You are on page 1of 3
KING’S COLLEGE LONDON - DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY MA/MSc EXAMINERS REPORT, 2013-14 PRI T NAME [Internal Examiner]: DAVID GREEN. [Please delete as appropriate] 1 markers STUDENT'S NAME (Surname, Forenames}: GAN, PELLING DISSERTATION TITLE: COMPETING DISCOURSES OF DEVELOPMENT IN MALAYSIA ‘Quality of Statement of Problemv/Research Design: Focuses on discourses of development relying on secondary sources, notably Chang (2007) and Peet and Hartwick (2009). This, then flows into a description of modernity and development (9-10) and ends up with post-development theories that note there are mulsiple forms of development (10-12). A critique of development in terms of class, gender and social status follows noting that economic, social and environmental sustainability are important in understanding development as an emancipatory movement. [Not much of this is original — if any ~and it goes over faicly well known ground, Chapter 3 begins to explore the Malyasian context, going over the post colonial history, the new economic policy in the 1970s and 1980s and more recently, It examines the importance of sustainability in current economic planning (NEM) and notes the contradictions between that and the 10" Malyasian Plan.(10MP) Chapter 4 examines the Lynas Rare Earth Refinery and this is the empirical core of the dissertation, Pro and anti groups were approached and their views noted. The Lyaas company provided a written response which is quoted; the government regulatory agency is also quoted; and finally three opposition groups were interviewed.. The three sets of actors were noted as talking past each other using differen discourses. Some key actors woro unavailable for interview. Each of the actors was identified as presenting a different discourse: ecological modernisation, scientific rationalism mnd democratic development. ‘Quality of Project Implementation: Tis not clear what documents have been used to discuss the contradictions betwe 5M and 1OMP. Better discussion of the sources would have been useful. There is relatively little linkage between the di ‘courses of development noted in the literature review and the interview evidence. For example, there was no attempt { critically how protestors” discourses link up to development as an emancipator movement. The discussion of discourse ‘at relatively superficial and quite predictable level. Quality of Analysis and Discussion: ‘The empirical cote in chapter 4 presents the data from interviews in a descriptive way. .. would have been useful to have explored the relationships between the interviewees. Why, for example, interview four scientists? What extra information came about as a result of this? How are the protest groups linked to opposition parties? How coherent are the protest groups as a political movement? Standard of Presentation? Generally good. General Evaluation ‘This is an interesting if somewhat descriptive dissertation that tries to link a specific case study to a wider set of development discourses. 1's a pty thatthe empitical chapter and discussion does not fink better tothe literature review which is eft behind and not really used again, The findings are fairly predicable: the company justifies itself on groups of being a good caretaker of the environment, the goverament experts justify themselves on the grounds of technical knowledge, and the protestors justify themselves on the grounds thatthe process for taking a decision was undemocratic. This is hardly sumprising. What would have helped to improve this is how this understanding can help to critique current debates about development. Overall it preseats a reasonably well developed and relevant argument, th atidentifies clearly diferent discourses of development MARK: 62 GRADE: —_D (70+) M (60-69) )P (50-59) F (49 or below) Internal Examiner: David Greet esses fe:_25 Sept 2014. KING’S COLLEGE LONDON ~ DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY MA/MSe EXAMINERS REPORT, 2013-14 PRINT NAME [Internat Examiner}: B. Bryant {Please delete as appropriate] 2" marker TUDENT’S NAME [Surname, Forenames]: Gan, Pei Ling DISSERTATION TITLE: Competing discourses of development in Malaysia. ‘Quality of Statement of Problem/Researeh Design: A rather pedestrian affair that is not really original. Relevant literature is cited but in a long-winded manner, Chapter 2 is too long. Discourse analysis selected albeit weakly explained and justified. Interviews used but not properly explored. ‘The long-winded history lesson could thereafter be reduced ‘Quality of Project Implementation: Some effort to collect data via interviews/requests for info. Alla bit scatter shot like ‘Quality of Analysis and Diseussion: Basie ~ some basic capacity to assess dats/make an argument, Standard of Presentation: Ok. ‘General Evaluation: A rather basic thesis that does not show a clear contribution to knowledge or methodological complexity. Overly descriptive. MARK)S8, GRADE: X_P (50-59) Internal Examiner: R. Bryant Date: 1-10-2014 MARK RECONCILIATION Dissertation AGREED with other internal examiner at (mark) b0. on (date)__ | fol ff. f Please provide a short statement/rationale for agreeing the marks: 0G /LS