected, while the poor colonial, and the indolent colonial, is poorly nourished and lives without hope, toils for others, and is forced and compelled to work! What? The white men will reply perhaps that they are not made to suffer the rigors of the tropical climate. A mistake! Man can live under any climate if he will only adapt himself to its requirements and conditions. What kills the European in the warm countries is the abuse of alcohol, the desire to live as in his own country under another sky and another sun. We the inhabitants of tropical countries, live well in northern Europe whenever we take the same precautions as the people there do. The Europeans can also live well in the torrid zone if they would only get rid of their prejudices."

[Izzat Isa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tulisan terbaik daripada seorang sarjana tempatan. Buku ini bermula dengan memetik pandangan sarjana, pengembara, pegawai, agamawan dari Barat yang melihat 'rupa bentuk dan fikiran' bangsa di kepulauan Nusantara sejak bermula era kolonialisme di rantau ini. Pengarang memfokuskan kepada bangsa Melayu, Jawa dan Filipina. Kajian ini menjurus pembentukan pandangan terhadap bumiputera tersebut yang dikatakan malas daripada sudut kacamata dan Barat dan penulis melawan hujahan tersebut menggunakan dapatan daripada kajiannya. Buku ini juga menganalisis pemikiran tersebut yang turut dijelmakan selepas Perang Dunia Kedua, khususnya di Malaysia selepas merdeka dengan membincangkan tulisan Revolusi Mental oleh UMNO dan Dilema Melayu oleh Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.
Walaupun buku ini diterbitkan pada tahun 1977, ia masih releven sehingga sekarang dalam memerihalkan pemikiran bangsa Melayu.

[Elsa Sucipto · Rating 5 out of 5]

this was the longest read I managed this year, taking me nearly 8 months to finish. mostly because the content itself is heavy, but partly because of a reading slump. it is mentally exhausting to confront how deeply colonial systems justified their exploitation with myths that still reverberate today

Alatas’s main intervention is his sharp distinction between modern capitalism and colonial capitalism. the latter thrived by extracting, monopolizing, and then blaming the very people it dispossessed. the Spanish in the Philippines, the British in Malaya, and the Dutch in Indonesia all reached for the same trope: the native as indolent, deceitful, and unproductive. what they were really describing was actually a refusal. people who did not want to work in exploitative conditions ON THEIR OWN LAND were cast as indolent

the cruelty of this narrative was compounded by its documentation. colonial officials, travelers, and scholars wrote accounts that glorified Occidental “progress” while erasing thriving Oriental systems. harbors were deliberately destroyed, international trade networks like those of the Malay, Pasai, and Bugis were cut off, and the native were pushed into survival mode under colonial capitalism

Alatas is particularly damning of the so-called scholarship that painted “national character” from the flimsiest and irresponsible observations done by outsiders, turned into definitive statements on an entire nation's characters. regretfully, this very method was also employed in the post-independence setting where elites reproduced colonial methods in governing their own nations just as Malaysians did in their national character propaganda

what makes this book essential is its demand for responsibility. Alatas reminds us that unless contemporary scholars examine and dismantle these inherited myths, we risk repeating the same failures. the work of rewriting history is needed to understand how exploitation was justified and how those narratives still shape policies and prejudices today

finishing this book more like carrying a weigh because once you see how these myths were built, you begin to notice them everywhere

[Shafiq Razak Rajan · Rating 5 out of 5]

People knew more about Dr. Mahathir Mohamad's The Malay Dilemma than Prof Syed Hussein Alatas's The Myth of the Lazy Native. Perhaps, if the late professor was a more successful politician (he founded Gerakan), than this book might have been better known. But it is Mahathir's party who won the elections. It is also Mahathir's conception of the Bumiputeras that won the ideological imagination of Malaysians. In the end, the image of the Malays as being lazy, dependent, inferior and stupid persists in the minds of Malaysians. To date, this is UMNO's most powerful ISA (Ideological State Apparatus) that legitimizes the current power structure, which is inherited from their British colonial masters.

Prof Alatas's thesis is simple: the alleged laziness of the native population in Malaysia, Indonesia and Philippines is nothing more than a colonial distortion of reality. The natives are not lazy. It is the image of them being lazy that was being hyped up by colonial scholars, travelers, administrators and other people who have vested interest in the colonial system. This, in turn, justifies the colonization of a supposedly 'backward' people in need of help.

An interesting argument from Prof Alatas is that the native population seemed 'indolent' simply because they are unwilling to participate as dehumanized coolies within the machinery of colonial capitalism. The natives have their land to toil, and rivers to fish. They do not see the need to work for other masters when they can be masters of their own. For their colonial masters, this is a sign of indolence. Whereas, their unwillingness to work in mines and estates is simply a sensible choice. However, from the viewpoint of economic rationality, this seemed absurd. Hence, that is the reason why wanting to live on one's own terms means being lazy and stupid in the context of colonial capitalism.

In countries where the natives do partake in colonial capitalism (such as Indonesia and Philippine), they are subjugated to forced labor. Their lands are forcibly taken, and they have to work to pay off whatever debt that is being imposed upon them. Thus, their supposed laziness is simply a mode of resistance. Why do you need to work hard if you would not enjoy the fruits of your labor? However, those who contribute to colonial literature tend to regard their 'indolence' as a sin against 'rightful' subjugation.

Colonial scholars also attribute the backwardness of the natives due to the absence of an industrious merchant class. This is certainly not true. Before the colonization of the Malay archipelago, trade centers such as Malacca, Makassar and Maluku were busy seaports attracting traders from all over the Old World. They were administrated by able sultans, and managed by local traders who are experts in their trade. However, the Dutch and the Portuguese came to dominate the trading scene in the archipelago through deceit and violence. Eventually, the local mercantile class disappeared. The ruling class collaborate with the colonizers. And the whole colonized race went into decline as a direct result of European colonization. Thus, they were not conquering uncivilized people, rather they are conquering civilized people who degenerated into being 'uncivilized' (or being perceived as one) through colonial oppression and manipulation.

After independence, the ruling class in Malaysia, which inherited the ideological framework set up by the British, maintains the negative image of the Malays as being backward people. This is to blame the failures of post-independence government policies to the supposed weakness of the Malays themselves. Also, by keeping alive this image, they are able to subjugate the populace into believing that the Malay masses are dependent on their feudal overlords to survive from being 'oppressed' by other races, such as the Chinese. To maintain their legitimacy, the Malaysian ruling class portray themselves as fighters for independence, when in fact, they are simply continuing the unfinished job left behind by the British.

It's kind of sad that it is easier for me to attain a hard copy of this book in a foreign country, and not in Malaysian public libraries. I sincerely wish every young Malaysian who are concerned with how things are to read this book. Beneath every supposed 'common sense' assumptions, like the weakness of the Malays, there are ideological roots that can be unearthed. This book should served as an impetus for young Malaysians to always, always question on why things remain as they are, and what can be done to change that?

[Akmal A. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Buku ini menerangkan kajian ilmiah oleh Syed Hussein Alatas yang menafikan pendapat Mahathir dalam 'Dilema Melayu' tentang sifat bangsa peribumi terutamanya Melayu dikatakan malas, berbanding bangsa-bangsa lain. Mahathir menyatakan bahawa sifat malas merupakan salah satu sifat dalam genetik Melayu yang diwarisi daripada nenek moyang, padahal sifat malas itu hanyalah berlaku dalam golongan elit Melayu. Syed Hussein memberikan hujah yang ringkas, apakah yang dimaksudkan malas jika seorang petani melayu yang bekerja di bendang sejak dari subuh hingga ke petang, seorang nelayan yang pergi ke laut sebelum terbit matahari semata-mata untuk meneruskan kelansungan hidup? Syed Hussein menerangkan dengan lebih lanjut pada bab-bab awal, bagaimana kejadian atau tuduhan bahawa golongan peribumi (Filipina, Jawa, Melayu) dianggap malas oleh golongan kolonial dan kesan-kesan kolonial dan imperialisme terhadap negera di Asia Tenggara. Sifat-sifat negatif yang banyak ditujukan khususnya kepada golongan peribumi oleh penjajah sebenarnya adalah bertujuan untuk menghalalkan perbuatan penjajahan.

Apa yang menarik perhatian saya, dalam karya ini, ianya memberi idea yang baru serta membuka fikiran saya tentang bagaimana hebatnya dunia di Asia Tenggara pada zaman dahulu yang mana rakyatnya rata-rata merupakan para pedagang yang hebat yang mempunyai kestabilan politik yang tinggi serta teknologi kapal yang canggih kerana terdapat bukti terdapat para pedagang Melayu/Jawa yang berlayar ke benua Eropah untuk melakukan perdagangan. Namun timbul satu persoalan baru, jika pada waktu itu pedagang di Asia Tenggara merupakan antara pedagang yang termasyhur dan disegani pedagang lain, mereka pastinya memiliki sistem transpotasi yang canggih, misal kata Kapal Layar yang canggih untuk membawa hasil bumi di Asia Tenggara untuk tujuan perniagaan. Kapal yang canggih pasti dibina oleh jurutera yang hebat pada masa itu. Barangkali di Asia Tenggara juga ada golongan-golongan pencipta pada masa itu yang hilang dalam sejarah. Persoalannya adakah terdapat catatan sejarah tentang perkembangan ilmu sains dan teknologi pada masa itu?

[Asy_syahrun · Rating 2 out of 5]

pernah baca buku ini sekilas di sebuah rumah di pedalaman payakumbuh. buku ini mencoba mengupas konstruksi citra pribumi malas yang disematkan oleh kolonial. buku yang sangat menarik, namun tampaknya susah untuk dicari kembali di pasaran. mungkin ada teman yg bisa membantu...??

[Titis Tiarni · Rating 5 out of 5]

saya ingin membaca buku ini, saya ada tugas perkuliahan

[Fadillah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Neither culturally nor religiously has laziness (malas) been approved by the Malays. We shall discuss this later. Anyone having firsthand knowledge of Malay fishermen and padi planters will realise how absurd the contention is. The Europeans who observed the Malays in the port towns had no idea of what was happening in the interior, of the padi planters who started work at dawn and returned home at dusk, of the fishermen who sailed at night and attended to his boat and net in the day time; or of the gotong royong (mutual help) labour in the village. Raffles knew only the Malays in the port towns. That the Malays he knew did not show the aggressive capitalist spirit is, however, a different story. There was then no Malay middle class whose livelihood depended on commerce. The bulk of the Malays were fishermen and padi planters. In the Europe of his time, commerce and empire building were the most esteemed activity by both aristocrats and capitalists whose spirit infused the East India Company. Hence a group which was not equally moved by this spirit was considered to be lazy. Industriousness was equated with acquisitiveness.
- The Study of National Character : The Myth of Lazy Natives by Syed Hussein Alatas.
.
It’s been a long time coming and I am glad I read The Indolence of the Filipino first before i finally read this book. This is because there are about 1 specific chapter where the author examined and compare the state of the indolence of the Filipino and how it differed with the Malay and Javanese Natives. To cut short, the book critically examines the colonial construction of Malay, Filipino, and Javanese natives from the 16th to the 20th century. Al-atas analysed and discussed the origins and functions of the myth of the lazy native in the creation and reinforcement of colonial ideology and capitalism. Colonial Capitalism was being repeated throughout the whole book to reiterate why the myth of the lazy native was perpetuated by colonial powers. The fact that the Malays and Javanese was so chill (chill here means we are not implicating ourselves in the rat-race) by living their lives and if they are having enough to eat for a day does not sit well with their greediness. Therefore, you can see several arguments presented by Al-atas the extension on they are justifying their control and economic exploitation of the native populations. The book also highlights the racial undertones of colonial capitalism by comparing how natives behaves / work versus how immigrant that came to toil for the colonisers – describing the Malays, Javanese, and Filipinos as indolent yet while forgetting how they used Opium to control the immigrant labours and further put them in entrapment of debt bondage. The book is not easy to read but it was so enlightening that I wish my fellow Malays, Javanese and Filipinos would have pick this up and read. Al-atas argued how the myth of laziness was used to degrade and subjugate the native populations affecting their self-esteem and identity. The fact that it is proven to have the damaging psychological effects of colonial stereotypes on native populations and had far-reaching consequences which perpetuating inequality and hindering the development of the native populations. I am not going to lie that I did get angry few times reading this book. It was infuriating to read the stereotypes and myths surrounding the laziness of the Malays, Filipinos, and Javanese just because the productivity was measured according to the coloniser’s standard. You do not want to work for us? You are lazy. You only planted paddy fields in the morning and sleep in the evening? You are lazy. The book challenges the colonial power definition of indolent and provides a deeper understanding of the historical and sociological factors that contributed to these lazy natives myths. Several prominent names were being highlighted such as Karl Mannheim, Karl Marx and others to further elaborate the construction of these myths. The introduction by the author’s son on the captive mind which hindered the discourse of the colonization also interesting given that so many intellectuals in Malaysia that are too white-washed and westernized in their writing. Overall, this has been quite an eye-opening read and I do wish I will have time to re-read this book.

[Alya · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing read from start to finish! Honestly I love the way the author was able to find and brilliantly utilise a lot of the information he found and presented it in a concise manner, with a clear flow of thought and also unintentional scathing that pulled a few laughs from me.

As for the content itself, still seeing the repercussions of the divide in the Southeast Asian communities due to the past colonialism, the topic touched upon the book is really necessary to be made aware of, to be pondered and inspire change — to truly shake off the lies told by westerners that were ignorant, arrogant bigots that treated Asians as a herd of cattle to culled and trained.

What’s more interesting is that westerners are a one trick pony. They use these same methods on every colony that they try to put to heel. But the Southeast Asian experience hasn’t receive much attention compared to, for instance, a colonised African country or such.

In this era where the colonised are bringing to light of the sins of colonisers, ignorance is no longer a bliss. The dark truth of what had occurred in history will come to light. It’s horrible, unforgivable and cruel, what had been done to the colonies these monsters had conquered and abused. How dare they took our pride as people. How dare they to have
expected our ancestors to serve their whim, as if they are God themselves? The accounts cited in this book was grim and uncensored, and I am grateful for it. It left no room for sympathy for those who saw fit to treat other human being as subhumans, or degrade their character, integrity, culture and livelihood to those of feral animals just because they had REFUSED TO UNDERSTAND and wished to impose their superiority like the misguided fools they are.

Thank you for the research. It really helped put into words the ambiguous and often hard to describe observations of my day to day life.

[Zarina Marsaleh · Rating 4 out of 5]

“It is the thesis of this book that the image of the indolent native was the product of colonial domination generally in the 19th century when the domination of the colonies reached a high peak and when colonial capitalist exploitation required extensive control of the area. The image of the native had a function in the exploitation complex of colonial times. This was the time when the capitalist conception of labour gained supremacy. Any type of labour which did not conform to this conception was rejected as a deviation. A community which did not enthusiastically and willingly adopt this conception of labour was regarded as indolent.”

This book is a good read for Malays, Filipinos and Javanese whom have been led to believe that we descend from a lazy native. Alatas provides sound reasoning that indolence, the most striking image of us that evolved between 16th to the 20th century, has its own function in the ideology of colonial capitalism. He also covers the attitude of colonial capitalism towards native and immigrant labourers from China and India. The treatment that they received were close, if not equal, to slavery.

Once an ideology becomes supreme, it is accepted in some degree by the dominated party, extending years post-independence, including by the ruling elites. We fall for the false consciousness inherent in the ideology. We self-reproach and self-regrade.

Having said that, quoting Dr Sharifah Munirah Alatas:

“Alatas may have dedicated an entire book (or two if one includes the book Intellectuals in Developing Societies) to how the Malays evolved as backward, but he also gave us the foundation on which to transform how the Malays should feel and think about themselves.”

[Messybuku · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Myth of the Lazy Native is one of the most important texts in Southeast Asian postcolonial thought. Not because it defends the Malay, Filipino, or Javanese people, but because it reframes how colonialism invented laziness as an ideological tool.
Syed Hussein Alatas dissects this myth with surgical clarity, showing how it served the economic machinery of empire, not truth. It wasn't an observation — it was propaganda.

And yet, the irony lingers: while Alatas writes about the native, he himself is not fully Malay in the traditional sense. His Hadhrami-Arab background, though part of the region’s history, also places him within a different socio-cultural tier — one historically closer to the intellectual elite than the villagers, fishermen, or farmers often branded as “lazy.”

The book is sharp, essential, and intellectually bold. But it also exposes a deeper void: where are the truly representative Malay thinkers — those from the heart of the kampung, the sawah, the pasar malam? Why have they not been remembered, published, or honored?
Even now, prominent Malay figures tend to reflect state narratives, religious formalism, or postcolonial elite status — not the lived complexity of the broader Malay identity.

Reading this reminded me: decolonization is not just about resisting Western narratives.
It’s also about asking who gets to represent us, who speaks for us, and why the rest are left behind.

[Anjar Priandoyo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really like it.

In short, (native) lazy is social construction. Interesting, lazy is depending on the point of view. And for sure colonialization, industrialization and modernization make the gaps bigger: more people seems lazy than before. The book is about two concept: ideology (belief system) and colonial capitalism.

While native lazy is social construction, the chinese factor which is imigrant doing the hardwork is another interesting things. Before they are business class, they start as laborer class first, lower than aristrocrat class of the natives.

"Historically speaking the Filipino, Javanese and Malay societies possessed a trading class. What happened to this trading class? It was destroyed by European colonialism."

"Census taken by the British in 1812-13 is indeed revealing. The second largest single section of the city population of Batavia were slaves. Out of a total population of 47,083, 1,928 were Europeans and 14,239 were slaves."

Other historical alternative explanation is literacy

Ref:
The myth of the lazy native (Syed Hussein Alatas 1977)
From Concubines to Prostitutes. A Partial History of Trade in Sexual Services in Indonesia (Terence H. Hull 2017)

[tan jing wah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Where im from, there is an idea that people think native or indigenous folks are "lazy." This book delves into the socio-economic and political contexts that shaped these perceptions, arguing that they stemmed from a misunderstanding of native cultures and lifestyles. Abang Syed emphasizes that what was often labeled as laziness was, in fact, a result of colonial structures (which were vastly different as compared to indigenous structures at that time) that stifled local economies and imposed alien values. Abang Syed combines historical analysis with sociological insights, making a compelling case for the resilience and adaptability of native populations. He highlights the importance of recognizing the agency of colonized peoples and understanding their experiences beyond reductive stereotypes. Overall, Abang Syed's deconstructing of the harmful narratives encourages deeper appreciation.

[Zuhdi Farhan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Syed Hussein al-Atas telah membahaskan mitos ini dengan panjang lebar. Mitos Peribumi Malas, yang meliputi orang Melayu, Jawa dan peribumi Filipina ditohmah dengan pelbagai sikap dan sifat negatif oleh kuasa kolonial (British, Belanda, dan Sepanyol).

Penulis juga tidak ketinggalan mengkritik buku Revolusi Mental dan The Malay Dilemma yang menurutnya telah terperangkap dalam propaganda yang disebarkan penjajah.

Penjajah telah meletakkan panggilan pemalas dan bermacam label lagi kerana kaum peribumi tidak hidup dan bekerja mengikut cara mereka. Kehidupan yang tidak menepati tatacara kolonialisme dianggap sebagai kehidupan yang inferior berbanding kehidupan orang Barat.