Malaysia is a failed state

Malaysiatoday

(...) Many do not really understand the term 'failed state' so I have extracted below what Weber and Wikipedia have to say on the matter. You will notice that Malaysia certainly fits the bill of a failed state as evident in the parts we have highlighted in bold. Yes, Malaysia is, by 'Western' standards, a failed state, and I do not quite disagree with their prognosis. My only beef is that countries like Malaysia became failed states because the West allowed them to become so and because they served the interest of the West to become so. Failed states need to be propped up so the West would be required to do this propping up. In this way failed states would continue to be beholden to the West. It is only when they no longer serve the interest of the West would failed states be allowed to fall at the detriment of the population as what we have seen in many countries where the dictators finally fell only to bring the country out of the frying pan and into the fire.

What is a failed state and how would we recognise one?

There are several indicators of a failed state. The declaration that a state has 'failed' is generally controversial since, when made authoritatively, this assessment may carry significant geopolitical consequences.

Indicators include:

1. A state whose central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory (the level of control required to avoid being considered a failed state varies considerably amongst authorities),
2. Legitimate authority to make collective decisions has been eroded,
3. Reasonable public services can not be provided,
4. Widespread corruption and criminality,
5. Refugees and involuntary movement of populations,
6. Sharp economic decline,
7. Failed interaction with other states.

A state could be said to 'succeed' if it maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its borders. When this is broken (e.g., through the dominant presence of warlords, militias, or terrorism), the very existence of the state becomes dubious, and the state becomes a failed state. The difficulty of determining whether a government maintains 'a monopoly on the legitimate use of force' (which includes the problems of the definition of 'legitimate') means it is not clear precisely when a state can be said to have 'failed'. This problem of legitimacy can be solved by understanding what Weber intended by it. Weber clearly explains that only the state has the means of production necessary for physical violence (politics as vocation). This means that the state does not require legitimacy for achieving monopoly on the means of violence (de facto) but will need one if it needs to use it (de jure). More...