Monthly Archives: June 2018

Singapore: Guard against false binary choices in Chinese Public Diplomacy

by

6


June 29, 2018

Singapore should guard against false binary choices in Chinese public diplomacy: Bilahari Kausikan  

By Albert Wai
Mr Bilahari Kausikan said that Beijing uses a mix of persuasion, inducement and coercion techniques to create a psychological environment which poses false choices for other countries.
TODAY file photo
Mr Bilahari Kausikan said that Beijing uses a mix of persuasion, inducement and coercion techniques to create a psychological environment which poses false choices for other countries. The eminent diplomat adds, “Sometimes it may lead us to tilt a bit towards China or towards America. But the guiding principle is always our own interests.”
https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/spore-should-guard-against-false-binary-choices-chinese-public-diplomacy-bilahari-kausikan

 

SINGAPORE — China’s public diplomacy in the region often involves presenting false choices in a binary fashion, said retired top diplomat Bilahari Kausikan, adding that such psychological operations would fail once those being targeted are aware of Beijing’s intentions.

Speaking at a conference on Chinese public diplomacy in East Asia and the Pacific on Wednesday (June 27), Mr Kausikan said that Beijing uses a mix of persuasion, inducement and coercion techniques to create a psychological environment which poses false choices for other countries.

He told an audience of more than 50 academics and policy makers that this has been a simple, but powerful and effective instrument.

“This technique of forcing false choices on you and making you choose between false choices is deployed within a framework of either overarching narratives or specific narratives… The purpose is to narrow the scope of choices and they are usually presented in binary terms,” said Mr Kausikan, who was previously permanent secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and now chairs the National University of Singapore’s Middle East Institute.

“The intention is to stampede your thinking so that the critical faculty is not fully engaged and to instill a sense of fatalistic inevitability of the choices forced upon you.”

Image result for lee kuan yew and deng xiaoping

On China and other issues, Lee Kuan Yew was always ahead of the curve. A brilliant strategist and a student of history, he understood  Chinese leaders from Chairman Mao and Deng Xiao Peng to Xi Jinping

He cited several examples of falsehoods that have been put forth by Beijing when dealing with the Republic, including how relations under founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew were much better as compared to now because the current Government does not understand China.

“(These discourses are) powerful because they are not entirely fabricated. They do contain a kernel of truth,” he said. “(But) they are either extremely simplistic… or leave out vital facts,” he added, pointing out that Mr Lee went against the Chinese-supported Communist united front in the 1950s-60s and prevailed.

Image result for Lee Hsien Loong and Xi Jinping

Other examples of untruths, said Mr Kausikan, include how Washington represents the past while Beijing stands for the future, as well as suggestions that those who are close to the United States will find it hard to have close economic ties with China.

A study released this week by AidData research laboratory, Centre for Strategic and International Studies and the Asia Society Policy Institute said that China has spent more than US$48 billion (S$65 billion) across East Asia and the Pacific between 2000 and 2016 to reward trade partners and those supporting its foreign policy positions.

Mr Kausikan noted during the conference – organised by The S Rajaratnam School of International Studies together with those who produced the study – that China’s influence can be brittle even if it succeeds in its public diplomacy.

For one, Beijing’s efforts would only work when those targeted are unaware of the psychological operations against them.

“Once you are aware (of the manipulation), you have to be particularly obtuse to fall for it,” he said. “Exposure is therefore the best countermeasure”.

Other vulnerabilities in the Chinese approach he added, include “cultural altruism” as well as a tendency towards “self-deception… and rigidity”. This may lead to China over extending itself in the region.

But he said that even when China’s intentions are exposed, the other parties may opt to play along due to genuine sympathy towards the Chinese position, cultural affinity or to ensure that bilateral relations can be kept on an even keel. This may also be due to “transactional reasons – for hope of reward or fear of sanctions”, Mr Kausikan noted.

“Sometimes it may lead us to tilt a bit towards China or towards America. But the guiding principle is always our own interests.”–Bilahari Kausikan

When asked during the question and answer segment on what would be Singapore’s core strength in countering Chinese attempts to influence the Republic, the veteran diplomat said the idea of being a multi-racial country is important.

“Modern Singapore is not based on being a Chinese country… No one can ignore China. But significant influence is not dominant influence or exclusive influence,” he stated.

Mr Kausikan added that most Singaporeans are not really interested in foreign policy, and this creates a fertile ground for psychological manipulation.

He suggested that the Republic should beef up national education efforts and “teach our own history better”.”It is wrong to think that we side with China or America. We side only with Singapore. Our organising idea is our own national interests,” he said.

“Sometimes it may lead us to tilt a bit towards China or towards America. But the guiding principle is always our own interests.”

What the Founding Fathers Would Have Thought of Donald Trump

by

9


June 29, 2018

IDEAS

What the Founding Fathers Would Have Thought of Donald Trump

By Steven Pincus

http://time.com/4476276/founding-fathers-donald-trump/

Image result for Steven Pincus

Steven Pincus is a Professor of History at Yale University and the author of   The Heart of the Declaration: The Founders’ Case for an Activist Government

What would those who wrote, signed and fought for the Declaration of Independence have thought of this year’s presidential election? While one the candidates, Donald Trump, makes frequent allusions to America’s founding document, his key policy proposals run counter to the principles found in that text.

There are surprising parallels between the 1770s and today. Governments throughout the world were reacting to a debt crisis. Politicians, then as now, disagreed about how best to respond to the crisis. Some argued for shrinking government, erecting tariff barriers to protect domestic industries and radically restricting immigration. Others, as now, maintained that state stimulus, freer trade and new immigrants were the best options for paying down the debt.

Americans have always taken the Declaration to be the touchstone of their politics. In 1782, John Adams announced to the government of the Dutch Republic that “the immortal Declaration” “has been held sacred to this day by every state.” Abraham Lincoln said that he “never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.” This year’s Republican platform proclaims that the Declaration “sets forth the fundamental precepts of American Government.” And the Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Tim Kaine lauded the Declaration in his speech at the Democratic National Convention.

Economic Policy

But what exactly were the principles embodied in the Declaration? Above all, the Second Continental Congress affirmed its commitment to equality. Here’s what the Founding Fathers thought about economic policy, trade policy and immigration.

In Britain, the ministers who came to power in the 1760s and 1770s overwhelmingly believed, as do many politicians today, that the only option out of debt was to pursue austerity measures. They were happy to shift the tax burden onto those who had the least political capacity to resist it, which meant taxing the underrepresented manufacturing districts of England, and above all taxing the unrepresented North Americans.

 

The patriots who opposed the British governments of the 1760s and 1770s on both sides of the Atlantic offered a different economic vision. They believed that the key to paying down that debt was government stimulus of the economy. British and American patriots pointed out that the colonies were the most dynamic sector of Britain’s imperial economy. The more the colonies grew in population and wealth, the more British manufactured goods their populations would consume. Because British manufacturers paid taxes on the goods they sold to the colonists, American consumer demand generated revenue for the British government.

In the past few weeks, Trump has outlined views on government spending and taxation that resemble those pursued by George III’s ministers. Instead of advocating government expenditures to support development in the civilian sector, Trump, like Lord North before him, called for increased spending on the military while simultaneously making “government leaner.” Trump’s tax plan, his economic adviser Stephen Moore suggested in August, would offer “a tax break” to “a lot of high-income people” who “are small-business owners.”

Trade Policy

When Americans declared independence in July 1776 , they demanded a state that would promote the free movement of goods and peoples. Those who drew up the Declaration of Independence condemned Britain’s monarch, George III, for “cutting off our trade with all parts of the world.” The British government had long maintained tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade with the French and Spanish colonies in the Caribbean and South America. By doing so, it deprived Americans of a vital outlet for their products and access to hard currency. This was why, in 1775, Benjamin Franklin had called for Britain to “allow us a free commerce with all the rest of the world.” And why Thomas Jefferson called on the British imperial government not “to exclude us from going to other markets.” Freedom of commerce, accompanied by state support for the development of new industries, was a central tenet of America’s founding document.

Image result for america's founding fathers

The Founders’ commitment to free trade stands in stark contrast with Trump’s recent declaration of “American Economic Independence.” Trump insists that his economic program echoes the wishes of the Founding Fathers, who “understood trade.” But Trump’s economic agenda is the reverse of that advocated by the authors of the Declaration. Like the British government of the 1760s, Trump focuses narrowly on America’s role as a “dominant producer.” He is right to say that the Founders encouraged manufacturing. But they did so by simultaneously supporting government subsidies for new American manufactures and by advocating free trade agreements, like the Model Treaty adopted by Congress in 1776 that sought to establish bilateral free trade. This was a far cry from Trump’s call for new tariffs.

Immigration

The authors of the Declaration also condemned George III for his misguided restrictions on immigration. Well-designed states, patriots believed, should promote immigration. They denounced George III for endeavoring to “prevent the population of these states.” The King, the American Patriots pointed out, had reversed generations of imperial policy by “refusing to pass” laws “to encourage … migrations hither.”

Image result for america's founding fathers

Patriots, by contrast, welcomed new immigrants. Immigrants brought with them new skills to enhance production, and they immediately proved to be good consumers. “New settlers to America,” Benjamin Franklin maintained, when they cleared new farms and built new villages and towns, created “a growing demand for our merchandise to the greater employment of our manufacturers.”

Image result for america's founding fathers

READ THIS: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162886

Nothing could be further from the principles of the Declaration of Independence than Donald Trump’s assertion that independence requires reasserting control “over our borders.” With his call to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, Trump’s policies come much closer to the views of George III than to the principles of America’s Founders.

In July 1776, America’s Founders affirmed their commitment to an activist government that would restore economic equality to North America. The Founders would have agreed with Trump’s recent speech in Des Moines, Iowa, advocating for “big ideas designed to help everyday people.” But unlike Trump, the Patriots who declared independence from Britain did so to create a more active government that would shift the tax burden onto the rich, work to open markets and welcome immigrants. It was these commitments that made the Declaration “immortal.”

IDEAS
TIME Ideas hosts the world’s leading voices, providing commentary on events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.

Trump Vs America’s Founding Fathers

by

1


June 29, 2018

Trump Vs America’s Founding Fathers

by J Bradford Delong

Image result for Trump Vs America's Founding Fathers

In the early years of the American republic, James Madison warned his fellow countrymen that their chosen system of governance would only survive if they adhered to the principles of representation and kept factionalism in check. In the era of Donald Trump, it would seem that these two conditions are no longer being met.

 

BERKELEY – From the very beginning of the American experiment, Alexander Hamilton, one of the new country’s founders, had serious doubts about democracy. “It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the … state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy,” he wrote in The Federalist Papers No. 9.

But Hamilton went on to praise such principles as, “The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature.” These, he wrote, “are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided.”

And yet those improvements in the “science of politics” that Hamilton identified could apply just as well to monarchies as to republics, and in fact emerged from monarchies. The Plantagenet kings who ruled England between the twelfth and fifteenth centuries professionalized the judiciary, and established the precedent of securing parliamentary consent before levying taxes. Likewise, the professional bureaucracy and distribution of power that one would expect to find in a republic were also enshrined in the Council of the Indies and the Council of Castile under the sixteenth-century Spanish monarch Philip II.

If Hamilton’s favored political institutions had just as much potential to improve monarchy as to improve republicanism, then why did he have so much confidence in the latter form of governance? He never addressed that question, but another founder, James Madison, devoted considerable attention to it.

Judging by his contributions to The Federalist Papers, Madison’s position revolved around two core ideas: “representation,” which he welcomed; and “faction,” which he warned against. With respect to representation, Madison surmised that, “The public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves.”

Madison expected elected representatives to look outward, assessing the people’s interests and drawing on their knowledge and ideas. But he also hoped that elected officials would look inward, to the government and to one another, to ensure that policies were well crafted. Through prudent representation, a republican form of government can enjoy the advantages of professionalization and expertise, as well as new ideas from society, as it pursues the public interest.

At the same time, Madison stressed the importance of avoiding factionalism, which he defined as, “some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” A monarchy or aristocracy, of course, is nothing but a faction – one that is firmly in control and under little pressure to work for the public interest or consider new ideas. But in a republic, Madison observed, a faction could rule only if it commanded an electoral majority. That is why, when “you take in a greater variety of parties and interests,” he wrote, “you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens.”

The problem, of course, is that majorities with a malign “common motive” emerge nonetheless. That is how the US got the near-century-long period of “Jim Crow” racial persecution following the Civil War, the herding of Japanese-Americans into concentration camps during World War II, and other shameful episodes.

Image result for Trump Vs America's Founding Fathers

Or consider what today we would call the ethnic cleansing of Cherokee land in the early nineteenth century – an act of state-sanctioned forced migration known as the “Trail of Tears.” When the US Supreme Court ruled in 1832 that the Cherokee were in fact a sovereign nation, then-President Andrew Jackson simply ignored it. “The decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born,” he told Brigadier General John Coffee, and “cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.”

Jackson thus rejected a decision handed down by what Hamilton would call “judges holding their offices during good behavior.” In doing so, he confirmed Madison’s fear that if bureaucracy, established procedure, and deliberation cannot transcend the passions of a majority faction, then there can be no “republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government.”

Meanwhile, it has been more than a century since the constitutional and semi-constitutional monarchies of Europe faced their own political crises. In the event, they did not move toward centralized socialist dictatorships or strongman plebiscitary ethnocracies, but rather toward representative parliamentary democracy.

Image result for Trump Vs America's Founding Fathers

The two primary advantages of republican democracy that Madison identified – prudent, informed representation and the transcendence of factionalism – seem to have gone missing. For republican democracy to remain the best form of government, they will need to be rediscovered.– J. Bradford Delong

The American experiment has not yet reached a point of existential crisis. But there can be little doubt that the US in the Trump era is experiencing the problems that Madison foresaw when he warned that “enlightened statesmen” capable of making “clashing interests … subservient to the public good … will not always be at the helm.”

The two primary advantages of republican democracy that Madison identified – prudent, informed representation and the transcendence of factionalism – seem to have gone missing. For republican democracy to remain the best form of government, they will need to be rediscovered.

 

ASEAN Car, National Car and What else–Let’s Get Real, not Sentimental

by

4


June 29, 2018

ASEAN Car, National Car and What else–Let’s Get Real, not Sentimental

by Bunn Nagara@www,thestar.com.my

The international marketplace can be an unforgiving arena, if the hard economic realities of global markets are replaced by sentimentality or nostalgia. 

Image result for proton malaysia

A “national car” in Vietnam or Malaysia tends to miss the wood for the trees. Larger regional realities determine the local prospects, not the other way round. All goods and services are subjected to tough market realities.–Bunn Nagara

THERE is a pattern and a rhythm in global markets that, when acknowledged and heeded, can yield profits – but when denied or confronted may lead to loss and pain.

Asia’s two largest economies, China and Japan, are set to face off in South-East Asia in at least one sector: automobiles.

The signs of this looming challenge are becoming observable, as the portents of the rivalry settle steadily into place. A “national car” in Vietnam or Malaysia tends to miss the wood for the trees. Larger regional realities determine the local prospects, not the other way round. All goods and services are subjected to tough market realities. A temporary reprieve may come only with costly subsidies or tariffs which then render items uncompetitive over the longer term.

Among the realities of the global auto market are, first, that the motorcar is the single most costly consumer item commonly sold across borders. Second, of all the global consumer items traded daily, the car is probably the least nationally oriented. Parts come from all over the world, plants are established abroad for cost and other reasons, and companies from abroad buy proud “national” firms producing even the most prestigious brands.

Britain’s Jaguar Land Rover was bought by America’s Ford, and then by India’s Tata. Britain’s most prestigious marques, Rolls Royce and Bentley, were bought by Germany’s Volkswagen which also bought Italy’s supercar Lamborghini and France’s pride Bugatti, besides Spain’s Seat and Czechoslovakia’s Skoda.

Lamborghini was previously taken over by the Swiss (Mimrans), then the Americans (Chrysler), and then Indonesians (V’Power) and Malaysians (MyCom).

China’s Geely bought Sweden’s Volvo, the London Taxi Company, Germany’s prestigious Daimler (Mercedes) Benz, the US “flying car” company Terrafugia – and Malaysia’s Proton and Lotus.

Proton had earlier acquired Britain’s iconic sports car company, Lotus. Ownership “promiscuity” in the auto industry across borders is spread all round.

Some of these acquisitions may not be 100% but they are still substantial. Geely, for example, owns 49.9% of Proton and 9.69% of Benz, both being the single largest stake in these companies. Among the earliest across borders was General Motors’ acquisition of Germany’s Opel in 1929, after which Opel models were still sold in the UK as “British” Vauxhall. Last year Opel was acquired by France’s Groupe PSA which incorporates Peugeot and Citroen.

The pace and number of cross-border auto acquisitions continue to grow, along with the scale. It is a game for the super cash-rich, making independent national operations unviable while squeezing the prospects of new startups. In ASEAN countries today, mega competition on Level Two between Japanese and Chinese auto firms is shaping up. Even Korean companies are only looking in to see if there is a possible opening.

Sales of individual cars to consumers on Level One continue for all marques, but sales of whole auto companies (Level Two) are the new name of the game. Apart from direct competition between Japanese and Chinese corporations, competition is growing between their locally named subsidiaries – and between rival compatriot firms. The result may see South-East Asian auto companies functioning largely as proxies of parent Chinese and Japanese firms.

SAIC Motor, China’s biggest auto firm which also assembles US and European brands, wants Thailand as the regional production hub for export to other countries. Japanese companies had set that example in this region and are still trying to keep the “flag flying.” Toyota has raised its stake in the Philippines, as has Mitsubishi, with increased investments in factories for larger output. However, higher levels of local technical input are still limited at best.

The international auto acquisitions market has also involved prestigious car design firms. Vietnam’s first car company Vinfast proudly announced engaging Italy’s Pininfarina, which designed Ferrari and Maserati models – and which was bought earlier (76%) by India’s Mahindra.

Developing countries may be smitten by the “national car” bug, while developed countries are more interested in producing sophisticated high-value systems that can be incorporated into all cars: among them, AI for self-driving cars. These high-end components are the real value-added skills in auto production today, rather than basic parts assembly so commonly found in Third World car factories.

Ultimately, the issue is the degree of local content along with the technical input rather than a hidebound obsession with a “national” car. Production and ownership promiscuity across borders means that cars no longer have distinct nationalities.

Image result for Thailand the hub of auto industry in ASEAN

 

Thailand produces some two million cars a year, more than half for export, about as many produced as all the other ASEAN countries combined. It has no national car project since it manufactures only automotive components and assembles cars from other countries. Nonetheless its automobile sector is widely regarded as economically successful, employing more than half a million people and accounting for 10-15% of GDP. Most of the world’s auto parts and automobile manufacturers operate in the country.

A lack of high-end technical inputs for greater value-added has however been limiting to growth. Lately the auto sector pledged to scale up the technical ladder, with attractive government-supported incentives for environmentally clean designs.

Indonesia has ambitious plans for boosting its auto sector, encouraged by rising local demand since 2012 but still hampered by limited exports. It therefore risks mistaking local demand for overseas demand, which has been only 20% of Thailand’s.

Within ASEAN, Indonesia is the biggest country with the biggest population and economy, but its auto sector has not been competitive internationally. Government support through protectionism is no answer. Now the Indonesian auto sector may be facing another challenge – competition from elsewhere in ASEAN such as Vietnam. Its structural inefficiencies remain a persistent problem.

A study by Prof Sadayuki Takii found that the problems include weak or minimal local content and government protection contributing to a lack of competitiveness. The same conditions may be found in other ASEAN countries.

Another reality in the global auto market is how successful companies come from countries with a sizeable domestic market providing healthy competition nationally. Through the years, market discipline made these companies competitive internationally and fit to compete against companies in other countries. Protectionism however works in the opposite direction.

mahathir-jokowi-iriz-ev-01

Indonesian President Joko Widodo has been toying with the idea of an “ASEAN car,” which would bring together engineering skills across this region to produce a competitive world-class item. This desire still exceeds the capacity or the prospect, unfortunately.

Countries in ASEAN still need to get over the lack of substantive technology transfer if they are to acquire the real skills that make the auto sector competitive. Increasing investments by Japanese and Chinese firms at largely parts assembly level are contributing to the problem. But who can say no to immediate investments offering more jobs?

Beyond technology transfers, local players also need to become innovative on their own. That has yet to happen. Another problem to resolve is the growing competition between ASEAN countries. The competing concepts of “regional car” and “national car” are in a zero-sum game.

The Philippines also wants to be the regional auto manufacturing hub within a decade. This national-centric approach, typical of the region, retards regional integration and prospects for the ASEAN Economic Community.

The more likely prospect is to become local outposts for larger Chinese or Japanese firms.

Bunn Nagara is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia.

Bunn Nagara

Bunn Nagara

 

Punching Mahathir from the Shadows is unhelpful and counterproductive

by

11


June 28, 2018

Punching Mahathir from the Shadows is unhelpful and counterproductive

by Amb (rtd) Dato’ Dennis Ignatius

Mahathir is now using the precious time he has left to him to do his bit for the country; it would be nice if others would come alongside him wholeheartedly and unreservedly as well. Punching Mahathir from the shadows – offering support while constantly reminding people that Mahathir isn’t really a good guy to begin with – only makes people wonder what the shadow boxers are up to.–Dennis Ignatius

Image result for dr. mahathir mohamad

Reading Dr Mahathir has always been a full time occupation. Despite his many years in office and the millions of words that have been written or spoken about him, he’s still an enigma. Perhaps that’s the thing about him that makes him so endearing to the man on the street. The thousands of ordinary Malaysians who turned up for his Hari Raya open house recently is proof enough of that.

Not everyone though is pleased that he’s back in office. Even those who like what they see happening in the country can’t bring themselves to give him credit for it. They see but cannot believe. They see but worry about cronies. They see but wonder what he is really up to. They seem uncomfortable that history has conspired to make him both the man whom many blame for the ills of our nation and the man to save the nation.

I suppose the persona of the man is such that you either adore him or despise him; indifference is not an option.

 Has Mahathir changed?

No surprise then that despite all the amazing changes we are seeing in the country today, doubts about whether Mahathir has really changed persist, as if Mahathir is somehow unconnected with all these amazing changes.

Most Malaysians, on the other hand, have no trouble accepting that Dr Mahathir is simply not the same man he was when he first took office more than thirty years ago.

Image result for dr. mahathir mohamad and wan azizah ismail

For them, the proof of this is not so much in what he is saying but in what he is doing. Already he has introduced changes that have shaken up the nation and demonstrated his commitment to changing the way we do politics in this country. At this rate, Malaysia will be a different country in a few years time.

I suspect that Dr Mahathir now sees how important it is to have strong and independent institutions if we are to avoid a recurrence of the mess we are now in. That we came so perilously close to dictatorship and national collapse had a salutary effect on him as with all of us.

 

For them, the proof of this is not so much in what he is saying but in what he is doing. Already he has introduced changes that have shaken up the nation and demonstrated his commitment to changing the way we do politics in this country. At this rate, Malaysia will be a different country in a few years time.

I suspect that Dr Mahathir now sees how important it is to have strong and independent institutions if we are to avoid a recurrence of the mess we are now in. That we came so perilously close to dictatorship and national collapse had a salutary effect on him as with all of us.

And this is as much about the past as it is about the future. Mahathir understands he must curtail his own executive  power if he is to ensure that those who come after him will never again have the opportunity to subvert our constitutional system of governance the way Najib did. If Mahathir succeeds, the executive will henceforth be constrained by a system of  constitutional and political checks and balances. It will be our safeguard against future executive overreach. It may well be one of his greatest legacies.

Punching from the shadows

In the meantime, those who believe that Mahathir still needs to prove himself ought to  live by the same rule. After all, Mahathir is not the only one with a history and he didn’t rule the country the first time around all by himself. Many others were willing and enthusiastic collaborators at one time or another. Under the principle of collective responsibility, they too must share the burden of history and prove that they’ve changed.

For the sake of the nation, Mahathir has reached out to his old foes. They say they accept his apologies, and are pleased that he has changed, but strangely keep reminding everyone how wrong he alone was without mentioning their own culpability. Perhaps they are impatient and want him to go sooner rather than later.

Image result for dr. mahathir mohamad and wan azizah ismail

Like it or not, in the new Malaysia, it is the people who are masters of the nation’s destiny. They, and they alone, decide who will lead the nation.  The notion that anyone has an inherent right to rule is undemocratic to say the least. The public, in any case, is not bound by any private backroom deals that may have been made.

The right man for the job

Mahathir, after all, is Prime Minister today because he was able to galvanize the nation in an almost Churchillian manner and convince the people that he was the right man for the job; others who aspire for the position will have to do likewise.

Mahathir is now using the precious time he has left to him to do his bit for the country; it would be nice if others would come alongside him wholeheartedly and unreservedly as well. Punching Mahathir from the shadows – offering support while constantly reminding people that Mahathir isn’t really a good guy to begin with – only makes people wonder what the shadow boxers are up to.

Dissecting the 2018 Election in Malaysia

by

5


June 28, 2018

Image result for Asia Centre

Dissecting the 2018 Election in Malaysia: The End of Cronyism?

Left to Right: Asia Centre co-founder and Chairman, Board of Directors Dr. James Gomez; Dr. Victor Karunan; Mr. Lutfi Hakim; Prof. Dr. Mohd Azizuddin bin Mohd Sani; Mr. Scott Edwards; Asia Centre co-founder and Executive Director Dr. Robin Ramcharan

The key challenge of undoing six decades of cronyism, patronage and money politics was a central point highlighted during Asia Centre’s Roundtable discussion on the Malaysian elections held in May 2018. Despite the political earthquake, the end of Barisan Nasional’s (BN) rule in Malaysia after 61 years and the defeat of former Prime Minister Najib’s government, fundamental change is not guaranteed.

All speakers at the roundtable, held on 22 June 2018 at Asia Centre, observed this critical point. It remains to be seen if the new government of Pakatan Harapan (PH) can usher out the politics of ‘money, race and patronage’.  After all, PH is led by a member of the old guard, 92-year old PM Mahathir, who had mentored former PM Najib  and helped to build up that system.

PM-in-waiting, 70-year-old Anwar Ibrahim, has forged an alliance of convenience with his former mentor and tormentor, Mahathir. Should Anwar be designated PM, is he likely to bring fundamental change?

The desire for change among a large percentage of the youth was raised as a factor tipping the balance in favour of PH, which appeared on the political scene at the perfect time. Another key immediate factor was the disaffection of voters with the well-documented corruption scandals rocking former PM Najib, which resulted in a drift towards authoritarianism and harassment of political opposition to his Government.

Creeping authoritarianism, including recent attempts to stifle freedom of expression through hastily passed ‘fake news laws’ prior to the election, was a noticeable feature of the Najib’s rule over the past decade, amidst other longer term factors affecting the election. Already in the 2013 election, it became apparent that minority groups, notably Malaysian Chinese,were less willing to accept the national affirmative action plan that has privileged the Bumiputra. Indigenous peoples, such as the Orang Asli, also have become wary of their routine treatment by politicians as ‘second class’ citizens.

Splits in the BN coalition had begun to appear well before May 2018. In addition, the new administration will need to contend with an economy that has featured rising costs of living in recent years.

Resolute action to tackle these deeper problems will be a drawn out affair, especially in the uncertain leadership transition that is set to take place in two years, with Anwar assuming the mantle of Prime Minister, while his family presumably gives way as he succeeds.

The rich discussion was moderated by Dr. Robin Ramcharan of Asia Centre. The discussion was animated by expert commentators from Malaysia and the UK: Dr. Mohd Azizuddin Mohd Sani (PhD), Professor of Politics and International Relations at the School of International Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM); Mr. Lutfi Hakim, independent consultant and an associate of IMAN Research, where he was previously a research lead; Dr. Victor Karunen, lecturer and former UN official with UNICEF; and Mr. Scott Edwards, doctoral candidate at the University of Birmingham’s Institute for Cooperation, Conflict, and Security (ICCS).

The Roundtable set the scene at Asia Centre’s third anniversary celebrations, where Asia Centre announced its new branch in Malaysia. The second Centre in Johor Bahru will be rolled out over 2018-2019. All expressions of interest for collaboration in Malaysia can be sent to contact@asiacentre.co.th.

 

 

Photos from the event are available here. This event was held with the support of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy.