Power Sharing in Malaysia: Beyond Unity and Political Duplicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines power sharing models and applies evidence from the Malaysian context. Most power sharing models display a high tolerance for diverse behaviors and use negotiation to restore balance when necessary. Moreover the workable power sharing model is one that improvises in order to meet competing plural contexts. Although the principal of equality is debatable, the tendency is to fulfill everyone’s interests by stretching limited resources to avoid conflict. The Malaysian government has placed significant effort into national programs that cultivate and nurture unity in its unique multiethnic society. Nevertheless, criticism has always regarded intensive government efforts as political duplicity set on maintaining the status quo of a regime. Such propaganda limits the pluralistic nature of society and the ability of its citizens to enjoy basic rights. Thus factors for power sharing are varied and most are leaning toward securing interests and benefits with resource scarcity attached to them. This article applies a qualitative method with process tracing techniques to build its arguments and to delineate evidence. As a result, the findings promote a stance beyond political duplicity and provide an alternative understanding for viewing multiculturalism as an ethnic dimension rather than a distinct ethnic social relation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".