为什么马来西亚没能像新加坡那样发展成第一世界国家？

Toni Nai טוני נאי
, 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.

请允许我引用一段摘录，引自李光耀的《一个人的世界观》
读了这篇这本书之后，你会得出一个结论，即马来西亚永远无法发挥其所有潜力，因为该国是由种族主义者领导的，其种族主义政策是根深蒂固的，李光耀说到点子上了。

“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.

“马来西亚的另一种道路”
当年马来西亚和新加坡都是从殖民主义中崛起的，两地发展水平相当，英国留下的遗产也大体相似，但自1965年后，这两个国家选择了不同的道路。马来西亚选择成为一个说马来语的国家，而新加坡选择了英语、并建立了一个多种族社会。随着时间的推移，“说马来语”的马来西亚这个概念变得越来越牢固，因为马来人在人口中所占的比例越来越大
在将近两年的时间里，当新加坡成为马来西亚一部分时，我曾通过领导其他联盟来尽最大努力解决种族问题，但我们的努力遭到了暴力反对，有时候是字面上的暴力。新加坡最终不得不在1965年脱离联邦。

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.”

我们那一代人一直认为新加坡和马来西亚是一体的。战后英国将新加坡视为一个独立的殖民地，我们为了合并还进行过斗争。马来西亚领导人一开始并不想要我们，因为生活在新加坡的大量华人会扰乱整个种族融合。最后，英国人说服了马来西亚第一人总理Tunku Abdul Rahman，英国人是这样说的：随着左翼分子在我们中文学校中日益壮大，新加坡的危险极其严重。最后马来西亚同意让我们与华人比例较低的沙巴州和砂捞越州合并在一起，以平衡我们。
但我们加入后，Tunku告诉我：“你们的党派应当让马来人独掌”。我们在新加坡有3个马来人占主导的选区，分别是芽笼士乃、景万岸和南岛，他不希望我们染指他认为是“马来领土”的马来西亚选区。但我们无法遵守这一要求，我们必须遵守宪法，宪法并没有说马来西亚是马来人的，宪法说的是：马来西亚是马来西亚人的国家。后来我们再接再厉，成立了马来西亚团结大会，倡导建立一个真正的多种族国家，我们说服了砂捞越州、槟城和怡保的政党加入，这里面马来人代表有很多。随着大会越来越壮大，Tunku感到了不安，我们被告知、新加坡必须脱离马来西亚，否则会有流血冲突。
我的内阁中有一些人反对脱离马来西亚，最著名的是当时的副总理杜进才。杜出生于怡保市，对于他来说，脱离马来西亚有失大体。他想去见见Tunku，我也鼓励他这样做。但Tunku拒绝会见他，只给他写了一封信，Tunku在信中暗示其已经无法控制局面，Tunku写道：“绝对没有其他出路”
从1963年到1965年，作为新加坡总理，我必须参加马来西亚统治者委员会的会议。参加会议的统治者全是马来人，穿着制服、手中还戴有佩剑，所有的首席部长都穿着传统的马来服饰，我是唯一的例外。这不仅仅是象征意义，而是为了说明一点：这是马来人的马来西亚！你永远不能忘了这一点。

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.

这个问题一直困扰着我。人们通常引用的传统理由都无法说服我，为何马来西亚尽管拥有众多自然优势却仍然落后。
经过多年的思考，我终于确定了一套对我来说最有意义的理论。但首先，把我的理由先放在一边。我们来看看人们通常说的理由，以及为什么我认为这些理由无法正确解释马来西亚缺乏发展的原因。

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、腐败
马来西亚的许多弊病都被归咎为腐败。然而，政治腐败并没有阻止其他东亚国家和地区的崛起。曾被定罪的最高领导人名单也值得一读：
韩国总统全斗焕、卢泰愚、李明博和朴槿惠
台湾地区领导人陈水扁
日本首相田中角荣
中国也在进行反腐斗争
在激烈的商业世界里，肆无忌惮几乎是理所当然的。倒下的人还包括韩国最大财阀---三星的李在元和他的父亲李健熙。腐败的商业行为、以权谋私和贪污并没有破坏东亚迈向发达社会的爆炸性增长和发展。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

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、国土面积
人们经常会提出这个借口，说新加坡的发展要容易的多。从表面上看，这种说法还挺合理的。460倍的国土面积差距、在任何地图上都非常明显。即使我们接受这一前提，两国也都应该具有竞争力，而且也都应该实现繁荣、产出先进成果。因为我们来自同一个国家，马来西亚还拥有更多的资源。

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、种族主义
各个种族受到的待遇是不同的，正如《宪法》中明确规定的那样、现实实践亦是如此。但（马来人）受到了两代人的优惠待遇，所有的优惠都被给予了一个种族，却没有在占主导地位的种族中出现繁荣的中产阶级。尽管少数族裔要面临明显的障碍，但少数族裔在技术和专业职位上仍然具有不成比例表现。

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、经济政策
在殖民主义结束后，“围墙花园”模式被视为防止西方剥削的必要措施，进口替代和保护主义仍然是当今的主流。然而，马来西亚应该也注意到了台湾地区和韩国在追求出口导向型工业化过程中的快速发展。不幸的是，尽管马来西亚在稳定的地缘政治背景下进行了60年的经济改革，却仍然没能摘得东盟工厂的桂冠。尽管拥有充沛的劳动力、土地、廉价能源，而且其地理位置也较为理想、位于世界最繁忙的航运通道中心，也不存在自然灾害的地方性疾病。

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，是什么阻碍了马来西亚的发展？在我看来，马来西亚选民不停抱怨的一次又一次的选举，才是造成这一问题的根本原因。
马来西亚有一种封建主义心态。
封建主义：
这是一种制度，在这种制度中，人们被更高层级的人给予土地和保护，并为他们工作和战斗。
请把“工作和战斗”一词用“投票”代替，你就能看清马来西亚了。
从“国民阵线”一词中就能看出端倪，这个词汇的意思是“土地之子”（也就是土著的意思）。对于国民阵线成员来说，这片土地是他们的合法遗产，按金字塔的模式分配。
人的心态是可以超越法律的。法律可能指导和限制人类活动，但心态能影响人的态度，更重要的是还能影响人的感知。换句话说，在人类行为研究中心，“为什么”比“做什么”更重要。
马来西亚可能是一个民主国家，但特权阶级的过分行为、与古代封建领主的过分行为有许多相似之处。只要土地和资源仍被视为权利的源泉，而且比人才更受重视，你就很难看到马来西亚发挥其潜力，尽管她手上拿着一副近乎理想的牌。

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，如果有人认为新加坡是马来西亚效仿的好榜样，那他们就大错特错了。新加坡是一个离岸金融中心，是由英国人为了贸易而建立的。只要新加坡能在监管、劳动力、和政治稳定方面至少比邻国保持略高的优势，它们就能繁荣起来。而另一方面，马来西亚不像新加坡那样只是一个城市国家。马来西亚人口众多，在独立的时候大多数地方都是农村。因此，马来西亚这种国家的发展需求与新加坡或香港有着很大的不同。因此，为了得到更为深刻的答案，这个问题应该改为：为什么马来西亚没能发展成第一世界国家？你应该删除对新加坡的提及，因为你这是在假设新加坡应当成为马来西亚需要遵循的基准。
1965年（新加坡独立年），马来西亚在经济结构上与韩国和台湾有着更多的共同点，因为这两地提供了马来西亚本可以效仿的更好的例子，但不幸的是，直到马哈蒂尔的“向东看”政策提出之前，马来西亚领导人都没有认真对待这一点。即使在“向东看”政策提出后，这一发展模式的实施情况也很差劲，因此马来西亚从中获益甚微。
如果我们去看看韩国和台湾的经济增长轨迹，我们会发现，马来西亚本可以更成功地遵循这一轨迹。韩国和台湾的经济增长是由3个关键政策驱动的：

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。在农村为农民分配土地，同时提供公平的信贷、农业基础设施、推广服务和市场安排。这样做的目的，是从农村劳动力和有限的资本投入中实现尽可能高的生产力水平。
2、以出口为导向的工业化。引导最有能力的企业家进行制造业投资，使他们的企业能够尽快进入技术学习曲线，这里的关键细节是，将这些企业与出口纪律结合起来，这意味着政府对这些企业的支持、应该只在它们愿意为其产品出口和开发国外市场的情况下才可用。国家淘汰表现不佳的企业也很重要，可以将输家从市场中剔除。
3、严格控制资本市场，实行资本管制，从而让国家利用金融系统实现上述第1条和第2条。

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，马来西亚并没有展示出足够的政治意愿和远见来实施这三项政策，因此也无法像韩国和台湾那样实现工业化。上述三项政策、可能是马来西亚达到或接近新加坡生活水平的唯一途径。为了进一步强调这一点，我想谈谈马来西亚在每一项政策上的表现。
1、马来西亚没有实行适当的土地改革。唯一接近土地改革的是国有土地发展局计划（FELDA）。即便如此，这一模式仍然是建立在殖民地农业结构的基础上，很少注重最大限度利用农村劳动力，这或多或少也能成为农村穷人的福利措施。这也使得农村部门的生产率处于较低水平。

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、马来西亚最初对出口导向型工业化兴趣不大。这导致该国继续维持殖民地种植业经济的现状，后来涉足了进口替代工业化，从而浪费了大量宝贵时间。导致该国几乎没有实现工业化，反而产生了一些寻租型企业（译注：就是有固定资产房屋及配套水、电、气、路设施，供企业来租用）。最终，马哈蒂尔通过建立柏华嘉钢铁和宝腾汽车等企业，试图实现一些真正意义上的工业化。然而，这些项目并没有向私营企业推进，而是作为政府企业设立的，它们都没有取得多少成功。马来西亚最有能力的企业家并不是从事工业投资，而是涉足种植园、采矿业和房地产业。
最糟糕的情况是，许多人仅仅是成为了寻租资本家，他们从政府批准的“收获农场”（如面粉加工、赌场和移动电话许可证）中获益。这些企业对马来西亚的工业发展贡献甚微。而当工业最终在马来西亚建立时，主要还是由外资所有的。这意味着资本和技术诀窍都是外国所有的，因此马来西亚仅仅是将其廉价劳动力出租，马来西亚从这一发展中获得的技术进步是很少的。相反，这还导致了所谓的“无技术工业和”，这也是20世纪80年代和90年代在东南亚普遍存在的现象。
3、鉴于上述两项政策领域进展甚微，讨论如何利用资本市场实现早期目标纯属浪费时间。马来西亚政府给了金融市场很大的自由，几乎没有任何资本管制，因此金融部门几乎从未被用于工业化和农业。
正如你所见，未能实现这三项基本政策，就意味着马来西亚无法实现工业化、以达到新加坡等国公民所享有的生活水平。如果马来西亚领导层能够纠正这些问题，那么马来西亚这样的国家成为发达国家并非没有可能。

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.

很长一段时间以来，我一直在说一件事，然而人们根本没有注意这事：马来西亚不是一个儒家社会。日本、韩国、中国、台湾地区、香港地区、越南和新加坡都是儒家社会。日本首先达到发达国家水平，然后是韩国、台湾、香港和新加坡---亚洲四小龙发展了起来。现在，中国正沿着“发达”的道路前进。而当越南采用了邓公的经济学后，它也正在前进。只有儒家思想的朝鲜是一个怪胎（但这可能正在改变）
让我们来看看马来西亚、菲律宾和泰国。这三国没有一个“儒家”的。马来西亚曾经是一只“亚洲虎”，但现在却陷入了中等收入陷阱。在20世纪70年代，泰国的经济实际上比台湾和韩国还要发达，但如今泰国也陷入了“中等收入”陷阱之中。菲律宾的故事最为悲惨，20世纪60年代，菲律宾是除了日本之外亚洲最繁荣、最具活力的经济体。后来马科斯上台，腐败完全根植于菲律宾文化，导致今天的菲律宾是东亚最贫穷的国家之一。因此，菲律宾基本上陷入了与南美一样的“伊比利亚病”（译注：大约是说由发达衰退为贫穷国家，典型就是阿根廷）
信不信由你，但是，“儒家”社会与经济成功就是有某种关联。