Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this thesis I have examined the "consociational" arrangements used by the political elites in Malaysia, namely the elite transactions and bargaining which occurred in the original Alliance Party system, and especially the refashioning of the formula towards a grand coalition strategy after the May 13, 1969 riots. Primary emphasis has been given to the 1969-1975 period and the leadership of Tun Abdul Razak. Theoretically, the basic approach used is a version of the consociational democracy model of Arend Lijphart. However, I have also made use of the literature on political modernization and coalition theory, especially on larger-than-minimal political coalitions. Empirically, the research is based on interviews in Malaysia in 1974-1975, Malaysian and Singapore newspapers, translations of the vernacular Press, government and party literature, election manifestos, and articles and books related to the subject. The general question posed is: how does a country like Malaysia, with salient reinforcing ethnic cleavages dividing the two nearly-numerically balanced groups, the Malays and the non-Malays, maintain political stability and avoid ethnic violence? In answer, it is maintained that, conceptually, consociationalism can be separated from the condition of "democracy", and that a version of it can operate where there is not a balance of power among the segments. The Alliance practiced one form of consociationalism which followed quite closely the requirements of Lijphart's model, while the National Front practices another form of consociationalism, which deviates from Lijphart's model in being less democratic and more unbalanced, but is still consociational. It is argued that, in a country like Malaysia, the chances of successfully maintaining political stability and avoiding ethnic confrontation are improved when elite consociational practices are used in conjunction with political controls restricting political competition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".