Considering the modernization of developing countries, we should take a serious view to the fact that the modernization of these countries was brought not by the internal explosive energy of the nations, but by the external impacts from advanced countries in either capitalistic or socialistic system. As a result, the development stage in the modernization of them has been estimated by the existing measures of values of systems in advanced countries. But, in order to work out the modernization, the leaders in developing countries have been demanded to grapple with the problem of discovering new principle with which they can overcome the negative aspects both of backwardness in developing countries, and of “modernity” as they appear in advanced countries, because those negative aspects are now, irrespective of social system, exposed to the public eyes and the value of the “model of modernity” are undermined. Economic development of the developing countries in Southeast Asia especially, unless the modernization is taken up in relation to the latant energy of that nation, it is impossible to assure a developing country's political stability and economic progress. In this stage, the modernization of developing countries should not be estimated by the existing measure of value of systems in advanced countries.
However, we have not had the theory which leads the latent explosive energy of the nations out, and what is more, makes us able to analyze the various social structures in Asia, quite different from those of Western Europe. Therefore, when we construct that useful theory, the most important task is to take up the existing theories of social sciences based value of the West, and to clarity their effectiveness and limitedness. In this paper, the author took up two typical theories on developing countries in Southeast Asia. They are the theories of the modernization in underdeveloped countries formed by W.W. Rostow and that of plural society by J.H. Boeke, J.S. Furnivall and others. These theories were sele ted in considering their relation to the modernization in Malaysia, a typical country in Southeast Asia.
Generally, developing countries must give priority to make the preconditions for industrialization including establishing mechanisms for capital accumulation and training skilled engineers and labourers. In fact the Malaysian government is making all efforts to fulfill these requirements. But, the impediments to development in the Malaysian social structure are caused not only by weak preconditions of industrialization, but also by political and social traits of any plural society, which have asserted by J.S. Furnivall and J.H. Boeke. Modernization in Malaysia cannot be attained merely by the theory of W.W. Rostow's. In a country which contains rival societies, the mechanisms for economic development are needed, which include modern national education. And they cannot be perfected without conquering communalism firstly. In Malasia the bitter enemy between Malays and Chinese makes the execution of national policy more difficult than in countries which are made up of a single race. Communalism in Malasia clearly affects policies adopted by Malay leaders operating the interests of Chinese communities. In Malaysia without regarding to relations between the entangled communalist and class distinctions, no political or social analysis will be complete.
However, more than by social, economic, and cultural differences between two races, modern communalism in Southeast Asia is caused by political ambitions and activities of the ruling classes in each community who contrive to convert internal contradictions and conflicts of interests into an external, inter-communal confrontation.
