Social Mobilization of the Underdogs: The Damansara Save Our School Movement in Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How are social movements of the underdogs sustained and how are constraints of these movements overcome, in particular, constraints imposed by non-liberal democratic states? Utilizing the Damansara Save Our School movement in Malaysia as its case study, this article describes factors that led to the successful resistance of the Damansara New Village community against the closure of its community school, the Damansara Chinese Primary School. Although inexperienced in social movement activities, small in size, financially and socially disadvantaged, the villagers of Damansara New Village successfully sustained their resistance for seven years and eventually procured compromises from the Malaysian authorities, which reopened the school premises in January 2009. Lacking access to democratic institutions in the country, the Damansara Save Our School movement relied on unconventional—yet highly institutionalised— resistance methods to mobilize support and engage in political contention. This article analyzes three components that had led to the movement’s successful endurance: institutionalization of the Save Our School Committee as the main mobilization machinery; formation of a temple school that sustained the functioning of the school, physically and symbolically; and dynamic adaptation of movement repertoires to overcome constraints imposed by the stronger and not so liberal state. For the movement community and supporters alike, the reopening of the school premises in 2009 attests to the miracle of everyday resistance by underdogs in surmounting unjust policies imposed by a powerful state.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".