Those who thought that feudalism would die a timely death with the end of the colonial era and the birth of newly independent post-colonial nation-states in the 1950s and 1960s have been proven sadly wrong.

The plain truth is that feudalism is alive and well in many parts of Asia, Africa and the Arab World, and what is more, the rapid development over the past few decades has given birth to a host of neo-feudal regimes that have demonstrated their ability and willingness to employ the tools of modernity in order to entrench themselves even further.

Malaysia, once again, is no exception to the rule and in this respect it fares hardly any better than any of the countries in the Asean region.

Indeed, if there is one common international language or discourse that is shared by the elites of Asean today, it is the common understanding of the protocols of neo-feudal politics.

Witness how the governments of Asean were willing to stand by as Indonesia destroyed its rainforests and allowed the pollution from its forest-burning spree to contaminate the rest of the region. Not a single Asean government was able to intervene, all of them unwilling to compromise the unstated code of conduct between equally repressive governments for the sake of 'saving face' and protecting the image of Indonesia, the 'big brother' (albeit a clumsy and inarticulate one) of Asean.

Witness also how the governments of Asean were willing to turn a blind eye even when it became painfully obvious that Indonesia's occupation of East Timor was nothing more than a return to the bad old days of colonisation, and when the annexation of Timor had begun to chalk up a tremendous human cost of decidedly ugly proportions. Once again, Asean leaders stood idly by and kept mum over the issue - purely for the sake of 'respecting' Indonesia's right to do what it wanted to those who came under its dominion.

Neo-feudal politics does, however, have its uses and it is certainly not without its advantages. Theorists of modernisation and development may think that the turn towards neo-feudal practices mark a nostalgic lapse or regression back into the past - but they fail to note that in many cases what is really happening is a move towards the future on the part of conservative feudal elites who themselves are willing to embrace the tools of modernity to empower themselves even further.

This selective appropriation of modernity demonstrates both rational agency and foresight at work: It is hardly an accident if many post-colonial regimes have decided to take only the worst from their ex-colonial masters (death squads, modern modes of torture and surveillance, and infamous laws like the Internal Security Act (ISA) that we have in our dear old Malaysia).

But one factor that can never be overlooked is the human dimension to all this, and this is where our feudal leaders come into the picture.

Feudalism, it must be remembered, is a complex phenomena. It is an assembly of norms of behaviour, codes of conduct, rules of discourse, institutional complexes and culturally-mediated forms of governance and exercise of force and violence. Institutions, constitutions and machines do not produce feudalism, though they may help to consolidate its power and extend its sphere of influence. In the final analysis, feudal and neo-feudal structures of power and governance exist because feudals exist. And feudals exist because they are themselves the products of their own feudal political culture.

Enter the neo-feudals

Malaysia, as we all know, became independent in 1957 (though Sabah and Sarawak only became so in 1963) and its first rulers were all of the feudalist camp. The country's first three Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, Tun Abdul Razak Hussein and Tun Hussein Onn were not the likes of ordinary bumpkins like you and me. They were all part and parcel of the traditional ruling elite and they traced their lineage to some of the most revered and respected royal and aristocratic families in the land.