'We must always take the writings of the West with a pinch of salt, and study our own history in a serious and in-depth manner. Who knows what hidden agenda the westerners carry with them when they write about us?'

So cautioned a self-proclaimed socialist 'comrade' at a meeting recently.

Former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad often reminded Malaysians to be watchful of Orientalism as invented by the West. So much was he wary of it that he went on, before his retirement, to establish the Institute of Occidental Studies, based at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, as a response to western construction of the East.

To what extent will this effort of his in countering western hegemony bear fruit remains to be seen, but it is beyond dispute that if one is serious about rising to the challenge, tit-for-tat approaches will likely be doomed to failure.

If hegemonic discourse can be deconstructed by otherising the 'enemy', academic research would have descended into nothing but a trivial and futile grandstanding for the vain and the ambitious.

It goes without saying that a good many Chinese Malaysians, intellectuals included, cherish the prospect that China will one day rise above itself and soar on the international arena. Underneath this latent, nationalistic hope is a keenly felt yet subtle, nearly xenophobic distrust and fear of the West.

Hence, when a westerner raises doubt as to the motives of the series of the expedition by Admiral Zhenghe, he or she will be severely criticised for slighting the dignity of the Chinese. As for those like Gavin Menzies , who have acknowledged Zhenghe's adventure with great respect through serious studies, the greater their number the merrier it will be.

Western agenda

Such wariness and fear of the West by the Chinese have their roots in the weaknesses of the Qing Dynasty and the century of humiliation of China that followed. Thus, not at all dissimilar from the Malay ruling elites, the Chinese are strenuously acquiring western technology for the sake of national revival, while looking aghast at the so-called western notions of democracy and human rights.

Echoing the warning by Mahathir, they are inclined to the view that any promulgation of democratic institutions is coated with the western agenda to plunge China into disarray, and that to put human rights ahead of national sovereignty is a prelude to carving up the Middle Kingdom.

Therefore, should one seek to deconstruct Chinese history by way of western cultural critiques and historical discourse, he or she will invariably be denounced for 'misrepresenting' or 'knowing nothing about China', an act as accursed as treachery and fawning on the West, for the person has lost the 'correct' historical perception of his or her own people.

Still, as far as I see it, those caught up in such mentality are either suffering from the 'West Wariness Syndrome' or much like the Orientalists, trying to stereotype and essentialise their western objects.

Confucius, even in death, cautions us that learning without thinking is useless, and thinking without learning is dangerous, a famous adage often quoted by the Chinese.

On one hand, the many 'modern' achievements of the West make us green with envy and we watch them with inexpressible awe, yet our hearts are wrenched by their 'formidable force' on the other. But the biggest irony is perhaps that it is the westerners who best exemplify the essence of the aforementioned great maxim of Confucius.

As a Malaysian academic has told me, we are always prepared to be critical of others, but never of ourselves. And I would add that not only are we defensive of our own dearth of critical thinking, worse, we often seek to lump our objects of criticism together and refer to them as an unquestioned, unified entity.

Diverse academia

Western academia is, in actual fact, much more diverse than what we have imagined (or feared). Many of the so-called western scholars, who may write in English, French, German or Spanish, are imbued with critical ideas as well as the humble ability to reflect upon themselves, both in their perceptions and outlook, something that is lacking in Chinese intelligentsia.

Many of the 'western' scholars that the Chinese view with suspicion are in fact non-white, but they are highly regarded and spoken of with immense respect in the West nonetheless. Frantz Fanon, for one, came from the Caribbean island of Martinique, while Edward Said was a Palestinian. Other non-white names that have made huge impact on western academia include specialists of postcolonial studies such as Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Homi Bhabha, Ashis Nandy and Pratha Chatterjee, all of whom hail from India.

Among them, the grievances of leaving and losing one's own homeland are movingly and impassionedly articulated by Fanon and Said through their works. The influence of their incisive and extensive postcolonialist understanding has been far-reaching, for want of a better word. Though written in French and English, their writings are never short of critical views with regard to colonialism and imperialism, strengthened by the insights of their respective national histories. Not to belittle the Chinese academics, it is still a long way to go before we can match the footprints left by Fanon and Said.

Among the so-called 'whites', the late Hugo Young of the Guardian never held back from criticising the Little Englander mentality, while the great British historian Eric Hobsbawms, who is Jewish, has excited the academic world with his sharp analysis on nationalism. David Spurr, a professor of English literature, deconstructs superbly the weariness of colonial discourse through the Rhetoric of Empire.

Meanwhile, academic gadflies to the high and mighty in the White House and Capitol Hill they may be, Noam Chomsky and the late Susan Sontag, also of Jewish origin, have questioned American hegemony so relentlessly and powerfully that they have won praises and admiration around the world. They may be branded unpatriotic at home, but by challenging the hegemonic agenda of the US, they have foregone nationalism and patriotism in exchange for the freedom of thoughts long ago.

All these academic giants, coming from the West that we make it out to be, have displayed their untiring ability to think critically and to question reflectively, which we are yet to see in the this part of the world.

What about socialism?

Some Malaysians are eager to portray themselves as leftists and chastise the Occident for objectifying the Orient, yet they are mired in a dilemma in that they see the West as a monolithic entity and hence lose sight of the diversity in western academia.

This is especially true with regard to Europe, whose history is characterised by past colonialism. Isn't socialism a western ideological product? Having travelled to China, it has now acquired the puzzling 'Chinese characteristics' there and won the approval of many a leftist Chinese in Malaysia.

Western socialism was among the pioneers in the struggle against imperialism and colonialism in the late 19th and the early 20th centuries. In modern times, it has proven its resilience by providing momentum to antiwar movements, environmental activism, human rights campaign, as well as women's emancipation, constantly championing the causes of the weak minorities around the world. It has also played a pivotal role in enhancing constitutionalism of many of the European countries.

On the contrary, socialism as promulgated by the Chinese as seen in China - continues to be plagued by strong nationalistic appeals devoid of signs of self-renewal. It is therefore not surprising to see that even some Chinese socialists in Malaysia have fallen prey to petty nationalism by pinning their hopes on a powerful and strong China to raise their political status in this country.

Some are quick to denounce Japan for the latter's wishy-washy attitude towards WWII atrocities, yet remain acquiescent of China's appalling human rights records and of US stoking Japan's nuclear ambitions, while others have done worse by becoming part of the very regime that continues to show its fangs and keep the civil society in check.

Recently, the Hong Kong-based Chinese language Asia Week has run an article praising highly the antiwar activists of the West for their unequivocal distinction between the state and the people, and the weekly is clearly impressed by this self-critical attitude of the westerners. It is, nevertheless, regrettable to note that it has failed to point out the fact that the Chinese-speaking world, too, is badly in need of the ability to look at itself critically.

Instead of seeing this coming, what we witness is the sad truth that Chinese around the world have been attempting to explain away the authoritarian rule of the Chinese government with a variety of subterfuges and excuses. For those who criticise without fear and favour the dark sides of the Chinese and Chinese politics, there can only be one verdict: national treachery.

This attitude is in fact not too much different from that of the (in)famous imperialist Rudyard Kipling and Winston Churchill, who in 1935 objected categorically to the Government of India Act in the Westminster Parliament as it could pave the way for Indian independence. Both of them were convinced of the superiority of their own race as well as the legitimacy of elite rule.

We overlook at our own peril the fact that the myriad of unnecessary suspicions and fears in regard to the West often cloud our perspectives in tackling real issues. Therefore, we cannot help but feel indignant when we watch on the BBC the white host driving the non-white guest up the wall by questioning the latter harshly.

Little do we realise that the BBC journalist will also go for the jugular regardless of whether his or her guest is Prime Minister Tony Blair or a member of his cabinet, or even an American leader! And this is what independent media is all about.

A self-confident and forward-looking nation need not condescend the West in its discourse and live in incessant fear that the West is out to victimise China or the Chinese race. A progressive nation that is assured of itself is one that is able to look at history from a critical perspective, and to do so from a humble position. This is not to say that western methodology of history is flawless, but the fact remains that the Chinese intelligentsia is streets behind in terms of the power to think and to engage with others critically and self-reflectively.