The Malaysian dilemma: negotiating sexual diversity in aMuslim-majority Commonwealth state
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Crises and competing legacies In 1998, Malaysia became the first Asian country to host the Commonwealth Games, and was only the second developing country – after Jamaica in 1966 – to do so. This was remarkable, given prior developments when the then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, demonstrably frustrated with the Commonwealth, had previously asked his advisers whether Malaysia should quit the organisation (Van der Westhuizen 2004, p. 1285). Nevertheless, once Malaysia won its bid to host the Games, the government pulled out all the stops despite the unanticipated global financial crisis of the late 1990s. This was Malaysia’s chance to wrestle symbolic power back from ‘Western’ Commonwealth Member States (namely the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), and announce to the world its arrival as a newly industrialising, sophisticated, Muslim-majority country. But Malaysia was also to come under the international spotlight for other reasons. On the eve of the Games, then Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was sacked on corruption and sodomy charges. Controversy and public outcry followed. This was accompanied by increasingly lurid reports in the government-controlled media about Anwar’s alleged sexual exploits with men and women (Spaeth 1998). These reports were meant to be all the more damaging because of Anwar’s history as the charismatic leader of the Malaysian Muslim Youth Movement (ABIM), the nation’s largest grassroots Muslim movement (Nagata 1980, p. 424). Amid further controversy, the courts found Anwar guilty of corruption and sodomy and he was jailed, only to be released in 2004 under the administration of Mahathir’s successor, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. The Federal Court overturned his sodomy conviction in a 2–1 decision; by this time, Anwar had already served his sentence for corruption (BBC News 2004).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".