為什么馬來(lái)西亞沒(méi)能像新加坡那樣發(fā)展成第一世界國(guó)家？

Toni Nai ???? ???
, studied at Cornell University
Allow me to quote an excerpt From: Lee Kuan Yew. “One man's view of the world.”
After reading this you will conclude Malaysia will never reach its fullest potential because the country is led by racists and too entrenched with racist policies. And LKY was spot on.

請(qǐng)?jiān)试S我引用一段摘錄，引自李光耀的《一個(gè)人的世界觀》
讀了這篇這本書(shū)之后，你會(huì)得出一個(gè)結(jié)論，即馬來(lái)西亞永遠(yuǎn)無(wú)法發(fā)揮其所有潛力，因?yàn)樵搰?guó)是由種族主義者領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的，其種族主義政策是根深蒂固的，李光耀說(shuō)到點(diǎn)子上了。

“MALAYSIA A DIFFERENT PATH”
“Malaysia and Singapore emerged from colonialism at comparable levels of development and with largely similar legacies left behind by the British. But the two countries could not have picked more different paths after 1965. Malaysia chose to be a Malay-speaking country, while Singapore chose English and has forged a multiracial society. The concept of a Malay-speaking Malaysia will, over time, become more firmly established as Malays form an ever larger share of the population.
For nearly two years, when Singapore was part of Malaysia, I did my best to confront the race issue by leading others in a coalition that stood for a Malaysian Malaysia. But the opposition to our efforts was violent, sometimes literally so. It culminated in Singapore having to walk away from the federation on 9 August 1965.

“馬來(lái)西亞的另一種道路”
當(dāng)年馬來(lái)西亞和新加坡都是從殖民主義中崛起的，兩地發(fā)展水平相當(dāng)，英國(guó)留下的遺產(chǎn)也大體相似，但自1965年后，這兩個(gè)國(guó)家選擇了不同的道路。馬來(lái)西亞選擇成為一個(gè)說(shuō)馬來(lái)語(yǔ)的國(guó)家，而新加坡選擇了英語(yǔ)、并建立了一個(gè)多種族社會(huì)。隨著時(shí)間的推移，“說(shuō)馬來(lái)語(yǔ)”的馬來(lái)西亞這個(gè)概念變得越來(lái)越牢固，因?yàn)轳R來(lái)人在人口中所占的比例越來(lái)越大
在將近兩年的時(shí)間里，當(dāng)新加坡成為馬來(lái)西亞一部分時(shí)，我曾通過(guò)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)其他聯(lián)盟來(lái)盡最大努力解決種族問(wèn)題，但我們的努力遭到了暴力反對(duì)，有時(shí)候是字面上的暴力。新加坡最終不得不在1965年脫離聯(lián)邦。

Those from my generation had always believed that Singapore and Malaya were one. The British kept us as a separate colony after the war and we fought for a merger. The leaders of Malaya did not want us initially because the large number of Chinese in Singapore would have upset the overall racial mix. Eventually the British persuaded Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia’s first prime minister, “that with the leftists gaining strength in our Chinese schools, the danger of Singapore going com...st was simply too grave. He finally agreed to take us in along with Sabah and Sarawak, which had lower proportions of Chinese, to balance us.
But after we joined, the Tunku told me: “Your party should leave Malays in Malaysia alone.” We had three Malay-dominated constituencies in Singapore - in Geylang Serai, Kampong Kembangan and the Southern Islands - and he did not want us to reach out to constituencies in Malaya, which he considered Malay territory. But we could not abide by that. We had to go by the constitution, which did not say that it was a Malay Malaysia but a Malaysian Malaysia. “We went ahead and formed the Malaysian Solidarity Convention, which advocated a truly multiracial country. We persuaded parties from Sarawak, Penang and Ipoh to join. There were more than a few Malay representatives. As the convention gathered strength, the Tunku got upset and we were told that Singapore had to leave Malaysia or there would be bloodshed. Some within my Cabinet were opposed to leaving Malaysia, most notably Toh Chin Chye, then deputy prime minister. Toh was born in Ipoh and, for him, it went against the grain to get out. He wanted to see the Tunku. I encouraged him to do so. The Tunku refused to see him but wrote a letter indicating that he could no longer control the situation. “There is absolutely no other way out,” the Tunku wrote.’”
“Between 1963 and 1965, as prime minister of Singapore, I had to attend meetings of the Council of Rulers in Malaysia. The rulers who attended would all be Malays, dressed in uniforms and accompanied by their sword bearers. All the chief ministers had their traditional Malay dressed on and I was the sole exception. This was not mere symbolism. It was to drive home a point:” This is a Malay country. Never should you forget that.”

我們那一代人一直認(rèn)為新加坡和馬來(lái)西亞是一體的。戰(zhàn)后英國(guó)將新加坡視為一個(gè)獨(dú)立的殖民地，我們?yōu)榱撕喜⑦€進(jìn)行過(guò)斗爭(zhēng)。馬來(lái)西亞領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人一開(kāi)始并不想要我們，因?yàn)樯钤谛录悠碌拇罅咳A人會(huì)擾亂整個(gè)種族融合。最后，英國(guó)人說(shuō)服了馬來(lái)西亞第一人總理Tunku Abdul Rahman，英國(guó)人是這樣說(shuō)的：隨著左翼分子在我們中文學(xué)校中日益壯大，新加坡的危險(xiǎn)極其嚴(yán)重。最后馬來(lái)西亞同意讓我們與華人比例較低的沙巴州和砂撈越州合并在一起，以平衡我們。
但我們加入后，Tunku告訴我：“你們的黨派應(yīng)當(dāng)讓馬來(lái)人獨(dú)掌”。我們?cè)谛录悠掠?個(gè)馬來(lái)人占主導(dǎo)的選區(qū)，分別是芽籠士乃、景萬(wàn)岸和南島，他不希望我們?nèi)局杆J(rèn)為是“馬來(lái)領(lǐng)土”的馬來(lái)西亞選區(qū)。但我們無(wú)法遵守這一要求，我們必須遵守憲法，憲法并沒(méi)有說(shuō)馬來(lái)西亞是馬來(lái)人的，憲法說(shuō)的是：馬來(lái)西亞是馬來(lái)西亞人的國(guó)家。后來(lái)我們?cè)俳釉賲?，成立了馬來(lái)西亞團(tuán)結(jié)大會(huì)，倡導(dǎo)建立一個(gè)真正的多種族國(guó)家，我們說(shuō)服了砂撈越州、檳城和怡保的政黨加入，這里面馬來(lái)人代表有很多。隨著大會(huì)越來(lái)越壯大，Tunku感到了不安，我們被告知、新加坡必須脫離馬來(lái)西亞，否則會(huì)有流血沖突。
我的內(nèi)閣中有一些人反對(duì)脫離馬來(lái)西亞，最著名的是當(dāng)時(shí)的副總理杜進(jìn)才。杜出生于怡保市，對(duì)于他來(lái)說(shuō)，脫離馬來(lái)西亞有失大體。他想去見(jiàn)見(jiàn)Tunku，我也鼓勵(lì)他這樣做。但Tunku拒絕會(huì)見(jiàn)他，只給他寫(xiě)了一封信，Tunku在信中暗示其已經(jīng)無(wú)法控制局面，Tunku寫(xiě)道：“絕對(duì)沒(méi)有其他出路”
從1963年到1965年，作為新加坡總理，我必須參加馬來(lái)西亞統(tǒng)治者委員會(huì)的會(huì)議。參加會(huì)議的統(tǒng)治者全是馬來(lái)人，穿著制服、手中還戴有佩劍，所有的首席部長(zhǎng)都穿著傳統(tǒng)的馬來(lái)服飾，我是唯一的例外。這不僅僅是象征意義，而是為了說(shuō)明一點(diǎn)：這是馬來(lái)人的馬來(lái)西亞！你永遠(yuǎn)不能忘了這一點(diǎn)。

Bill Chen
, lives in Singapore
This issue has always puzzled me. None of the traditional reasons people usually cite convinced me why Malaysia lags behind despite numerous natural advantages.
After years of deliberation, I’ve settled on a theory that makes the most sense to me. But first, let’s take a little detour and examine the popular reasons proffered—and why I don’t think they properly explain the lack of development.

這個(gè)問(wèn)題一直困擾著我。人們通常引用的傳統(tǒng)理由都無(wú)法說(shuō)服我，為何馬來(lái)西亞盡管擁有眾多自然優(yōu)勢(shì)卻仍然落后。
經(jīng)過(guò)多年的思考，我終于確定了一套對(duì)我來(lái)說(shuō)最有意義的理論。但首先，把我的理由先放在一邊。我們來(lái)看看人們通常說(shuō)的理由，以及為什么我認(rèn)為這些理由無(wú)法正確解釋馬來(lái)西亞缺乏發(fā)展的原因。

Corruption. Much of Malaysia’s ills is blamed on corruption. However, political corruption did not prevent the rest of East Asia from taking off. The list of convicted top leaders makes for interesting reading:
Chun Doo-Hwan, Roh Tae-Woo, Lee Myung Bak and Park Geun Hye, Presidents of South Korea
Chen Shui Bian, President of Taiwan
Kakuei Tanaka, Prime Minister of Japan
China is on a corruption hunt
The lack of scruples is almost de rigueur in the rough and tumble business world. The list of the fallen include Lee Jae Won & his father Lee Kun Hee of Samsung, South Korea’s largest chaebol. Corrupt business practices, influence peddling and graft did not derail East Asia’s explosive growth and development into advanced societies.

1、腐敗
馬來(lái)西亞的許多弊病都被歸咎為腐敗。然而，政治腐敗并沒(méi)有阻止其他東亞國(guó)家和地區(qū)的崛起。曾被定罪的最高領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人名單也值得一讀：
韓國(guó)總統(tǒng)全斗煥、盧泰愚、李明博和樸槿惠
臺(tái)灣地區(qū)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人陳水扁
日本首相田中角榮
中國(guó)也在進(jìn)行反腐斗爭(zhēng)
在激烈的商業(yè)世界里，肆無(wú)忌憚幾乎是理所當(dāng)然的。倒下的人還包括韓國(guó)最大財(cái)閥---三星的李在元和他的父親李健熙。腐敗的商業(yè)行為、以權(quán)謀私和貪污并沒(méi)有破壞東亞邁向發(fā)達(dá)社會(huì)的爆炸性增長(zhǎng)和發(fā)展。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Size. The oft-proffered excuse that it is much easier to develop Singapore is elegant on the eye—the 460x size differential is abundantly obvious on any map. Even if we accept this premise, there should be pockets of prosperity or advanced outcomes that are competitive in both countries, since we came from the same stock—and Malaysia has vastly more resources.
eestablished as the New Straits Times in 1974) in 1965 and MSA and SIA in 1972.

2、國(guó)土面積
人們經(jīng)常會(huì)提出這個(gè)借口，說(shuō)新加坡的發(fā)展要容易的多。從表面上看，這種說(shuō)法還挺合理的。460倍的國(guó)土面積差距、在任何地圖上都非常明顯。即使我們接受這一前提，兩國(guó)也都應(yīng)該具有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力，而且也都應(yīng)該實(shí)現(xiàn)繁榮、產(chǎn)出先進(jìn)成果。因?yàn)槲覀儊?lái)自同一個(gè)國(guó)家，馬來(lái)西亞還擁有更多的資源。

Racism. The races are treated differently, as clearly spelled out in the constitution, and experienced in practice. But two generations of preferential treatment where every advantage was given to one race has not seen the emergence of a prosperous middle class among the dominant race. There is still a disproportionate representation of minorities in skilled and professional positions, despite obvious impediments.

3、種族主義
各個(gè)種族受到的待遇是不同的，正如《憲法》中明確規(guī)定的那樣、現(xiàn)實(shí)實(shí)踐亦是如此。但（馬來(lái)人）受到了兩代人的優(yōu)惠待遇，所有的優(yōu)惠都被給予了一個(gè)種族，卻沒(méi)有在占主導(dǎo)地位的種族中出現(xiàn)繁榮的中產(chǎn)階級(jí)。盡管少數(shù)族裔要面臨明顯的障礙，但少數(shù)族裔在技術(shù)和專(zhuān)業(yè)職位上仍然具有不成比例表現(xiàn)。

Economic Policies. The walled-garden approach in the aftermath of colonialism was seen as necessary to protect against Western exploitation. Import substitution and protectionism were the order of the day. However, Malaysia would have taken note of the rapid development of Taiwan and South Korea as they pursued export-oriented industrialization. Unfortunately, six decades of economic reform amidst stable geopolitics has not seen Malaysia take the crown of ASEAN’s factory—despite plentiful labor, land, cheap energy and her ideal geography at the heart of the world’s busiest shipping lane, free from natural disaster and endemic disease.

4、經(jīng)濟(jì)政策
在殖民主義結(jié)束后，“圍墻花園”模式被視為防止西方剝削的必要措施，進(jìn)口替代和保護(hù)主義仍然是當(dāng)今的主流。然而，馬來(lái)西亞應(yīng)該也注意到了臺(tái)灣地區(qū)和韓國(guó)在追求出口導(dǎo)向型工業(yè)化過(guò)程中的快速發(fā)展。不幸的是，盡管馬來(lái)西亞在穩(wěn)定的地緣政治背景下進(jìn)行了60年的經(jīng)濟(jì)改革，卻仍然沒(méi)能摘得東盟工廠的桂冠。盡管擁有充沛的勞動(dòng)力、土地、廉價(jià)能源，而且其地理位置也較為理想、位于世界最繁忙的航運(yùn)通道中心，也不存在自然災(zāi)害的地方性疾病。

So what is holding Malaysia back? In my opinion, there is an underlying cause to the malaise that Malaysian voters keep complaining about election after election.
Malaysia has a feudal mindset.
Feudalism: A system in which people are given land and protection by people of higher rank, and worked and fought for them in return.
Replace the phrase “worked and fought” with the word “voted” and you have Malaysia in a nutshell.
A clue is found in the word bumiputera, or sons of the land. To the bumiputera, the land is their rightful inheritance, parceled out in a pyramid.
Mindset is supra-legal. Laws may direct and limit human activity, but mindset affects attitudes and more importantly, perception. In other words, why is more important than what in the study of human behavior.
Malaysia may be a democracy, but the excesses of the privileged draw many parallels with those of ancient feudal lords. As long as land and resources is seen as the wellspring of power—and prized more than talent—it is difficult to see Malaysia develop to its full potential, despite an almost ideal hand she’s been dealt.

所以，是什么阻礙了馬來(lái)西亞的發(fā)展？在我看來(lái)，馬來(lái)西亞選民不停抱怨的一次又一次的選舉，才是造成這一問(wèn)題的根本原因。
馬來(lái)西亞有一種封建主義心態(tài)。
封建主義：
這是一種制度，在這種制度中，人們被更高層級(jí)的人給予土地和保護(hù)，并為他們工作和戰(zhàn)斗。
請(qǐng)把“工作和戰(zhàn)斗”一詞用“投票”代替，你就能看清馬來(lái)西亞了。
從“國(guó)民陣線”一詞中就能看出端倪，這個(gè)詞匯的意思是“土地之子”（也就是土著的意思）。對(duì)于國(guó)民陣線成員來(lái)說(shuō)，這片土地是他們的合法遺產(chǎn)，按金字塔的模式分配。
人的心態(tài)是可以超越法律的。法律可能指導(dǎo)和限制人類(lèi)活動(dòng)，但心態(tài)能影響人的態(tài)度，更重要的是還能影響人的感知。換句話(huà)說(shuō)，在人類(lèi)行為研究中心，“為什么”比“做什么”更重要。
馬來(lái)西亞可能是一個(gè)民主國(guó)家，但特權(quán)階級(jí)的過(guò)分行為、與古代封建領(lǐng)主的過(guò)分行為有許多相似之處。只要土地和資源仍被視為權(quán)利的源泉，而且比人才更受重視，你就很難看到馬來(lái)西亞發(fā)揮其潛力，盡管她手上拿著一副近乎理想的牌。

Vindula Pussepitiya
, Student of Development Economics
First of all, if someone is under the impression that Singapore serves as a good model for Malaysia to follow they are deeply mistaken. Singapore is an offshore financial center that was created by the British for the very purpose of trade therefore as long as the country is able to maintain at least a slight advantage over its neighbors in regulations, labor force and political stability they are going to prosper. On the other hand Malaysia is not a mere city state like Singapore. It has a much larger population which at the time of independence was mostly rural therefore the development needs of a “proper country” like Malaysia is very different from a city state like Singapore or Hong Kong. Therefore in order to have a more insightful answer, the question needs to be rephrased as: “Why has Malaysia failed to develop into a first world country?”,leaving aside any references to Singapore as this assumes Singapore should act as the benchmark Malaysia needs to follow.
Malaysia in 1965 (year of Singapore independence), had a lot more in common with South Korea or Taiwan in terms of the structure of the economy therefore these two countries present better examples that Malaysia could have followed but unfortunately none of the leaders of Malaysia took this seriously until Mahathir’s “Look East” policy. Even then the implementation of this developmental model was poor thus Malaysia benefited very little from it.
If we were to look at South Korea and Taiwan on their trajectory of economic growth which could have been more successfully followed by Malaysia, there growth was driven by 3 key policies:

首先，如果有人認(rèn)為新加坡是馬來(lái)西亞效仿的好榜樣，那他們就大錯(cuò)特錯(cuò)了。新加坡是一個(gè)離岸金融中心，是由英國(guó)人為了貿(mào)易而建立的。只要新加坡能在監(jiān)管、勞動(dòng)力、和政治穩(wěn)定方面至少比鄰國(guó)保持略高的優(yōu)勢(shì)，它們就能繁榮起來(lái)。而另一方面，馬來(lái)西亞不像新加坡那樣只是一個(gè)城市國(guó)家。馬來(lái)西亞人口眾多，在獨(dú)立的時(shí)候大多數(shù)地方都是農(nóng)村。因此，馬來(lái)西亞這種國(guó)家的發(fā)展需求與新加坡或香港有著很大的不同。因此，為了得到更為深刻的答案，這個(gè)問(wèn)題應(yīng)該改為：為什么馬來(lái)西亞沒(méi)能發(fā)展成第一世界國(guó)家？你應(yīng)該刪除對(duì)新加坡的提及，因?yàn)槟氵@是在假設(shè)新加坡應(yīng)當(dāng)成為馬來(lái)西亞需要遵循的基準(zhǔn)。
1965年（新加坡獨(dú)立年），馬來(lái)西亞在經(jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)上與韓國(guó)和臺(tái)灣有著更多的共同點(diǎn)，因?yàn)檫@兩地提供了馬來(lái)西亞本可以效仿的更好的例子，但不幸的是，直到馬哈蒂爾的“向東看”政策提出之前，馬來(lái)西亞領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人都沒(méi)有認(rèn)真對(duì)待這一點(diǎn)。即使在“向東看”政策提出后，這一發(fā)展模式的實(shí)施情況也很差勁，因此馬來(lái)西亞從中獲益甚微。
如果我們?nèi)タ纯错n國(guó)和臺(tái)灣的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)軌跡，我們會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，馬來(lái)西亞本可以更成功地遵循這一軌跡。韓國(guó)和臺(tái)灣的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)是由3個(gè)關(guān)鍵政策驅(qū)動(dòng)的：

1.Land reform: Distribution of land among the rural peasantry along with the provision of fair credit, agricultural infrastructure, extension services and market arrangements. The aim here is to achieve the highest possible level of productivity from a largely rural workforce and limited capital input.
2.Export oriented industrialization: Cajoling the most capable entrepreneurs to undertake manufacturing ventures in ways that allow their firms to proceed up the technological learning curve as soon as possible. The key detail here is to couple these ventures with export discipline, meaning government support for the enterprises should only be available as long as they are willing to export and develop foreign markets for their products. It is also important for the state to cull under-performing enterprises therefore removing losers from the market.
3.Keep the financial markets on a tight leash and have capital controls thereby letting the state leverage the financial system to achieve goals 1 and 2 listed above.

1、土改。在農(nóng)村為農(nóng)民分配土地，同時(shí)提供公平的信貸、農(nóng)業(yè)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施、推廣服務(wù)和市場(chǎng)安排。這樣做的目的，是從農(nóng)村勞動(dòng)力和有限的資本投入中實(shí)現(xiàn)盡可能高的生產(chǎn)力水平。
2、以出口為導(dǎo)向的工業(yè)化。引導(dǎo)最有能力的企業(yè)家進(jìn)行制造業(yè)投資，使他們的企業(yè)能夠盡快進(jìn)入技術(shù)學(xué)習(xí)曲線，這里的關(guān)鍵細(xì)節(jié)是，將這些企業(yè)與出口紀(jì)律結(jié)合起來(lái)，這意味著政府對(duì)這些企業(yè)的支持、應(yīng)該只在它們?cè)敢鉃槠洚a(chǎn)品出口和開(kāi)發(fā)國(guó)外市場(chǎng)的情況下才可用。國(guó)家淘汰表現(xiàn)不佳的企業(yè)也很重要，可以將輸家從市場(chǎng)中剔除。
3、嚴(yán)格控制資本市場(chǎng)，實(shí)行資本管制，從而讓國(guó)家利用金融系統(tǒng)實(shí)現(xiàn)上述第1條和第2條。

Unfortunately Malaysia did not show sufficient political will and vision to implement these 3 policies therefore could not industrialize like South Korea or Taiwan. These could have been the only avenues by which Malaysia could have attained standards of living nearing that of Singapore. To further emphasize on this point I would like to go through on how Malaysia fared on each policy.
1.Malaysia did not have proper land reform. The only thing that came close to it was the FELDA scheme. Even then, the model was based on the colonial structure of agriculture with little focus on making maximum use out of the rural workforce and was more or less a welfare measure for the rural poor. This left the productivity of the rural sector at a subpar level.

但不幸的是，馬來(lái)西亞并沒(méi)有展示出足夠的政治意愿和遠(yuǎn)見(jiàn)來(lái)實(shí)施這三項(xiàng)政策，因此也無(wú)法像韓國(guó)和臺(tái)灣那樣實(shí)現(xiàn)工業(yè)化。上述三項(xiàng)政策、可能是馬來(lái)西亞達(dá)到或接近新加坡生活水平的唯一途徑。為了進(jìn)一步強(qiáng)調(diào)這一點(diǎn)，我想談?wù)勸R來(lái)西亞在每一項(xiàng)政策上的表現(xiàn)。
1、馬來(lái)西亞沒(méi)有實(shí)行適當(dāng)?shù)耐恋馗母?。唯一接近土地改革的是?guó)有土地發(fā)展局計(jì)劃（FELDA）。即便如此，這一模式仍然是建立在殖民地農(nóng)業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)的基礎(chǔ)上，很少注重最大限度利用農(nóng)村勞動(dòng)力，這或多或少也能成為農(nóng)村窮人的福利措施。這也使得農(nóng)村部門(mén)的生產(chǎn)率處于較低水平。

2.Malaysia showed little interest in export oriented industrialization initially. This caused the nation to waste a lot of precious time by continuing the status quo of a colonial plantation based economy followed by some dabbling in import substitution industrialization. This caused very little industrialization in the country and instead produced a few a rent seeking ventures. Finally, Mahathir attempted some real industrialization by establishing ventures like Proton and Perwaja Steel. However, instead of pushing these projects on private firms, they were set up as government enterprises and they both had very little success. Instead of undertaking industrial ventures the most capable entrepreneurs of Malaysia ended up in sectors such as plantations, mining and real estate and at worst many simply became rentier capitalists benefiting from government sanctioned revenue farms like flour milling, casinos and mobile telephony licences. These businesses have contributed very little towards industrial development of Malaysia. When industries were eventually established in Malaysia, it was mostly foreign owned. This meant the capital and technical know-how was foreign therefore Malaysia simply rented out its cheap labor force. Malaysia gained little in the way of technological progress from this development. Instead this resulted in what is known as “technology-less industrialization” which was a phenomenon common allover southeast Asia in 1980s and 1990s.
3.Given that little progress was made in the first two policy areas, it’s a waste of time to discuss how capital markets were used two meet the earlier obxtives. Malaysian government gave plenty of freedom to the financial markets and had few capital controls therefore the financial sector was almost never leveraged for industrialization or agricultural empowerment.
As you can see the failure to follow through these 3 basic policy obxtives have meant that Malaysia was unable to industrialize itself to reach the standards of living enjoyed by citizens of nations like Singapore. If Malaysian leadership can correct itself on these points, it is not impossible for a nation like Malaysia to become a developed country.

2、馬來(lái)西亞最初對(duì)出口導(dǎo)向型工業(yè)化興趣不大。這導(dǎo)致該國(guó)繼續(xù)維持殖民地種植業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)的現(xiàn)狀，后來(lái)涉足了進(jìn)口替代工業(yè)化，從而浪費(fèi)了大量寶貴時(shí)間。導(dǎo)致該國(guó)幾乎沒(méi)有實(shí)現(xiàn)工業(yè)化，反而產(chǎn)生了一些尋租型企業(yè)（譯注：就是有固定資產(chǎn)房屋及配套水、電、氣、路設(shè)施，供企業(yè)來(lái)租用）。最終，馬哈蒂爾通過(guò)建立柏華嘉鋼鐵和寶騰汽車(chē)等企業(yè)，試圖實(shí)現(xiàn)一些真正意義上的工業(yè)化。然而，這些項(xiàng)目并沒(méi)有向私營(yíng)企業(yè)推進(jìn)，而是作為政府企業(yè)設(shè)立的，它們都沒(méi)有取得多少成功。馬來(lái)西亞最有能力的企業(yè)家并不是從事工業(yè)投資，而是涉足種植園、采礦業(yè)和房地產(chǎn)業(yè)。
最糟糕的情況是，許多人僅僅是成為了尋租資本家，他們從政府批準(zhǔn)的“收獲農(nóng)場(chǎng)”（如面粉加工、賭場(chǎng)和移動(dòng)電話(huà)許可證）中獲益。這些企業(yè)對(duì)馬來(lái)西亞的工業(yè)發(fā)展貢獻(xiàn)甚微。而當(dāng)工業(yè)最終在馬來(lái)西亞建立時(shí)，主要還是由外資所有的。這意味著資本和技術(shù)訣竅都是外國(guó)所有的，因此馬來(lái)西亞僅僅是將其廉價(jià)勞動(dòng)力出租，馬來(lái)西亞從這一發(fā)展中獲得的技術(shù)進(jìn)步是很少的。相反，這還導(dǎo)致了所謂的“無(wú)技術(shù)工業(yè)和”，這也是20世紀(jì)80年代和90年代在東南亞普遍存在的現(xiàn)象。
3、鑒于上述兩項(xiàng)政策領(lǐng)域進(jìn)展甚微，討論如何利用資本市場(chǎng)實(shí)現(xiàn)早期目標(biāo)純屬浪費(fèi)時(shí)間。馬來(lái)西亞政府給了金融市場(chǎng)很大的自由，幾乎沒(méi)有任何資本管制，因此金融部門(mén)幾乎從未被用于工業(yè)化和農(nóng)業(yè)。
正如你所見(jiàn)，未能實(shí)現(xiàn)這三項(xiàng)基本政策，就意味著馬來(lái)西亞無(wú)法實(shí)現(xiàn)工業(yè)化、以達(dá)到新加坡等國(guó)公民所享有的生活水平。如果馬來(lái)西亞領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層能夠糾正這些問(wèn)題，那么馬來(lái)西亞這樣的國(guó)家成為發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家并非沒(méi)有可能。

Arch Stanton
I've been saying for a long time what people don't even consider: Malaysia is NOT a Confucian society. Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, HongKong, Vietnam and Singapore are Confucian nations. Japan reached developed nation first. Then the "asian tigers" of SOUTH Korea and Taiwan and HongKong and Singapore became developed. Now China is well on the way to "developed" . Vietnam is on it's way too once it adapted Deng-style economics. Only Confucian NORTH Korea is the odd-man out because of Kim (but that may be changing).
Let's take a look at Malaysia and Thailand and Philippines. None are "confucian". Malaysia was an Asian Tiger but now is stuck in the middle income trap. Thailand was actually more economically advanced than Taiwan and South Korea in the 1970s but now Thailand is also stuck BELOW "middle income trap". The Philippines is the saddest story: in the 1960s, the Philippines was the most prosperous and dynamic economy in Asia aside from Japan. Then came Marcos and corruption totally embedded itself into the Filipino culture and thus today the Philippines is one of the poorest nations in eastern Asia and thus Philippines is basically stuck in the "Iberian Disease" like South America.
Discount as you will but there is something about being "confucian" and probable economic success.

很長(zhǎng)一段時(shí)間以來(lái)，我一直在說(shuō)一件事，然而人們根本沒(méi)有注意這事：馬來(lái)西亞不是一個(gè)儒家社會(huì)。日本、韓國(guó)、中國(guó)、臺(tái)灣地區(qū)、香港地區(qū)、越南和新加坡都是儒家社會(huì)。日本首先達(dá)到發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家水平，然后是韓國(guó)、臺(tái)灣、香港和新加坡---亞洲四小龍發(fā)展了起來(lái)?，F(xiàn)在，中國(guó)正沿著“發(fā)達(dá)”的道路前進(jìn)。而當(dāng)越南采用了鄧公的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)后，它也正在前進(jìn)。只有儒家思想的朝鮮是一個(gè)怪胎（但這可能正在改變）
讓我們來(lái)看看馬來(lái)西亞、菲律賓和泰國(guó)。這三國(guó)沒(méi)有一個(gè)“儒家”的。馬來(lái)西亞曾經(jīng)是一只“亞洲虎”，但現(xiàn)在卻陷入了中等收入陷阱。在20世紀(jì)70年代，泰國(guó)的經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)際上比臺(tái)灣和韓國(guó)還要發(fā)達(dá)，但如今泰國(guó)也陷入了“中等收入”陷阱之中。菲律賓的故事最為悲慘，20世紀(jì)60年代，菲律賓是除了日本之外亞洲最繁榮、最具活力的經(jīng)濟(jì)體。后來(lái)馬科斯上臺(tái)，腐敗完全根植于菲律賓文化，導(dǎo)致今天的菲律賓是東亞最貧窮的國(guó)家之一。因此，菲律賓基本上陷入了與南美一樣的“伊比利亞病”（譯注：大約是說(shuō)由發(fā)達(dá)衰退為貧窮國(guó)家，典型就是阿根廷）
信不信由你，但是，“儒家”社會(huì)與經(jīng)濟(jì)成功就是有某種關(guān)聯(lián)。