Dear colleagues!

We were prompted to contact you by reading the sections devoted to the countries of Southeast Asia, which were written by Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor I. N. Selivanov, in the two-volume textbook for universities "The latest history of Asian and African countries of the XX century "(Moscow, 2001; circulation of 25 thousand copies).

Familiarity with these sections of the textbook causes feelings of bewilderment, regret and misunderstanding of how it was possible to recommend such sloppily written sections to students.

Let's start with an account of the history of Indonesia and Malaysia, which is replete with gross, sometimes ridiculous, errors and contradictions.

There doesn't seem to be a single name of a party, organization, Indonesian reality, or politician that hasn't been distorted. "Mushumi "(vol.II, p. 207) instead of Mashumi," Nadhatul Ulama " (vol. II, p. 208) instead of Nahdatul Ulama. Instead of KPI and NPI in the text, respectively, "CII" and "NII" (vol.II, pp. 207-210). The abbreviation of the name of the Democratic Party of Indonesia is DAYS, not DAYS (vol. II, p. 210). The abbreviated designation of the People's Republic of China is PRC, and not KIR, as in the text (vol. II, p. 207). Sukarno's ideological concept was called Marhaenism, and not "Marhaernism", as the author says (everywhere). The reader will no doubt be taken aback by the statement that in 1963, Indonesia " joined ... the territory of Western Iran" (vol. II, p. 209). And then: "the unity of man "(vol. II, p. 206) and "the rational question" (vol.II, p. 214) (instead of the unity of humanity and the national question). The situation is even worse with Indonesian names. What is the value of one double-repeated spelling of the name of ex-President Suharto as a Cracker (vol. II, pp. 210, 211)? The second name of the current president of the country Megawati Sukarnoputri is transferred as Sukarnoputi. Sukarno himself was never called Ahmad, much less Ahmed, his first and last name consist of one word.

Malaya (Malaysia) was no more fortunate. Thus, the state ideological doctrine of Rukunegara is first called Rukunnegara (vol. II, p. 22), and then completely Rukhunnegara (vol. II, p.24). For 31 years, the ruling Malaysian Prime Minister was named D. S. Mahathir Mohammad (vol. II, p. 214). The first two letters seem to be perceived by the author of the section as "lengthening names", which are better represented by initials. In reality, this is the highest Malaysian title of Dato Seri, and titles, as you know, are not subject to reduction. They didn't need to be mentioned at all. By the way, his middle name is not Mohammad, but Mohamad. In the title of the King of Malaysia (Yang di Pertuan Agong), the last letter is "g", not "t" (vol.II, p. 218); the leader of the Brunei People's Party was called Azahari, not Azarhi (ibid.).

Even worse, however, is that the author has little knowledge of the realities of these two countries, the history of which he undertook to describe.

Thus, the last lines of par. 1 (vol.I, p. 143) give the impression that Indonesia had several official ideologies during its independent existence, which is incorrect. Undoubtedly, B. Tilak, J. Nehru, Sun Yat-sen, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and the Irish Sinfainers had a much greater influence on Sukarno's worldview than M. K. Gandhi. The organization of Budi (and not Buddi, as in the author's case) Utomo could not be "oppositional" by definition and composition (vol. I, p. 142). The Communist Party (CPI) was established in 1920, not in 1921 (vol.I, p. 142). The Communist Party is generally "unlucky"in the textbook. The author, for example, attributes to it "attempts to seize power in 1948 and 1951" (vol. II, p. 207). The first statement is controversial, the second is simply not true. Further, there is a misconception (by the way, for many years imposed by the Suharto regime on Indonesians) that the CPI was, along with Lieutenant Colonel Untung, the organizer and participant of the preventive action against the Council of Generals in 1965. (vol. II, p. 209). It is now generally accepted that this is not the case. The CPI also appears to be "inciting" the peasants to take groundless "unilateral actions" and illegal land grabs (vol. II, p. 209). Once again, the situation is more complicated. Laws on agrarian reform providing for partial redistribution of land in favor of the poor were adopted by the Parliament.

page 216

As early as 1960, the de facto peasants, tired of waiting for detailed government instructions (which were deliberately hindered by the bureaucracy and landowners) to finally be adopted, were essentially acting in compliance with the approved laws.

In the section about Malaya (Malaysia), there is confusion about protectorates, their nature and number. In addition to them, there was also the Crown Straits Settlements colony, which included Malacca, Penang, and Singapore. It is not true that, after 1969, the Malaysian Government purported to "gradually establish a single Malaysian nation without distinction of faith or ethnicity" (vol.II, p. 214). As far as we know, no one has ever set such an unrealistic task.

Further - about the contradictions in the text.

It is stated (vol. I, p. 67) that in the 70s of the XX century "clean citizens" in Indonesia "were no more than 700 thousand people"-a clearly underestimated figure. However, in the paragraph below (!) the author says that "the number of scientific and technical intelligentsia was 1.218 thousand people." The difference is half a million people. Where did these people live? In the village? In the section on Malaysia, it is mentioned that there were political organizations, i.e. parties, in Sarawak and Sabah during the "interwar" period (vol. I, p. 141). However, on the page below, the author himself states "their actual absence".

Now let's talk about the necessary things that are not included in the sections for Indonesia and Malaysia at all.

The section on the history of Indonesia does not describe or mention the period of "liberal democracy" at all - the attempt in late 1945 - mid - 1959 to uncritically transfer the parliamentary system of the West to the country-the reasons for the collapse and the consequences of this attempt. Speaking about the period of Japanese occupation, the author does not mention the division of Indonesia into three zones, its elimination as a single state, and the fact that initially Tokyo did not intend to grant independence to these three parts. There is also nothing about the relationship of the occupiers with the national liberation movement of the country.

There is no mention of the complex parallel process of forming a pan-Indonesian nation and forming nations from separate large nationalities, or of which of these two processes prevailed (s). The reasons for the defeat of Dutch colonialism in Indonesia are not even listed. There is nothing about the nature of power during the period of "directed democracy" (1959-1965), which makes Sukarno look like an autocratic dictator. Meanwhile, it was a condominium regime (Sukarno + the army elite with the participation of "second-tier political actors"). There is no characteristic of either the political system or the political regime of the "new order". The essence and background of the "events of 1965" and their consequences for social strata and political forces are not revealed. It is not explained why the panchasila was preserved even under Sukarno's hostile "new order" of Suharto.

This list could be continued.

Now let's talk about what is missing in the sections about Malaysia. The author does not even mention the 12 - year state of emergency (1948-1960) and the suppression of the left, its background, outcome and consequences. Speaking about the creation of Malaysia (vol. II, p. 213), the author forgot to say that this new state is no longer within the geographical boundaries of Malaya and Singapore, but has "grown" even Sarawak and Sabah, almost tripling its territorial size (!). It is not mentioned in the section about two splits in the OMNO (ruling party): in the late 1980s and late 1990s. There is no mention of legal opposition.

The author is completely silent about the most acute ethnocommunalist problem in Malaysia, which has complicated the country's life for more than a century. As the text shows, the author believes that Malaysia is still floundering in the swamp of the financial and economic crisis, whereas it was overcome by the country a couple of years ago. There is not a word about Mahathir's grandiose innovative and modernizing projects, which were implemented even despite the crisis, and are being successfully implemented now.

It is necessary to state that the historical path of both countries in the XX century was not adequately reflected in the reviewed textbook.

It is necessary to mention one more major drawback inherent in the sections for both countries. The last 10-12 years of their development are given two or three paragraphs, no more. But in Malaysia, and especially in Indonesia, it was a time of dramatic and fateful changes. Due to the scant coverage of the last decade, both sections look written by-

page 217

In the early 1990s, rather than in the early 2000s, the creation of a Multimedia Super Corridor in Malaysia, which unfolded just in the last decade, remained out of the author's field of view.

The situation is even worse with the "reformation era" in Indonesia, as they call the period of democratic transformation after the fall of Suharto in May 1998.Moreover, almost nothing is said about this stage of the country's history. Even worse, the author here has bothered to "lose" one of the five Indonesian presidents. In his submission, Suharto was replaced by a certain" protege of the army circles " (which is essentially incorrect) A. Habibi (sic!). In fact, B. Y. Habibi, who was the country's vice-president in May 1998, in full compliance with the Constitution, replaced the unqualified Suharto for the remaining presidential term (until 2004). However, under strong public pressure, early elections (general and presidential) were held in the country, and as a result of them B. Y. Habibi handed over supreme authority to a major Muslim figure A. Vahid. The author, by combining the initials of one president with the name of another, rendered the textbook and students a bad service.

Obviously, it is absolutely impossible to get an adequate idea of the history of Malaysia and especially Indonesia from the relevant sections of the textbook.

As for the sections on the history of the Philippines in both volumes of the textbook, they fully include the criticisms made in relation to the sections on Indonesia and Malaysia: unedited, unreadable text, lack of (it is not clear why?) reviewing the textbook's manuscript while preparing it for publication. You can add expressionlessness, poverty, and sometimes even illiteracy of the language. Readers - mostly students-will not find a single living detail in the text, some bright touch, etc. Given the difficulties with the volume of work, nevertheless, the introduction of" living material " is quite possible and necessary. For example, for the Philippines - by reducing and in some cases removing from the text socio-economic information that does not fit into the general description of the historical development of the country. Plenty of stylistic errors: "charismatic inclinations" (vol. I, p. 140) or "political rivalry" (vol. II, p. 203); a lot of typos, the abbreviation MAI instead of MAN (vol. II, p. 201), the abbreviation NEAF-National United Anti-Japanese Front, which does not exist in the literature-all this indicates the author's negligence and lack of experience. about unedited text.

The main impression (and it is formed not only in relation to the presentation of the history of the Philippines, but also of the states of the region as a whole) is the author's ignorance of modern rich historiography on the Southeast Asian countries, primarily domestic, not to mention foreign. The 25-thousandth edition of the textbook in those sections and chapters devoted to the history of Southeast Asian countries condemns students to study outdated (both factually and conceptually). a primitive and fragmentary description of the historical process in the states of the region.

Let's limit ourselves to two or three examples of incompetence and misrepresentation of facts. The most serious errors and distortions are contained in the section on the authoritarian regime of President F. Marcos (vol. II, pp. 202-205). It lacks logic and consistency in the presentation of facts, among which secondary ones predominate. No attempt is made to analyze or even briefly assess the reasons for the authoritarian reorganization of power, the socio-political and economic basis of F. Marcos ' authoritarianism, and not a word is said about the main goal of the "new society" - accelerated modernization of the economy. Giving some information about the evolution of the regime of F. Marcos in the direction of its formal "liberalization", the author describes events that simply did not take place in the late 70s of the XX century: about the presidential (!) elections in 1978 or 1979, about the deprivation of Marcos of the prerogatives of the highest executive power (i.e., the death of the President). II, p. 204). In fact, everything happened "exactly the opposite." In 1978, elections were held to the Provisional National Assembly (formally the highest legislative body, but under the control of the President). Markoe "insured" himself by organizing referendums on the eve of the elections, on the basis of which amendments were made to the 1973 constitution, according to which he concentrated the power of both the Prime Minister and the president in his hands (vol.II, pp. 204-205).

A very important question about the anti-authoritarian opposition remains unclear. It was necessary to say that it was extremely diverse in its composition and ideological and political aspirations. Only the Christian Social Movement and two parallel communist parties are mentioned, and it is erroneously stated that most of the Communists agreed with Marko in 1974-

page 218

com about cooperation. We are talking about just a smaller part of the Communists-the numerically small pro-Soviet Communist Party. The reasons for the crisis of the regime at the turn of the 1970s and 1980s and the collapse of the Marcos dictatorship are not disclosed (vol. II, p. 205). The post-authoritarian period, which is exceptionally rich in events and changes in all spheres of Philippine society, is given very little space. The provision that K. Aquino in 1992 voluntarily handed over power to F. Ramos, does not stand up to criticism. In 1992, the term of her presidency ended (under the new Constitution of 1987), the democratic procedure for transferring power was restored, and Fr. Ramos won the presidency as a result of legitimate national elections. About this president - an intellectual and pragmatist, who achieved stabilization of the situation in the country, resumed the process of modernization of the economy while maintaining the democratic system, and managed to absorb the blows of the financial and economic crisis of 1997-the textbook says literally two or three words (vol. II, p. 206). Thus, we are once again faced with incompetence, lack of professionalism and ignorance of the author of modern literature on the Philippines.

The history sections of Singapore are also unlikely to give students any insight into such a unique formation as this, almost unique in the world, city-state.

A cursory, fragmentary description of individual stages of its development without connection with the historical (it was created by the British as a new colonial city, an outpost of their rule in Southeast Asia), ethnic (a Chinese enclave in the center of the Malay world), cultural and religious (the prevalence of Confucian political and cultural traditions) and other specifics is clearly not enough to understand the changes that took place Moreover, the textbook did not properly cover the most important stage in its history - the period of development of the sovereign state of Singapore. The material presented on the pages of the textbook does not even contain general information about the drastic changes in the socio-economic sphere, and most importantly, about the model of political power itself, with its characteristic authoritarian management methods, which managed to create optimal conditions for modernization and eventually played a crucial role in the giant economic leap of Singapore. 1965

There are annoying typos (Lee Kuan Yew, not Lee Kuan Yew), errors and inaccuracies in the sections. Thus, the Straits Settlements Association, which included Penang, Singapore and Malacca in 1826, received the status of a "crown colony" on April 1, 1867, and not in 1917, as indicated (vol. I, p. 136). On May 28, 1958, during the third round of Anglo-Singapore negotiations, it was decided to establish a "crown colony". It was decided to grant Singapore the status of a "self-governing state" within the framework of the British Commonwealth of Nations (vol. II, p. 216). Nor is it true that in Singapore, the responsibility for the country's development lies with the Parliament (vol. II, p. 216). One of the distinctive features of Singapore's political system is that in a unicameral Parliament, monopolized by the People's Action Party, the legislature is subordinate to the Government, which formulates policies and determines how to implement them. As a matter of fact, without all these features of development, there is no history of modern Singapore.

The sections on Thailand in both volumes of this textbook, designed for the mass young student reader, unfortunately not only do not give an idea of the country, but also can give the student a wrong idea of history as one of the most important worldview disciplines.

First of all, it is impossible to ignore the general political and geographical characteristics of the entire region of Southeast Asia. For some reason, the author believes that the division of the region into two subgroups of countries is peculiar only to "domestic historiography", while it is accepted in the entire world literature. Moreover, he connects the selection of Indochina countries with the peculiarity of the political development of countries in the XX century ("the countries of Indochina that experienced various models of socialist development in the second half of the XX century." - Vol. I, p. 132). In fact, the concept of "Indochina" is connected with the commonality of the colonial history of these countries in the XIX century.

The author is extremely inaccurate in the wording. What does "had the status of a colony" mean (vol. I, p. 133)? Does this mean that these countries were not really colonies? Further: "Up to this point (late 19th century - Rec.) ... the lands inhabited by the Lao were partly dependent on Siam and Vietnam" (vol. I, p. 133). It is not clear what was the legal form of dependency - vassalage, colony?

page 219

the author says the same about the Malay sultanates "under Siamese control" (vol.I, p. 136). What is the value of such formulations as " features of political processes in the region mediated by Western civilizational influence..." (vol. I, p. 133) or "one of the characteristic features of the political development of the states of Southeast Asia during the colonial period was the emergence of a large number of different parties and organizations built both on the European model and based on the European model of in its internal structure on elements of traditional political culture" (vol. I, p. 137). On page 154 t. I the author reports that "the coup d'etat became a bourgeois-democratic revolution." On page 194, K. Chamanan is first "appointed" as Prime Minister, and just below that, "elected". There are also direct errors. Thus, unequal treaties were signed by Siam, not Thailand (vol. I, p. 153). The claim that "capitalist relations were born in Thailand under the influence of Western countries" (vol.I, p. 153) is an obvious simplification of the historical process. The revolution of 1932 removed from power not "a few members of the royal family" (vol. 154), and princes as the ruling stratum, which is not the same thing. King Rama XII (vol. I, p. 154) could not rule in 1932, since the current monarch is Rama IX.

Unfortunately, the situation with the second volume is even worse. So, you should write Pridi Panomiong, not P. Lanomiong (p. 191), the party was called "Thammatipat", General Sarit Tanarat, not Sarit Tanarit (p. 192), the regime of T. Kittikachon, not T. Kichtikachon (p. 193), K. Chamanan, not K. Lamaman (p. 194), P. Tinsulanon, not N. Tinsulanon (p. 194). Such formulations as "a number of political forces" (p. 194), " the king... he became a kind of arbiter in the ongoing political disputes" (p. 194). According to the constitution, the king in Thailand has the prerogatives of the highest power, which he fulfills with dignity, and it is hardly justified to call a peculiar political process discord. It is not clear why a group of military politicians is called "Young Turks" (p. 194). Snatching out one of the numerous constitutions that "once again provides for the transition to a parliamentary form of government" (p. 194), the author does not understand what he is writing about. According to the constitution, no matter how many laws were adopted, Thailand in the XX century after the revolution of 1932 was always a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary form of government. Military coups were considered as extraordinary and temporary events, after which new versions of the constitution were necessarily adopted, while the state system of the country was not questioned.

Practically nothing is said about the economic development of the country, which in the 80 - 90s of the XX century demonstrated unprecedented growth rates. The article does not describe the consequences for the country of the economic crisis that began in 1997 in Thailand. In order not to make mistakes literally for each provision of sections and even for each sentence, let's say that the author is not familiar with the history of Thailand, as well as is not familiar with modern domestic historiography in Thailand. He misrepresents the development of the country; pulling out individual facts, sometimes not the most important, giving them a wrong interpretation, the author does not reveal the cause - and-effect relationships and directions of the historical development of the country.

Such a carelessly written text, not even read, shows disrespect for the reader and for the work of a scientist, giving the reader the impression that it is easy to write essays on any scientific topic: it is enough to compile individual facts into a single whole. And for explanations about the fact that the sections on Southeast Asia did not pass scientific testing, did not receive preliminary feedback from specialists, you should obviously contact not the authors, but the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation, which recommended their creations as sections of a textbook for higher educational institutions, since this is an obvious violation of the scientific practice established in our country. practice and professional ethics. Regardless of what the Ministry's employees were guided by when recommending these sections of the textbook for higher education institutions, we, who have spent many decades studying these countries, declare with full responsibility that the sections concerning the countries of Southeast Asia cannot be used in the educational process because of their complete scientific inconsistency.

Permanent link to this publication: