Seditious Spaces

Protest in Post-Colonial Malaysia


  • Nurul Azreen Azlan TU Delft, Architecture and the Built Environment



Seditious Spaces, Malaysia, colonialism, geography, postcolonial narrative, surveillance of public space, Kuala Lumpur, built environment, public space


The title ‘Seditious Spaces’ is derived from one aspect of Britain’s colonial legacy in Malaysia (formerly Malaya): the Sedition Act 1948. While colonial rule may seem like it was a long time ago, Malaysia has only been independent for sixty-one years, after 446 years of colonial rule. The things that we take for granted today, such as democracy and all the rights it implies, are some of the more ironic legacies of colonialism that some societies, such as Malaysia, have had to figure out after centuries of subjugation. While not suggesting that post-colonial regimes should not be held accountable for their actions, it is ironic to see a BBC commentator grilling the leader of a Commonwealth state about repressive laws and regulations inherited from the colonial era. (Even the term ‘Commonwealth’ is itself ironic, implying shared wealth, in reality it commonly meant a colonised country was contributing to the wealth of the metropolitan centre).

This research sought to understand how the trajectory of urban development, which is shaped by the colonial legacy, has produced the contemporary geography of contention in Malaysia. Given that public space is shaped by the colonial legacy, how does it facilitate or hinder street protests as a function of democracy, which is also a vestige of colonialism? To do this, rather than going into a long discussion about notions of public sphere and public space, much of which originated from Western traditions, I used postcoloniality as a lens for the topic1. By taking the concepts as a given, the postcolonial gaze allowed me to contextualise particular Malaysian conditions. In this thesis I argued that the postcolonial narrative (democracy, modernisation, development) is ambivalent precisely because the colonial narrative itself is ambivalent; there was no real break between colonisation and the present condition. I examined three aspects in particular. Firstly, colonial architecture as a subversive ‘third space’, where independence amplified the subversive quality of colonial architecture because of the power vacuum left after the colonisers had left. Secondly, postcolonial ‘amnesia’, where certain aspects of history were conveniently forgotten or others selectively remembered in the production of space to build a hegemonic vision of society. Finally, I looked at postcolonial mimicry, where the post-colonial society imitated either the former colonial master or some other references that fit within its narrative. These notions were mapped onto public space which not only provided the backdrop for dissent but also shaped its form and practices.

Protest provided a direct line for the interrogation of just how democratic postcolonial public space actually is. The mobilisations, negotiations, and potential conflicts that arise from the moment a street protest is announced reveal a lot about the politics of space as much as the event itself. Public space comprises material and discursive spaces and, at the time of writing, included social media which has become part of the infrastructure of protest. The empirical part of this research came from the Bersih 4 protest in Kuala Lumpur, which took place from 29-30 August 2015.

To ground the somewhat abstract postcolonial discussion, methods (outlined below) were used to collect and analyse data. Firstly, to understand the logic behind the control and surveillance of public space I reviewed literature on how architecture and public space are produced and governed in Malaysia. Secondly, I observed protest in both digital and material public space, which means I harvested social-media data about the protest but also observed street protests in Kuala Lumpur. This informed me how protest produces space within which protesters could foster a collective identity, something that is necessary for the continuity of the protest. I then conducted a thematic analysis on a large number of tweets collected during the protest to understand how information about their places were communicated. Other protests that have taken place in Kuala Lumpur since 1998, when new media started playing a role, were also mapped; this was crucial for the understanding of the spatial patterns of the protests.

By tracing the production of architecture in Malaysia we can see how the nation-building project was an ambivalent one, evidenced by how the state mapped their aspirations onto the built environment. Postcolonial amnesia is exhibited in how the Malay-Muslim identity is amplified in architecture while other identities were suppressed and only utilised when it seemed productive. Mimicry, on the other hand, can be seen in how certain architecture is created based on an imagined past, and how visions of modernity fluctuate between Occidental and Orientalist visual cues.

Malaysian public space is not only a colonial legacy in terms of its material infrastructure and regulations, it also carries traces of colonial practice. Here, mimicry was manifested in how society imitated the erstwhile colonial masters in seeking to avoid the Other (due to the perception that public space is dangerous and uncomfortable, and showing that segregation had moved from one defined by ethnicity to one defined by class). The lack of a clear break between the colonial and the Neoliberal can also be seen in how public space is governed. Undesirable activity was always framed according to its potential for disrupting economic activity, indicating that public space was perceived as being useful only for production and consumption, not for the performance of citizenship.

An urban-planning assessment of Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya (the seat of the postcolonial government) was carried out to see which place could better support protest. Accessibility, land-use patterns, and urban form were all aspects of the city that were decided upon at the urban-planning level and throught to influence the probability of protest taking place. This indicates that a city can be designed to support or hinder the performance of democracy. I found that Kuala Lumpur, founded during the colonial era, was actually more supportive of protest activities than Putrajaya, a city purpose built by the newly independent democratic regime.

Analysis based on data collected around Bersih 4 was organised into four themes. I first examined how protest produces space. I did this by tracing how the collective identity, already formed by previous Bersih protests, was cultivated on social media in order to mobilise protesters to take to the streets. The act of converging in the same space and performing these spatial choreographies (marching, knowledge-sharing, occupation) further enhanced the collective identity. Images and descriptions of what took place on the streets then travelled through social media which in turn propelled events in the public space. While protest is shaped by the materiality of the urban environment, protest also produces space.

Secondly, a reading of the space revealed the interplay between symbolic places and the spaces of everyday life. Protests are shaped by the existing materiality of space, which the authorities could further control by putting up extra measures. Due to this, Bersih 4 ended up occupying the intersection between symbolic and institutional places and spaces of everyday life. The polite restraint shown by Bersih 4 (in not entering Dataran Merdeka – which was barred to them) served to amplify the distance between the state and the people, further magnified by the fact that the protest coincided with Independence Day (31 August). The junction that Bersih occupied was teeming with people throughout the occupation but Dataran Merdeka was left empty and silent on the eve of the Independence Day commemoration. On the other hand, a thematic analysis of tweets revealed that most of those that mentioned geographical places were inflammatory in nature, in the sense that they were urging people to join the protest. Therefore, while the state could construct the symbolism of the space, it does not mean that the space is viewed in a similar way by the people, which means, in turn, that it can be rewritten. This is one way in which the subversiveness of colonial architecture was manifested.

Thirdly, I found that the control of digital and material space was symmetrical. This can be seen in three ways: One, how regulations of both spaces can be used to suppress dissent; Two, how access to space can be blocked, either by blocking certain websites or platforms, or by limiting the access to the material public space; and Three, bottom‑up disruptions – while the Red Shirts disrupted Bersih’s performativity in the material public space, cybertroopers were disrupting protest exchanges on Twitter.

Finally, the digital and spatial divide between Bersih and its opponents. The digital divide was not defined by degrees of expertise, but, rather, it revealed a differing logic of operation based on norms shaped by what was available to these different parties. Geographically, it revealed the difference between experience of organising protests for a collective cause versus a lack of experience (compounded by racist motivations). What this indicated was that the cleavage does not only run along communal lines, is also political.

The research showed how the production of the Malaysian built environment is ambivalent, as is evidenced by the traces of amnesia and mimicry found in the narrative, where identities are grafted onto projections of modernity. Putrajaya shows that there is a disconnect between what the regime claims itself to be, a democracy, and the city it builds. What Putrajaya seems to demonstrate (ironically, as the seat of a democratic government) is how urban planning can be used to design a city so that it does not support the performance of democracy. It is also ironic how Kuala Lumpur, a city founded during the colonial period, is now more accommodating to street protest, cementing its position as a subversive third space. The disconnect between the ideology of the regime and the kind of space it produces indicates a potential for architects and urban planners to be subversive by designing public space to be more democratic, regardless of a regime’s ideology. Kuala Lumpur’s mixed land-use patterns, accessible by multi-modal transportation and a tight urban form which gives the city a more walkable scale, indicates that the city is a place of everyday life since it supports a variety of functions and activities within easy reach of the populace. Since protests also seem to flourish in public spaces like these, where everyday life is lived, it further cements the role of protest as a part of public life.

The research also indicated the necessity of having material public space for the performance of democracy, thereby debunking the myth that digital space has somehow superseded public space. Just as the assumption that the Internet would result in the death of distance (ease of communication has, ironically, led to global cities becoming ever more important as nodes in global networks), this research shows how the Internet has the potential to expand the public sphere, and is actually instrumental in getting people to physically go to public spaces. Given how the protesters were communicating about place during Bersih 4, it shows how contestation of meaning does not have to be direct clash but that digital space could provide an arena even when material public space is off limits.

The way in which Bersih 4 materialised itself in Kuala Lumpur also shows that restraint on the part of the protesters could also be a productive protest strategy, since it can bridge the distance between the state and its citizens via a strategic reading (and occupation of) space. Since protest is a performance, in the sense that it is a way of communicating displeasure, the space it uses should not only be seen as something to use or overcome, but can also be utilised more actively. Bersih 4, through its occupation of an important street junction, showed how it could challenge the symbolism embedded within Dataran by amplifying it.

This research also shows how access to public space is crucial for the performance of democracy, and how public space can actually be designed to be more democratic, regardless of the ideology of the regime. Democracy has a spatial quality, and design can play a role in fomenting a more democratic urban environment.


Abbott, Jason. 2011. “Electoral Authoritarianism and the Print Media in Malaysia: Measuring Political Bias and Analyzing Its Cause.” Asian Affairs: An American Review 38(1): 1–38.

Abbott, Jason, Andrew W Macdonald, and John Wagner Givens. 2013. “New Social Media and ( Electronic ) Democratization in East and Southeast Asia.” Taiwan Journal of Democracy 9(2): 105–37.

Ackermann, Andreas. 2012. “Cultural Hybridity: Between Metaphor and Empiricism.” In Conceptualizing Cultural Hybridization: A Transdisciplinary Approach, ed. Philipp Wolfgang Stockhammer. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 5–25.

Ahmed, Sara. 1999. “`She’ll Wake Up One of These Days and Find She’s Turned into a Nigger’: Passing through Hybridity.” Theory, Culture & Society 16(2): 87–106.

Ahmed, W., Bath, P. A., Sbaffi, L., & Demartini, G. (2018). Moral Panic through the Lens of Twitter: An Analysis of Infectious Disease Outbreaks. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Social Media and Society - SMSociety ’18 (pp. 217–221).

Alatas, Syed Hussein. 1977. The Myth of the Lazy Native: A Study of the Image of the Malays, Filipinos and Javanese from the 16th to the 20th Century and Its Function in the Ideology of Colonial Capitalism. London: Frank Cass.

Andrade, Susan Z. 1994. “White Skin, Black Masks: Colonialism and the Sexual Politics of Oroonoko.” Cultural Critique (27): 189–214.

Ariff, Ibrahim, and Chen Chuan Goh. 1998. Multimedia Super Corridor : What the MSC Is All about : How It Benefits Malaysians and the Rest of the World. eds. Chen Chuan Goh and Ibrahim Ariff. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Leeds Publications.

Auyero, Javier. 2006. “Spaces and Places as Sites and Objects of Politics.” In Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, eds. Robert E. Goodin and Charles Tilly. Oxford University Press, 564–78.

Baker, Stephanie Alice. 2012. “From the Criminal Crowd to the ‘Mediated Crowd’: The Impact of Social Media on the 2011 English Riots.” Safer Communities 11(1): 40–49.

Barry, Wellman. 2008. “Physical Place and Cyberplace: The Rise of Personalized Networking.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25(2): 227–52.

Batrinca, Bogdan, and Philip C. Treleaven. 2014. “Social Media Analytics: A Survey of Techniques, Tools and Platforms.” AI and Society 30(1): 89–116.

Baxstrom, Richard. 2008. Houses in Motion: The Experience of Place and the Problem of Belief in Urban Malaysia. Stanford University Press.

Bell, Daniel A, David Brown, Kanishka Jayasuriya, and David Martin Jones. 1995. Towards Illiberal Democracy. Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Bhabha, Homi. 1984. “Of Mimicry and Man : The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse.” October 28(Discipleship : A Special Issue on Psychoanalysis): 125–33.

———. 1994. The Location of Culture. Routledge.

Boey, Marc. 2002. “( Trans ) National Realities and Imaginations : The Business and Politics of Malaysia ’ s Multimedia Super Corridor.” Asian Journal of Social Science 30(1): 28–52.

Bonilla, Yarimar, and Jonathan Rosa. 2015. “#Ferguson: Digital Protest, Hashtag Ethnography, and the Racial Politics of Social Media in the United States.” American Ethnologist 42(1): 4–17.

Brooker, Daniel. 2012. “‘Build It and They Will Come’? A Critical Examination of Utopian Planning Practices and Their Socio-Spatial Impacts in Malaysia’s ‘Intelligent City.’” Asian Geographer 29(1): 39–56.

Bruns, Axel, and Jean Burgess. 2015. “Twitter Hashtags from Ad Hoc to Calculated Publics.” Hashtag Publics: The Power and Politics of Discursive Networks (2011): 13–28.

Bruns, Axel, Brenda Moon, Avijit Paul, and Felix Münch. 2016. “Towards a Typology of Hashtag Publics: A Large-Scale Comparative Study of User Engagement across Trending Topics.“ Communication Research and Practice 2(1): 20–46.

Bucher, Taina, and Anne Helmond. 2017. “The Affordances of Social Media Platforms.” In SAGE Handbook of Social Media, eds. Jean Burgess, Thomas Poell, and Alice Marwick. London and New York: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Buettner, Ricardo, and Katharina Buettner. 2016. “A Systematic Literature Review of Twitter Research from a Socio-Political Revolution Perspective.” In HICSS-49 Proceedings: 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-49),.

Bunnell, Tim. 2002a. “Cities for Nations? Examining the City-Nation-State Relation in Information Age Malaysia.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26(2): 284–98.

———. 2002b. “Multimedia Utopia? A Geographical Critique of High-Tech Development in Malaysia’s Multimedia Super Corridor.” Antipode 34: 265–95.

———. 2004. “Re-Viewing the Entrapment Controversy: Megaprojection, (Mis)Representation and Postcolonial Performance.” GeoJournal 59(4): 297–305.

Burgess, Jean, Anne Galloway, and Theresa Sauter. 2015. “Hashtag as Hybrid Forum : The Case of # Agchatoz.” In Hashtag Publics : The Power and Politics of Discursive Networks, ed. Nathan Rambukkana. Peter Lang, 1–18.

Burke, Peter. 2013. Cultural Hybridity. Polity.

Case, William. 1993. “Semi-Democracy in Malaysia : Withstanding for Regime Change.” Pacific Affairs 66(2): 183–205.

Castells, Manuel. 2004. “‘Space of Flows, Space of Places: Materialism for a Theory of Urbanism in the Information Age.’” In The Cybercities Reader, ed. Stephen Graham. , 82–93.

———. 2010. “The Space of Flows.” In The Rise of the Network Society, Wiley Online Books,.

Chin, James. 2009. “The Malaysian Chinese Dilemma : The Never Ending Policy ( NEP ).” Chinese Southern Diaspora Studies 3: 167–82.

Christensen, Christian. 2011a. “Discourses of Technology and Liberation: State Aid to Net Activists in an Era of “Twitter Revolutions.” The Communication Review 14(3): 233–53.

———. 2011b. “Twitter Revolutions? Addressing Social Media and Dissent.” The Communication Review 14(3): 155–57.

Christopher, AJ. 1988. “‘Divide and Rule’: The Impress of British Separation Policies.” Area 20(3): 233–43.

Comunello, Francesca, and Giuseppe Anzera. 2012. “Will the Revolution Be Tweeted? A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the Social Media and the Arab Spring.” Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 23(4): 453–70.

Comunello, Francesca, Simone Mulargia, and Lorenza Parisi. 2016. “The ‘proper’ Way to Spread Ideas through Social Media: Exploring the Affordances and Constraints of Different Social Media Platforms as Perceived by Italian Activists.” Sociological Review 64(3): 515–32.

Cooper, F, and A L Stoler. 1997. Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois World. University of California Press.

Cowan, Gregory. 2004. “Street Protest Architecture -Dissent Space in Australia.” Bad Subjects (65).

Crinson, Mark. 2003. Modern Architecture and the End of Empire. Ashgate Publishing Limited.

———, ed. 2005. Urban Memory: History and Amnesia in the Modern City. Routledge.

Crouch, Harold. 1993. “Malaysia: Neither Authoritarian nor Democratic.” In Southeast Asia in the 1990s: Authoritarianism, Democracy and Capitalism, eds. Kevin Hewison, Richard Robison, and Gary Rodan. Allen & Unwin Sydney, 133–57.

Davis, Mike. 2018. City of Quartz : Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. Verso.

Diamond, Larry Jay. 2002. “Thinking About Hybrid Regimes.” Journal of Democracy 13(2): 21–35.

Dick, H. W., and P. J. Rimmer. 1998. “Beyond the Third World City: The New Urban Geography of South-East Asia.” Urban Studies 35(12): 2303–21.

Dingxin, Zhau. 2013. “The Built Environment and Organisation in Anti_US Protest Mobilisation after the 1999 Belgrade Embassy Bombing.” In Spaces of Contention: Spatialities and Social Movements, eds. Walter Nicholls, Byron Miller, and Justin Beaumont. Ashgate Publishing Limited, 199–218.

Douglas, Carl. 2007. “Barricades and Boulevards.” Interstices 8: 31–42.

Drainville, Andre C. 2005. Contesting Globalization : Space and Place in the World Economy. London: Routledge.

Earl, Jennifer et al. 2013. “This Protest Will Be Tweeted.” Information, Communication & Society 4462(June): 459–78.

Freedom House. 2016. “Freedom on the Net 2016 Country Report: Malaysia.” Freedom on the Net 2016 (April).

Fregonese, Sara. 2013. “Mediterranean Geographies of Protest.” European Urban and Regional Studies 20(1): 109–14.

Fukuyama, Francis. 2011. The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution. Profile Books.

Funston, John. 2001. “Malaysia: Developmental State Challenged.” In Government and Politics in Southeast Asia, Zed Books, 160–202.

Gandhi, Leela. 1998. Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction. New South Wales: Allen and Unwin.

George, Cherian. 2007. “Media in Malaysia: Zone of Contention.” Democratization 14(5): 893–910.

Gerbaudo, Paolo. 2015. “Protest Avatars as Memetic Signifiers: Political Profile Pictures and the Construction of Collective Identity on Social Media in the 2011 Protest Wave.” Information, Communication & Society 18(8): 916–29.

Gerbaudo, Paolo, and Emiliano Treré. 2015. “In Search of the ‘We’ of Social Media Activism: Introduction to the Special Issue on Social Media and Protest Identities.“ Information, Communication & Society 18(8): 865–71.

Ghosh, Amitav. 1995. The Calcutta Chromosome. London: John Murray.

Giglietto, Fabio, and Yenn Lee. 2017. “A Hashtag Worth a Thousand Words: Discursive Strategies Around #JeNeSuisPasCharlie After the 2015 Charlie Hebdo Shooting.” Social Media + Society 3(1)

Gilbert, Helen, and Joanne Tompkins. 1996. Post-Colonial Drama : Theory, Practice, Politics. Routledge.

Goh, Beng-an, and David Liauw. 2009. “Post-Colonial Projects of a National Culture.” City 13(1): 71–79.

Goh, Daniel P. S. 2008. “From Colonial Pluralism to Postcolonial Multiculturalism: Race, State Formation and the Question of Cultural Diversity in Malaysia and Singapore.” Sociology Compass 2(1): 232–52.

Gomez, Edmund Terence, and KS Jomo. 1999. Malaysia’s Political Economy : Politics, Patronage and Profits. Cambridge University Press.

Gomez, Edmund Terence, and Persatuan Sains Sosial Malaysia. 2004. The State of Malaysia Ethnicity, Equity and Reform. London; New York: RoutledgeCurzon.

Gong, Rachel. 2011. “Internet Politics and State Media Control: Candidate Weblogs in Malaysia.” Sociological Perspectives 54(3): 307–28.

Gouda, Frances. 2000. “Mimicry and Projection in the Colonial Encounter: The Dutch East Indies/Indonesia as Experimental Laboratory, 1900-1942.” Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History 1(2).

Graham, Stephen. 2010. Cities under Siege : The New Military Urbanism. Verso.

Graham, Stephen, and Simon Marvin. 1996. Telecommunications and the City : Electronic Spaces, Urban Places. Routledge.

———. 2009. Splintering Urbanism : Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. London: Routledge.

Graham, Stephen, and Colin McFarlane, eds. 2015. Infrastructural Lives: Urban Infrastructure in Context. Routledge.

Gullick, J. M. 1994. Old Kuala Lumpur. Oxford University Press.

Habermas, Jürgen. 2006. “Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research.” Communication Theory 16(4): 411–26.

Harindranath, G., Edward W. N. Bernroider, and Sherif H. Kamel. 2015. “Social Media and Social Transformation Movements: The Role of Affordances and Platforms.” Ecis Paper 73(2015): 1–13.

Harper, T N. 1996. “NEW MALAYS, NEW MALAYSIANS: Nationalism, Society and History.” Southeast Asian Affairs: 238–55.

Hazan, Éric. 2015. A History of the Barricade. Verso Books.

Hernandez, Felipe. 2010. 26 Bhabha for Architects. Routledge.

Hill, Jane H. 1999. “Language, Race, and White Public Space.” American Anthropologist 100(3): 680–89.

Hirschman, Charles. 1976. “Trends in Recent Urbanization in Peninsular Malaysia.” Demography 13(4): 445–61.

———. 1986. “The Making of Race in Colonial Malaya: Political Economy and Racial Ideology.” Sociological Forum 1(2): 330–61.

Hogan, Trevor et al. 2012. “Asian Urbanisms and the Privatization of Cities.” Cities 29(1): 59–63.

Home, Robert. 2013. Of Planting and Planning: The Making of British Colonial Cities, Second Edition. Routledge.

Hopkins, Julian. 2014. “Cybertroopers and Tea Parties: Government Use of the Internet in Malaysia.” Asian Journal of Communication 24(1): 5–24.

Hoskyns, Teresa. 2014. The Empty Place: Democracy and Public Space. Routledge.

Howard, Philip N., Sheetal D. Agarwal, and Muzammil M. Hussain. 2011. “When Do States Disconnect Their Digital Networks? Regime Responses to the Political Uses of Social Media.” The Communication Review 14(3): 216–32.

Hutchby, Ian. 2001. “Technologies, Texts and Affordances.” Sociology 35(2): 441–56.

Iosifidis, Petros, and Mark Wheeler. 2016. “Social Media, Public Sphere, and Democracy.” In Public Spheres and Mediated Social Networks in the Western Context and Beyond, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 13–37.

Jacobs, Jane Margaret. 1996. Edge of Empire: Postcolonialism and the City. Psychology Press.

Jayasuriya, Kanishka, and Garry Rodan. 2007. “Beyond Hybrid Regimes: More Participation, Less Contestation in Southeast Asia.” Democratization 14(5): 773–94.

Jomo, KS. 2004. UNRISD Programme on Identities, Conflicts and Cohesion The New Economic Policy and Interethnic Relations in Malaysia.

Jungherr, Andreas. 2008. “Social Web: Towards Networked Protest Politics?” Changing Protest and Media Cultures SFB/FK 615 Media Upheavals University of Siegen, Germany Twittering Activists: The Uses of Twitter for Political Activism.

Juris, Jeffrey S. 2012. “Reflections on #Occupy Everywhere: Social Media, Public Space, and Emerging Logics of Aggregation.” American Ethnologist 39(2): 259–79.

Karim, Hassan, and Siti Nor Hamid. 1984. Bersama Rakyat! Gerakan Mahasiswa, 1967-74. INSAN.

Kasipillai, Jeyapalan, and Pikkay Chan. 2008. “Travel Demand Management: Lessons for Malaysia.” Journal of Public Transportation 11(3): 41–55.

Kellner, Douglas. 1998. “Intellectuals, the New Public Sphere and Technopolitics.” The Politics of Cyberspace: A New Political Science Reader (1989): 167–86.

Keohane, Robert, and Joseph Nye. 1998. “Power and Independence in the Information Age.” Foreign Affairs 77(5): 81–94.

Khondker, Habibul Haque. 2011. “Role of the New Media in the Arab Spring.” Globalizations 8(5): 37–41.

Khoo, Gaik Cheng. 2002. “Strangers within the ( Imagined ) Community : A Study of Modern Malay Identity in U-Wei Hj . Saari ’ s Jogho and Sabri Lain ’ s Face Off.” RIMA: Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs 2(2): 81–114.

Khoo, Kay Kim. 1981. “Sino-Malay Relations in Peninsular Malaysia before 1942.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 12(1): 93–107.

Khor, Samantha. 2015. “NGO Reps Defile Bersih Chairperson’s Effigy And Issue Threats At Anti-Bersih Gathering.” (November 22, 2017).

Kim, Wang Lay. 2001. “Media and Democracy in Malaysia.” The Public 8(2): 67–88.

King, Anthony D. 1993. “Identity and Difference : The Internationalization of Capital and the Globalization of Culture.” In The Restless Urban Landscape, ed. Paul Leslie Knox. Prentice Hall.

———. 1996. “Worlds in the City: Manhattan Transfer and the Ascendance of Spectacular Space.” Planning Perspectives 11(2): 97–114.

King, Ross. 2008. Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya Negotiating Urban Space in Malaysia. Honolulu: Asian Studies Association of Australia in association with University of Hawaii Press.

Kluitenberg, Eric. 2006. “The Network of Waves: Living and Acting in a Hybrid Space.” Open 11: Hybrid Space: 6–16.

Kozlowski, Marek, Norsidah Ujang, and Suhardi Maulan. 2015. “Performance of Public Spaces in the Kuala Lumpur Metropolitan Region in Terms of the Tropical Climate.” ALAM CIPTA 8(1): 41–51.

Kultermann, Udo. 1987. “South-East Asia 4: Malaysia.” Mimar (26).

Kusno, Abidin. 2002. “Architecture after Nationalism: Political Imaginings of Southeast Asian Architects.” In Critical Reflections on Cities in Southeast Asia, eds. Tim Bunnell, Lisa Barbara Welch Drummond, and Kong Chong Ho. Brill, 351.

———. 2010. The Appearances of Memory : Mnemonic Practices of Architecture and Urban Form in Indonesia. Duke University Press.

Lai, Chee-kien. 2007. Building Merdeka: Independence Architecture in Kuala Lumpur, 1957-1966. Galeri Petronas.

———. 2010. “Maidan to Padang : Reinventions of Urban Fields in Malaysia and Singapore.” Traditional Dwelling and Settlements Review xxi(ii).

Lande, Carl H. 2001. “The Return of ‘People Power’ in the Philippines.” Journal of Democracy 12(2): 88–102.

Landler, Mark, and Brian Stelter. 2009. “Washington Taps Into a Potent New Force in Diplomacy.” The New York Times.

Langford, Jean M. 1999. “Medical Mimesis: Healing Signs of a Cosmopolitan ‘Quack.’” American Ethnologist 26(1): 24–46.

Lawson, Alan. 1992. “Comparative Studies and Post-Colonial’Settler’ Cultures.” Australian-Canadian Studies 10(2): 153.

Lee, Francis L. F., and Joseph Man Chan. 2015. “Digital Media Activities and Mode of Participation in a Protest Campaign: A Study of the Umbrella Movement.” Information, Communication & Society 4462(December 2015): 1–19.

Lee, Francis L. F., Louis Leung, Jack L Qiu, and Donna SC Chu. 2013. “Introduction: Challenges for New Media Research.” In Frontiers in New Media Research, eds. Francis Lap Fung Lee, Louis Leung, Jack L Qiu, and Donna SC Chu. Routledge, 6–16.

Lee, Gregory B, and Sunny S K Lam. 1998. “Wicked Cities.” Futures 30(10): 967–79.

Leitner, Helga, Eric Sheppard, and Kristin M Sziartot. 2008. “The Spatialities of Contentious Politics.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 33(2): 157–72.

Leetaru, K. H., Shaowen, W., Guofeng, C., Padmanabhan, A., & Shook, E. (2013). Mapping the global Twitter hearbeat: The geography of Twitter. First Monday, 18, 5–6.

Leong, Pauline. 2015. “Political Communication in Malaysia: A Study on the Use of New Media in Politics.” JeDEM 7(1): 46–71.

Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan Way. 2002. “The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism.” Journal of Democracy 13(2): 51–65.

Lewis, Paul et al. 2011. Reading the Riots: Investigating England’s Summer of Disorder. London.

Lim, Merlyna. 2014. “Seeing Spatially: People, Networks and Movements in Digital and Urban Spaces.” International Development Planning Review 36(1): 51–72.

———. 2015. “A CyberUrban Space Odyssey: The Spatiality of Contemporary Social Movement.” New Geographies 07: 117–23.

———. 2016. “Citizenship and Democratization in Southeast Asia.” : 211–37.

Linz, Juan J. 2000. Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Liow, Joseph Chinyong. 2012. “Malaysia’s March 2008 General Election: Understanding the New Media Factor.” The Pacific Review 25(3): 293–315.

Loo, Yat-Ming. 2012. “‘No Chinatown, Please!’: Contesting Race, Identity and Postcolonial Memory in Kuala Lumpur.” The Journal of Architecture 17(6): 847–70.

Low, Setha M. 2001. “The Edge and the Center: Gated Communities and the Discourse of Urban Fear:” American Anthropologist 103(1): 45–58.

———. 2015. “Public Space and the Public Sphere: The Legacy of Neil Smith.” Antipode 00(0): 1–18.

Low, Setha M., and Neil Smith, eds. 2006. The Politics of Public Space. Routledge.

Lubin, Judy. 2012. “The ‘Occupy’ Movement: Emerging Protest Forms and Contested Urban Spaces.” Berkeley Planning Journal 25(1).

Lukito, Yulia Nurliani. 2015. “Colonial Exhibition and a Laboratory of Modernity: Hybrid Architecture at Batavia’s Pasar Gambir.” Indonesia 100(1): 77–103.

Mabardi, Sabine. 2000. “Encounters of a Heterogeneous Kind: Hybridity in Cultural Theory.” Critical Studies.

Martin, Deborah G. 2003. “‘Place-Framing’ as Place-Making Constituting a Neighborhood for Organizing and Activism.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93(3): 730–50.

———. 2013. “Place Frames: Analysing Practice and Production of Place in Contentious Politics.” In Spaces of Contention: Spatialities and Social Movements, eds. Walter Nicholls, Byron Miller, and Justin Beaumont. Ashgate Publishing Limited, 89–99.

Martin, Deborah G, and Byron Miller. 2003. “Space and Contentious Politics.” Mobilization: An International Journal 8(2): 143–56.

Meek, David. 2012. “YouTube and Social Movements: A Phenomenological Analysis of Participation, Events and Cyberplace.” Antipode 44(4): 1429–48.

Milan, Stefania. 2015. “When Algorithms Shape Collective Action: Social Media and the Dynamics of Cloud Protesting.” Social Media + Society 1(2): 1–10.

Miller, Harry. 1965. The Story of Malaysia. Faber and Faber.

Minton, Anna. 2012. Ground Control: Fear and Happiness in the Twenty-First-Century City. Penguin.

Misak, Cheryl. 2009. “Truth and Democracy: Pragmatism and the Deliberative Virtues.” In Does Truth Matter? Democracy and Public Space, eds. Raf Geenens and Ronald Tinnevelt. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 29–39.

Mitchell, Don. 2003. “The Liberalization of Free Speech: Or, How Protest in Public Space Is Silenced” eds. Walter Nicholls, Byron Miller, and Justin Beaumont. Agora (Stanford Law School Journal): 47–67.

Mohamad, Mahathir. 1991. Malaysia: The Way Forward (Vision 2020). Malaysian Business Council.

———. 1998. Excerpts from the Speeches of Mahathir Mohamad on the Multimedia Super Corridor. Pelanduk Publications.

———. 2011. A Doctor in the House : The Memoirs of Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia: MPH Pub. : Distributed by MPH Distributors.

Mohamad Rasdi, Mohamad Tajuddin. 2005. Malaysian Architecture : Crisis Within. Utusan Publications & Distributors.

Morozov, Evgeny. 2011. The Net Delusion : The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. PublicAffairs.

Morris, Jan, and Simon Winchester. 1983. Stones of Empire: The Buildings of the Raj. Oxford University Press.

Morton, P. A. 2000. Hybrid Modernities : Architecture and Representation at the 1931 Colonial Exposition, Paris. MIT Press.

Naipaul, V. S. 1967. The Mimic Men. Pan Macmillan.

Nalbantoğlu, Gülsüm Baydar, and Chong Thai Wong. 1997. Postcolonial Space(S). Princeton Architectural Press.

Nanabhay, Mohamed, and Roxane Farmanfarmaian. 2011. “From Spectacle to Spectacular: How Physical Space, Social Media and Mainstream Broadcast Amplified the Public Sphere in Egypt’s ‘Revolution.” The Journal of North African Studies 16(4): 573–603.

Oldenburg, Ray. 1998. The Great Good Place: Cafés, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community. Marlowe.

Panja, Sheena. 2002. “The ‘Third Space’: The Creation of Archaeological Knowledge in Post-Independence India.” Studies in History 18(1): 1–22.

Parkinson, John R. 2009. “Does Democracy Require Physical Public Space?” In Does Truth Matter, eds. Patrick Turmel and Mark Kingwell. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 101–14.

———. 2012. Democracy and Public Space: The Physical Sites of Democratic Performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pepinsky, Thomas B. 2013. “The New Media and Malaysian Politics in Historical Perspective.” Contemporary Southeast Asia 35(1): 83.

Perera, Nihal. 1998. Society and Space : Colonialism, Nationalism, and Postcolonial Identity in Sri Lanka. Westview Press.

Phillips, Richard. 2006. Sex, Politics and Empire: A Postcolonial Geography. Manchester University Press.

della Porta, Donatella, and Maria Fabbri. 2016. “Producing Space in Action: The Protest Campaign against the Construction of the Dal Molin Military Base.” Social Movement Studies 15(2): 180–96.

della Porta, Donatella, Maria Fabbri, and Gianni Piazza. 2016. “Putting Protest in Place: Contested and Liberated Spaces in Three Campaigns.” In Spaces of Contention: Spatialities and Social Movements, eds. Walter Nicholls, Byron Miller, and Justin Beaumont. Routledge, 27–46.

Porter, Libby. 2006. “Planning in (Post)Colonial Settings: Challenges for Theory and Practice.” Planning Theory & Practice 7(4): 383–96.

Postill, John. 2014. “A Critical History of Internet Activism and Social Protest in Malaysia, 1998-2011*.” Asiascape: Digital Asia 1(1–2): 78–103.

Python, Monty. 1974. “Monty Python and the Holy Grail.” : 1–128.

Rabinow, Paul. 1995. French Modern : Norms and Forms of the Social Environment. University of Chicago Press.

Radcliffe, Sarah A. 2011. “Third Space, Abstract Space and Coloniality.” In Postcolonial Spaces, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 129–45.

Rafael, Vicente L. 2003. “The Cell Phone and the Crowd: Messianic Politics in the Contemporary Philippines.” Public Culture 15(3): 399–425.

Ram, Mori. 2014. “White but Not Quite: Normalizing Colonial Conquests through Spatial Mimicry.” Antipode 46(3): 736–53.

Ramadan, Adam. 2013. “From Tahrir to the World: The Camp as a Political Public Space.” European Urban and Regional Studies 20(1): 145–49.

Rambukkana, Nathan. 2015. Hashtag Publics: The Power and Politics of Discursive Networks. New York: Peter Lang.

Rasmussen, Terje. 2014. “Internet and the Political Public Sphere.” Sociology Compass 8(12): 1315–29.

Rawal, Rajash, and Paul Nixon. 2012. “Re-Tweet to Democracy? The Social Media #Revolution in Perspective.” In 12th European Conference on Egovernment, ACAD Conferences Ltd., 600–607.

Rheingold, Howard. 2000. The Virtual Community : Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Rossi, Aldo. 1982. The Architecture of the City. MIT press Cambridge, MA.

Said, Edward W. 1995. Orientalism. Penguin Books.

Salah Fahmi, W. 2009. “Bloggers’ Street Movement and the Right to the City. (Re)Claiming Cairo’s Real and Virtual ‘Spaces of Freedom.’” Environment and Urbanization 21(1): 89–107.

Salleh, GB, and CL Choguill. 1992. “New Towns in Rural Regions A Case Study from Malaysia.” Cities: 138–49.

Salmenkari, Taru. 2009. “Geography of Protest: Places of Demonstration in Buenos Aires and Seoul.” Urban Geography 30(3): 239–60.

Sani, Mohd Azizuddin Mohd. 2005. “Media Freedom in Malaysia.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 35(3): 341–67.

Schuilenburg, Marc. 2017. Securization of Society : Crime, Risk, and Social Order. New York University Press.

Schulze-Engler. 2009. “Strange Encounters or Succeeding Dialogues? Science, Culture and Modernity in Amitav Ghosh’s The Calcutta Chromosome and The Hungry Tide.” In The Fuzzy Logic of Encounter: New Perspectives on Cultural Contact - Google Books, ed. Sünne Juterczenka. Münster: Waxmann.

Sewell, William H Jr. 2001. “Silence and Voice in the Study of Contentious Politics.” In Silence and Voice in the Study of Contentious Politics, Cambridge Studies in Contentious Politics, ed. R Aminzade. Cambridge University Press.

El Shakry, O. 2007. The Great Social Laboratory: Subjects of Knowledge in Colonial and Postcolonial Egypt. Stanford University Press.

Shamsuddin, Shuhana et al. 2013. “Walkable in Order to Be Liveable.” Journal of Asian Behavioural Studies 3(11): 111–21.

Shamsuddin, Shuhana, Nur Rasyiqah Abu Hassan, and Siti Fatimah Ilani Bilyamin. 2012. “Walkable Environment in Increasing the Liveability of a City.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 50(July): 167–78.

Shamsul, A.B. 1997. “The Economic Dimension of Malay Nationalism: The Socio-Historical Roots of the New Economic Policy and Its Contemporary Implications.” The Developing Economies 3(September): 240–61.

Shirky, Clay. 2011. “The Political Power of Social Media” ed. Clay Shirky. Foreign Affairs 90(1): 1–9.

Sioh, Maureen. 2010. “Anxious Enactments: Postcolonial Anxieties and the Performance of Territorialization.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 28(3): 467–86.

Soja, Edward W. 1996. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Wiley.

Spykerman, Neville. 2015. “Suhakam: Peaceful Assemblies Not Illegal - Nation | The Star Online.” The Star Online.

Staeheli, Lynn A., and Don Mitchell. 2008. The People’s Property? : Power, Politics, and the Public. Routledge.

SUHAKAM. 2013. Public Inquiry into the Incidents During and After the Public Assembly of 28 April 2012.

Swettenham, Frank A. 1907. British Malaya: An Account of the Origin and Progress of British Influence in Malaya. John Lane.

Tapsell, Ross. 2013. “The Media Freedom Movement in Malaysia and the Electoral Authoritarian Regime.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 43(4): 613–35.

Tedong, Peter Aning et al. 2014. “Guarding the Neighbourhood: The New Landscape of Control in Malaysia.” Housing Studies 29(8): 1005–27.

Tedong, Peter Aning, Jill L. Grant, and Wan Nor Azriyati Wan Abd Aziz. 2014. “The Social and Spatial Implications of Community Action to Enclose Space: Guarded Neighbourhoods in Selangor, Malaysia.” Cities 41: 30–37.

Tedong, Peter Aning, Jill L. Grant, and Wan Nor Azriyati Wan Abd Aziz. 2015. “Governing Enclosure: The Role of Governance in Producing Gated Communities and Guarded Neighborhoods in Malaysia.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 39(1): 112–28.

Teverson, Andrew, and Sara Upstone. 2011. “Introduction.” In Postcolonial Spaces, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1–13.

Tilly, Charles. 2003. “Contention Over Space And Place.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 8(2): 221–25.

Tonkin, Emma, Heather D. Pfeiffer, and Greg Tourte. 2012. “Twitter, Information Sharing and the London Riots?” Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 38(2): 49–57.

Torii, Takashi. 2003. “The Mechanism for State-Led Creation of Malaysia’S Middle Classes.” The Developing Economies 41(June): 221–42.

Trombetta, L. 2013. “More than Just a Battleground: Cairo’s Urban Space during the 2011 Protests.” European Urban and Regional Studies 20(1): 139–44.

Tsur, Oren, and Ari Rappoport. 2012. “What’s in a Hashtag?: Content Based Prediction of the Spread of Ideas in Microblogging Communities.” Proceedings of the Fifth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining: 643–52.

Tufekci, Zeynep. 2014. “Big Questions for Social Media Big Data : Representativeness , Validity and Other Methodological Pitfalls.” In Proceedings of the 8th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, , 505–14.

Tufekci, Zeynep, and Christopher Wilson. 2012. “Social Media and the Decision to Participate in Political Protest: Observations From Tahrir Square.” Journal of Communication 62(2): 363–79.

Wallach, Yair. 2013. “The Politics of Non-Iconic Space: Sushi, Shisha, and a Civic Promise in the 2011 Summer Protests in Israel.” European Urban and Regional Studies 20(1): 150–54.

Walther, Daniel Joseph. 2015. Sex and Control : Venereal Disease, Colonial Physicians, and Indigenous Agency in German Colonialism, 1884-1914. Berghahn Books.

Wang, Rong, Wenlin Liu, and Shuyang Gao. 2016. “Hashtags and Information Virality in Networked Social Movement.” Online Information Review 40(7): 850–66.

Webster, Frank. 2013. “What ’ s the Use of the Public Sphere in the Age of the Internet ?” In Frontiers in New Media Research, ed. Francis Lap Fung Lee. Routledge, 19–38.

Weiss, Meredith L. 1999. “What Will Become of Reformasi? Ethnicity and Changing Political Norms in Malaysia.” Contemporary Southeast Asia 21(3): 424–50.

———. 2006. Protest and Possibilities: Civil Society and Coalitions for Political Change in Malaysia. Stanford University Press.

———. 2011. Student Activism in Malaysia : Crucible, Mirror, Sideshow. Southeast Asia Program Publications, Southeast Asia Program, Cornell University.

———. 2012. Politics in Cyberspace: New Media in Malaysia. fesmedia Asia.

———. 2013. “Parsing the Power of ‘New Media’ in Malaysia.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 43(4): 591–612.

———. 2014. “New Media, New Activism: Trends and Trajectories in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia.” International Development Planning Review 36(1): 91–109.

White, Nicholas J. 2004. “The Beginnings of Crony Capitalism: Business, Politics and Economic Development in Malaysia c. 1955-70.” Modern Asian Studies 38(2): 389–417.

Wieringa, Saskia E. 2009. “Postcolonial Amnesia: Sexual Moral Panics, Memory, and Imperial Power.” In Moral Panics, Sex Panics: Fear and the Fight over Sexual Rights, ed. Gilbert Herdt. NYU Press, 205–33.

Wolford, Wendy. 2004. “This Land Is Ours Now: Spatial Imaginaries and the Struggle for Land in Brazil.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94(2): 409–24.

Wong, Seng Fatt. 2011. “Walkability and Community Identity in the City Centre of Kuala Lumpur.” The University of Melbourne.

Wright, Gwendolyn. 1991. The Politics of Design in French Colonial Urbanism. University of Chicago Press.

Yaakob, Usman, Tarmiji Masron, and Fujimaki Masami. 2010. “Ninety Years of Urbanization in Malaysia : A Geographical Investigation of Its Trends and Characteristics.” Journal of Ritsumeikan Social Sciences and Humanities 4(3): 79–101.

Yang, Guobin. 2016. “Narrative Agency in Hashtag Activism: The Case of #BlackLivesMatter.” Media and Communication 4(4): 13.

Yeoh, Brenda. 2001. “Postcolonial Cities.” Progress in Human Geography 3: 456–68.

———. 2005. “The Global Cultural City? Spatial Imagineering and Politics in the (Multi)Cultural Marketplaces of South-East Asia.” Urban Studies 42(5–6): 945–58.

Yeoh, Seng Guan. 2017. “The World Class City, the Homeless and Soup Kitchens in Kuala Lumpur.” Current Sociology 65(4): 571–86.

Yeoh, Suan-Pow, and Charles Hirschman. 1980. “Urbanization and Urban Growth During Colonial Rule and Independence in Peninsular Malaysia.” Review of Indonesian and Malayan Affairs 14(1).

Youmans, William Lafi, and Jillian C. York. 2012. “Social Media and the Activist Toolkit: User Agreements, Corporate Interests, and the Information Infrastructure of Modern Social Movements.” Journal of Communication 62(2): 315–29.

Zakaria, Juriah, and Norsidah Ujang. 2015. “Comfort of Walking in the City Center of Kuala Lumpur.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 170: 642–52.

Zuckerman, Ethan. 2013. “Cute Cats to the Rescue?: Participatory Media and Political Expression.” In MIT Press.






Book (Full version)