seaposting

joined 2 months ago
sorted by: new top controversial old
Bulletins and News Discussion from July 7th to July 13th, 2025 - Sanctions on Russia: The Sequel in c/news@hexbear.net
[–] seaposting@hexbear.net 24 points 8 hours ago

Southeast Asia and the ‘middle democracy’ trap

TLDR: Liberals in Southeast Asia are much more sophisticated in hiding their class affinities than those in the West.

the article with commentary

In Brief

The position of democracy in Southeast Asia has fluctuated since the Asian Financial Crisis, with democratic concerns gaining prominence in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, particularly showcased in countries like Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia. But a recent shift toward prioritising economic development over democratic values has been observed, largely due to changes in global politics and the retreat of the United States from democracy promotion, leaving Thailand as the only exception to this trend with its continued struggle for political reform.

A familiar trope in the analysis of Southeast Asian politics is that development is a more urgent concern than democratisation. Popular pressures to increase democratic inclusion and protect democratic institutions may periodically arise. But the more fundamental and constant worry of Southeast Asia’s governments and citizens is thought to be making development—not democracy—work.

For the Western observer who live their lives on the throne of the blood and skulls of the colonized, Global South aspirations of development seem idealistic and nonsensical. But when you have lived in the villages tucked away in the jungles, with no running water or electricity, it becomes real, not rhetorical - something material that needs changing.

This was certainly true for the authoritarian regimes that dominated Southeast Asia throughout the Cold War period. Overcoming the historical hindrances and humiliations of colonialism meant that catching up with ‘the West’ or ‘the global North’ became the prime postcolonial imperative in anti-communist authoritarian regimes like Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. They all dreamt of following in Japan’s development footsteps. It eventually became true in the reformed communist regimes of Vietnam and Cambodia as well. They sought to accompany China on its path from Second World to First.

For a professor of political science, you seem to jumble your words. The anti-communist states of Southeast Asia were Third World - not Second - and only Singapore was the only country who wanted to uncritically ascend and claim to “First World”. Here is also where falling-back to a generalising “Southeast Asian” umbrella without addressing the specificities that characterise the political-economy of each country results in an analysis without the facts, or in other words, a writing without meaning.

Yet in the quarter-century roughly following the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997–98, concerns about democracy came to loom much larger. A ‘regime cleavage’ within the elite and electorate alike thus came to characterise political competition in Southeast Asia’s wealthiest capitalist societies by the early 21st century.

This was especially true in Indonesia, where an exceedingly punishing economic downturn undid Suharto’s personalistic dictatorship and ushered in a competitive multiparty democracy. Malaysia experienced a vicious crackdown on reformist forces in the wake of the Asian Financial Crisis, but reformist forces refused to fade. Thailand was no stranger to mass democratic protest—popular will prevailed over military rule in 1973 and 1992, with big assists from the widely beloved King Bhumipol Adulyadej. But the Asian Financial Crisis prompted constitutional reforms aimed at enhancing the electoral connection between voters and politicians.

History to liberals marks semi-connected events portrayed to them by mainstream media without any sort of introspection, which is why they are always wrong, having only gotten 5% of the entire picture.

After the wildly popular—and wildly unpopular—Thaksin Shinawatra was toppled in a 2006 coup, Thai politics fractured along the ‘yellow’ side of militarist, monarchist oligarchy and the ‘red’ side of inclusive and energetic populism. Malaysia saw questions of democratic reform rise in relevance with the launching of the Bersih movement for electoral integrity in that same year.

Indonesia’s 2014 and 2019 elections seemed to hold democracy’s survival in the balance, with Joko Widodo the final rampart against strongman Prabowo Subianto’s ascendance to the presidency. Even in Singapore, the historically weak opposition to the ruling People’s Action Party gained headway in the 2010s largely by promising to constitute a solid procedural opposition in the city-state’s pseudo-democratic institutions.

It would be a stretch to say that democracy had displaced development in the driver’s seat by the 2010s. Still, the fate of democracy certainly loomed larger in election campaigns in the first two decades of the 21st century than the final two decades of the 20th.

Democracy in the Global South is a perpetual victim that needs saving from the United States - this I think more accurately characterises the article’s position than the idealistic bubble it tries to insulate itself with.

But now, democracy is firmly back in the back seat. This is of course not merely a regional story. Donald Trump’s second, far more aggressively authoritarian presidency in the United States starting in early 2025 has taken democracy promotion entirely off the global agenda.

This marks a definitive end to a global era. If democratic concerns are to play any meaningful role in any country’s politics, it can only be through domestic dynamics, not geopolitical pressure or transnational diffusion. The ‘democracy versus autocracy’ framing of world politics so favoured by US administrations from Bush to Biden is dead and buried.

Perhaps an indirect admittance that colour revolution tactics elsewhere in the world failed to gained any sort of relevance in Southeast Asia. But regardless, this sort of “apolitical” “democracy promotion” throughout this article absolves the role of the United States in enacting economic siege on Southeast Asian economies, and blames the plight of under-development as merely inevitable. Will this lead to any thorough introspection of what democracy means beside the mainstream liberal understanding of “procedures”?

I doubt it.

Development is again sidelining democracy in Southeast Asia. The United States’ retreat from global leadership means that Southeast Asian nations will now maximise their economic ties to China, Europe and other Asian economies with less geopolitical hesitation. US tariffs on China will likely divert more lucrative investment projects to the region. As China begins transitioning from its unsustainable export-dependent economy to a domestic demand-driven growth model, Southeast Asian exporters will be first in line to feed the world’s most massive market.

Indonesia and Malaysia are currently the most vivid examples of what happens when development sidelines democracy in national politics. Indonesia’s 2024 presidential election saw questions of democracy become almost entirely irrelevant. Prabowo’s nice-guy makeover allowed him to ride on Jokowi’s long coattails—lengthened by Indonesia’s strong economy—to a comfortable victory. In Malaysia, the opposition’s fight to displace the long-ruling Barisan Nasional coalition has produced a government which acts like it has no latitude to pursue deeper democratising reforms. At times it seems as if cost of living is the only political issue that matters in Malaysia, much like in neighbouring Singapore.

How much does this guy make writing articles about how the poors care too much about living and not much about crossing a paper every 5 years?

The fascinating exception to this trend is Thailand. Among Southeast Asia’s upper-middle-income countries, Thailand is at once the least democratic and the one where democracy still matters the most. Young voters in particular remain deeply committed to replacing the military–monarchy alliance with a far more democratic and inclusive political arrangement. In current times when external pressures for democratisation have evaporated, Thailand is the only Southeast Asian middle-income country where homegrown forces are pressing hard enough for a democratic breakthrough to threaten authoritarian elites’ entrenched interests.

You mean the country that suffered the most under the Asian Financial Crisis, now poorer than China, dealing with multiple instabilities at its borders, is the country in which political mobilisation is much more established? Color me shocked!

The lesson is an ironic one. When authoritarian regimes in Southeast Asia stonewall on democratic reforms, they keep democracy at the forefront of the political agenda. When they concede even partial democratic reforms, politics is largely reduced to the quotidian demands of cost-of-living politics, which does not threaten political or economic elites in the slightest. The overall picture appears to be a ‘middle-democracy trap’ to accompany the ‘middle-income trap’.

You all get paid to speak nonsense.

which does not threaten political or economic elites in the slightest

The irony is so painful it’s searing my eyeballs.

The narrowing of political discourse between democracy and selective US foreign policy choices is about what I expected for the filth called the East Asian Forum. I critically support Amerikan (and in this case, Australian aswell) Academia in directly stunting and hampering effective countermeasures to Global South autonomy.

Dan Slater is the James Orin Murfin Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Emerging Democracies at the University of Michigan.

Midwest freak needs to go fishing instead of wasting everyone’s time talking about topics outside their intellectual capability.

Bulletins and News Discussion from July 7th to July 13th, 2025 - Sanctions on Russia: The Sequel in c/news@hexbear.net
Bulletins and News Discussion from June 30th to July 6th, 2025 - Alas, Poor Boric - COTW: Chile in c/news@hexbear.net
[–] seaposting@hexbear.net 48 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Vietnam as BRICS partner strengthens Southeast Asian, Global South voices

some paragraphs removed for brevity

Vietnam recently joined the BRICS as the group's 10th partner country. Among member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Indonesia holds full membership in BRICS, while Malaysia and Thailand are official partner countries.

This evolving trend underscores a gradual but notable shift among key Southeast Asian economies toward deeper engagement with alternative global governance platforms beyond the traditional Western-dominated order.

Vietnam's acceptance into BRICS as a partner country marks a significant development, which increases the likelihood of other ASEAN nations seeking BRICS membership and closer ties with the group.

ASEAN member states' growing interest in joining BRICS stems, in part, from geopolitical positioning. As ASEAN countries increasingly navigate a complex geopolitical landscape, seeking to balance relationships with major powers, BRICS offers an alternative platform for cooperation outside traditional Western-dominated structures.

Another reason is the economic benefits the membership offers. It provides access to new markets, investment opportunities and technological advancements, which is particularly attractive for developing ASEAN economies.

However, one of the main factors that may hinder the inclusion of other ASEAN countries in BRICS is the "US factor". Some ASEAN countries maintain strong ties with the United States and may hesitate to deepen relations with BRICS to avoid a potential US backlash.

While BRICS offers an alternative to Western-dominated global financial and governance structures, the calculus for some ASEAN countries is not merely economic, but deeply strategic. These countries often walk a tightrope between maximizing economic opportunities and preserving their established security and diplomatic alignments.

In such contexts, the political-diplomatic cost of aligning more closely with BRICS can be high, especially when BRICS is increasingly perceived as a counterweight to Western hegemony and a challenger to the US-led global order. This is especially true for a country like the Philippines, whose foreign policy now under the present government very much lean toward the US.

Moreover, Vietnam's inclusion in BRICS as a partner country is highly significant in the evolving architecture of Global South cooperation. Vietnam's presence expands BRICS' geographic and developmental diversity.

It represents a mid-sized, rapidly developing Southeast Asian economy that has successfully balanced socialist governance with market reforms. Its inclusion will, to some extent, elevate ASEAN's visibility within BRICS, signaling a shift toward more inclusive multipolar leadership in the Global South.

Its BRICS partnership enhances connectivity among the Belt and Road Initiative, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and potentially BRICS+financial cooperation, primarily through infrastructure finance via the New Development Bank, and cross-border settlement initiatives that reduce reliance on the US dollar.

Likewise, Vietnam's inclusion in BRICS symbolizes post-colonial economic autonomy. Vietnam's history of anti-colonial struggle and post-war development success resonates strongly with other Global South nations.

It stands as a symbol of resilience, economic self-determination, and the possibility of development without strict Western alignment or International Monetary Fund-style conditionalities. This enhances the normative narrative of BRICS as a platform for alternative development models beyond neoliberal prescriptions.

Additionally, Vietnam's inclusion reflects Hanoi's balanced, nonaligned foreign policy that bridges ties with both East and West, aligning ASEAN's outlook with BRICS-led Global South initiatives rooted in sovereignty and development-driven multilateralism.

Vietnam's BRICS partner status is more than symbolic — it is a strategic elevation of a Southeast Asian voice in reshaping global economic governance. It reinforces South-South cooperation and development, multipolarity, and a more equitable world order. It is also a subtle but strong message to the West: The Global South is organizing itself on its own terms.

Bulletins and News Discussion from June 30th to July 6th, 2025 - Alas, Poor Boric - COTW: Chile in c/news@hexbear.net
[–] seaposting@hexbear.net 52 points 1 week ago

The “Israel”-Singapore connection

I would have written a much longer post, but I was brought to attention by this nifty post (archived link) by the “Israeli” trade mission to Singapore which sums it all up quite well:

Singapore has a remarkable story to tell, and paradoxically this south east Asian city-state has quite a lot in common with [the Zionist Entity], a small nation with a history of struggle and resilience. The two small nations have populations comprised of immigrants [the Zionists admitted it themselves which is somewhat hilarious] with different cultures and customs, surrounded by large countries with their own political and ethnic tensions. Both of these small nations have managed against all odds to turn themselves in a single generation from poor, underdeveloped markets to global economic powerhouses with advanced infrastructures, skilled and highly educated workforces and ambitious entrepreneurs. Singapore has grown to become a global financial hub and an Economic giant in a single generation.

The thing to realize is, what the anglophone Chinese bourgeoisie in Singapore hate more than sinophone Chinese people, are the Muslims, but especially Malay-Muslims, who rejected their liberal secular capitalism. Their nation-building myths are quite similar, which justifies Singapore’s hefty military budget - larger than every other Southeast Asian country, both in per capita and absolute terms.

A true liberation of the peoples of Southeast Asia necessitates the fall of the financial capitalists, chiefly represented by the largest banks in Southeast Asia, all based in Singapore. That’s why a lot of hysteria historically propagated here are based on “Indonesian” and “Malaysian” terrorists and supporters who’d like to see the downfall of “Singapore”. Nowadays, the rhetoric is a bit more muted, but echoes of this Islamophobia show-up from time to time.

Christmas Eve, 1965, is the unofficial date of the start of the ‘love story’ between Israel and Singapore, an affair that was kept a deep, dark secret. The international press, like the Israeli media, tried to bring the tale to light. Occasionally, scraps of information leaked out; some were published, some were denied, many were disregarded. The fear that the ties would be terminated if they became public knowledge had its effect. Israel imposed a total blackout on the story and the secret was preserved.

But ultimately the mysterious history between Israel and Singapore came to light. In his book, “From Third World to First: The Singapore Story 1965-2000,” published in 2000, Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father and its first prime minister, disclosed the secret that had been kept for almost 40 years: It was the Israel Defense Forces that established the Singaporean army. Lee wrote, “To disguise their presence, we called them `Mexicans.’ They looked swarthy enough.”

To link it to a current news article: S’pore increased its security posture amid rising tensions from Iran-Israel conflict: Shanmugam

People in this region, other regions, or extremist organisations might want to make a point against Israeli, American or other Western assets, he said, adding that there could be attacks from the far right on Muslim assets..

If Singapore is ever attacked, it will make international headlines, he said. There is a possibility of attacks on both sides, he said, either by the far right attacking Muslims, or representatives of Muslim countries including Iran, and attacks on Western assets – American, European or Israeli.

“So we have increased our security posture, working off different scenarios, but you know, you can never be absolutely sure,” he added.

Israel-Hamas conflict a 'reminder' for Singapore that it has national interests at stake: Vivian Balakrishnan

This quick ejaculation of “terrorism” when it comes to West Asian or Islamic related foreign policy remains a defining motto of the Singaporean government’s continual targeting of (Malay-)Muslim people, in a “we care about terrorism, but especially from the muslims” sense and also that of it would be “bad for business” since it would harm the hard-fought “social harmony”.

"This episode is also a reminder to all Singaporeans that we do have our national interests at stake ... We must reject terrorism in all its forms. No excuses, no ifs, no buts, no short-term political advantage. Reject terrorism. If attacked, all of us here must give the government of the day the ability to exercise the right of self-defence," said Dr Balakrishnan, supporting the motion.

"But even when it does so, we will expect the government of the day to uphold international law. And as Singaporeans, we will continue to extend humanitarian assistance and protection to all civilians. We should support the peaceful resolution of disputes. And we must nurture and protect our own precious cohesion and harmony."

The misused word “harmony” crops up again. Wonder if they’ll stop using this tired phrase. Clearly the harmony didn’t apply to those that didn’t fit into their vision of Western Modernity.

And a quick note about the current Foreign Minister:

I would say it is expected, and it is, but still embarrassing.

Bulletins and News Discussion from June 23rd to June 29th, 2025 - Iran, Harden Your Deep Military Sites in c/news@hexbear.net
[–] seaposting@hexbear.net 41 points 1 week ago

Economic Watch: ASEAN integration drives development of independent regional financial system, analyst says

"The push for the use of local currencies has been ongoing for some time, as it helps strengthen the economic integration of ASEAN member states -- an important goal that ASEAN seeks to pursue. In fact, other regions are also moving away from relying too heavily on a single foreign currency, such as the U.S. dollar, as external interest rates and shifting government policies may cause significant volatility in currency exchange," she explained, adding that volatility is undesirable in any business.

…

"The Regional Payment Connectivity (RPC) initiative was first established to strengthen payment connectivity among the five ASEAN members, notably Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines. To date, the initiative has expanded to include central banks of Vietnam, Laos, Brunei and Cambodia," she said.

Lee also noted that the ASEAN push for local currencies and reduced dependency on external monetary systems has gained momentum amid growing awareness of the risks posed by relying on the U.S. dollar.

Bulletins and News Discussion from June 23rd to June 29th, 2025 - Iran, Harden Your Deep Military Sites in c/news@hexbear.net
[–] seaposting@hexbear.net 69 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I find it funny how some Malaysian states banned the use of single-use plastics years ago and are planning to phase-out use nationally by 2030 but we continued to accept Western plastic waste.

Malaysia will stop accepting U.S. plastic waste, creating a dilemma for California

Malaysia will ban plastic waste imports from the U.S. starting Tuesday because of America’s failure to abide by the Basel Convention treaty on international waste transfers, in a move that could have significant consequences for California.

Malaysia emerged as a major destination for U.S. waste after China banned American waste imports in 2018. California shipped 864 shipping containers, or more than 10 million pounds of plastic waste, to Malaysia in 2024, according to the Basel Action Network, an advocacy group. That was second only to Georgia among U.S. states.

Malaysia to set stricter plastic import controls

According to U.S. Census Bureau data, the country exported 35,316 tons of plastic scrap to Malaysia in 2024. United Nations Comtrade data shows that from 2021-2024, Malaysia received more plastic scrap imports from around the globe than any other non-OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development) country.

…

“Our people and environment in Malaysia have suffered greatly from the pollution caused by imported plastic and electronic waste,” says Wong Pui Yi, BAN researcher from Kuala Lumpur. “Other countries in Southeast Asia are likewise being harmed by foreign plastic waste daily. We sincerely hope that exporting countries will help us put a stop to waste dumping and trafficking.

“But for these new regulations to be successful, the government must enforce them transparently, swiftly prosecute those who violate the law and close any loopholes that may arise, including clamping down on corruption. We must remain vigilant and continue to spot-check the system with intelligence-led searches and seizures.”

Bulletins and News Discussion from June 16th to June 22nd, 2025 - Iran, Harden Your Heart in c/news@hexbear.net
[–] seaposting@hexbear.net 10 points 3 weeks ago

Mahathir is indeed unique in Malaysian politics, because he was the first Prime Minister to not be of royal origin and being born from peasants. As part of the up and coming Malay-Muslim bourgeoisie within UMNO, against the traditional British-aligned feudal bureaucrats back in the 60s and 70s, his firebrand speeches does seem quite anti-imperialist for those unaware. However, Malaysian foreign policy had already shifted east-ward and maintained this position since Tun Abdul Razak, where Mahathir was really just riding the coat tails of.

I also do think generally his anti-semitism is usually overstated especially in Western media. It plays only a small role in the grand scheme of things.

As for his Malay-Muslim supremacy, that’s a big one because for a lot of those on the left, the creation of the comprador Malaysian nation-state was already as right-wing as you can get, especially with the secession of Singapore. I have written before about the class forces that led to this secession, and so I won’t focus too much on it here but the reason I bring it up is that a lot of Malaysian liberals of any racial background, have this false idea that Mahathir was the main progenitor of racialism (racism), and that prior to his premiership there were little-to-no racial tension. This was definitely not the case.

I’d say the key contributor to rising racial tension was the failure of left-wing parties and organizations to consolidate and gain power, and of course there is a ton of reasons for this, but just to name one example, Barisan Sosialis in the 60s and 70s were the premier left-wing party that was composed of a unity between Malay-Muslim farmers and Chinese labourers. Their fall lead to a resurgence and continuation of racial-baiting in the political scene and myopic race-based party decision-making.

Furthermore, now to mention the liberals, they too had facilitated racialism within the country despite their pretentiousness and claims of being anti-racist. This is because of their misunderstanding of racialism and the causes of it within Malaysia - which has always been because of unequal land distribution, colonial-era relations of production and British-origin ideological divide and conquer.

Now the liberals have built up quite a large propaganda machine that over-exaggerates racial difference and racial tensions to practically scare voters into voting for them. It’s two sides of the same coin.

And so to call Mahathir right-wing because of his Malay-Muslim supremacism is really meaningless to those on the left here. A lot of the modern-day Malaysian political establishment and the many-many parties are right-wing by that definition, for none actually seek to reorganize the relations of production and actually end the root causes of racialism.

Bulletins and News Discussion from June 16th to June 22nd, 2025 - Iran, Harden Your Heart in c/news@hexbear.net
[–] seaposting@hexbear.net 18 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

On your last point, 100%.

He still continues to this day, nearing 100 years old, I wish he’d just call it quit lol.

I don’t know whybut many Asian media news sites continues to quote his words like he has any relevance.

Bulletins and News Discussion from June 16th to June 22nd, 2025 - Iran, Harden Your Heart in c/news@hexbear.net
[–] seaposting@hexbear.net 22 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Agreed with practically everything you said. The AFC was definitely an engineered attack against SEA to disrupt EA-SEA integration, but interestingly enough I would say lead to the rise of labour organization and consciousness in Indonesia, with the presidentship of the progressive Abdurrahman Wahid, before his prompt ousting of course but that’s a different story.

Although there are small details I’d contest.

while instituting neoliberal mass privatizations to benefit his own cronies.

He had quite a flip-floppy industrial policy but in his first couple terms he did pursue import-substitution industrialization, especially for transportation. Only in the later years did he then ran on a neoliberal platform (which lead to the rise of the current opposition party of PAS).

socially conservative

I don’t agree with the use of this phrase to describe Malaysian or Asian social beliefs because it mischaracterises the class positions and historical-cultural reasons for why populations in the Global South would seem “backward” compared to bourgeois-liberals in the West. (A lot of it is just Western chauvinism aswell).

Bulletins and News Discussion from June 16th to June 22nd, 2025 - Iran, Harden Your Heart in c/news@hexbear.net
[–] seaposting@hexbear.net 47 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

Malaysia’s current geopolitical trajectory

Sitting at one of the most important waterways in the world - the strait of Melaka, the country hosts the 2nd largest Chinese diaspora, 3rd largest Indian diaspora and largest Indonesian, Bangladeshi and Nepali diaspora. One thing to know is that Malaysian foreign policy never strays too far from home.

It has now been a few years since the 2022 General Election, where a lot of the foreign alternative media was highlighting US influence in the opposition coalition and a potential westward turn. But unfortunately to them, lacking in dialectical materialism and influenced by Eurocentrism, they never actually understood the material and historical contexts that shape Malaysian politics.

remainder

To be clear, there is clear evidence of US involvement in aspects of the opposition. This is inevitable, Malaysia has a large professional English educated middle class owing to British colonization and many who aspire to be professional activists in the NGO industrial complex. The government’s continuation of colonial-era policies of unions and radical political organization meant that in modern-day Malaysian society there are really two avenues for those that want to be politically active: fall under the bureaucracy of parliamentary parties or go through ‘independent’ NGOs in “civil society”. However, this also implies that the past ruling coalition of nearly 50 years as somehow the anti-imperialist or atleast anti-US position. This isn’t the case.

Brief background on Malaysian Foreign Policy

Malaysian foreign policy has stayed remarkably consistent despite changes of government. This is due to the position of Malaysia in the global world economy, where through it’s colonial history and subsequent independence through build-up of native industries, it anchors Malaysian foreign policy and dissuades large changes. As such a lot of the country’s foreign policy hedges on free trade and ensuring domestic political stability and openness to foreign investment. This status-quo remains comfortable for most of the national bourgeoisie. That said, continual pressure from the diverse masses and popular classes ensure that the government could never take an outwardly pro-West position.

In practical terms this means broad alignment with Global South and Islamic interests, despite the prevalence of comprador classes. This means a firm anti-Zionist stance, extensive economic and cultural co-operation with China, close historical and cultural ties with Indonesia and India, and engagements with internationalism through the Non-Aligned Movement and others. It has one of the most progressive foreign policies in Southeast Asia, or at-least in the ASEAN-5, especially concerning China.

Back to the present

The government is now in the process of drafting the 13th Malaysia Plan - the next 5-year plan for 2026-2030, which is when Malaysia is finally forecasted to reach high-income status according to World Bank classifications. This economic development is what I attribute to as the cause of the fracturing and instability of the Malaysian political scene - the fall of Barisan Nasional and rise of Pakatan Harapan and Perikatan Nasional. It represents a shift of power from the old ruling classes to the aspiring and modern national bourgeoise and petite-bourgeoisie, represented by the new or rising political parties, who grew and responded to an environment nearing the end of the Cold War, at the midst of neoliberalism’s establishment. The “radical change” as hoped and expected by the NGOs, Western and Alternative media never happened - which was to no one’s surprise except the liberals.

The current government is currently pursuing a lot of fiscal reforms, while echoing neoliberal phrases that has become all too common. This isn’t especially new - this is merely a continuation of neoliberal policies since the 1990s, before any large changes within the Malaysian parliamentary scene. Generally, neoliberalism in the country has never taken a fully radical turn like that found in Argentina. For parts of the national bourgeoisie, privatization means a loss of their own class’s accumulation, and so neoliberalism trickles in targeting particular industries that maximizes their own racial-class gain. The so-called “third position” found in many semi-peripheral global south countries.

The current Prime Minister does have more of an assimilationist foreign policy rhetorically, especially when compared to some of the previous prime ministers. It falls quite well in line to the coalition’s class base of “sensible” and “smart” (read “business friendly”) policymaking, but again this falls quite in line with past precedent of telling the West what it wants to hear but never actually acting on everything said. The “liberal reformer” seemingly is not much of a reformer after all - but he definitely fits the liberal bill though.

To give another example, he echoes decades old refrains from neighbouring Singapore - whereby the Palestinian cause is “divisive” that threatens “social harmony”. The context of this is that there have been continuous protests and mobilizations for Palestine, especially after October 7th, with demonstrations infront of the US embassy in particular. Sometimes organized by left-wing organizations, sometimes by mainstream political parties - often by the new opposition after the liberals gained power (especially that of Parti Islam Se-Malaysia).

This binary understanding of the role of religion and race is part and parcel of the government’s liberal minded coalition when it comes to racial relations - too simple, sometimes naive. Don’t mistake this rhetoric as being pro-Zionist though, for that is an untenable position in Malaysia. Just recently the Prime Minister emphasized the need to speak against Israeli aggression and crimes in Gaza and Iran and maintaining “centrality” (neutrality), not relying on any one country too much.

What holds for the future?

The so-called rise of “protectionism” has put Southeast Asian economies in a somewhat lucrative position through the China+1 strategy and others. This in effect has risen the trade and foreign investment with the US but it remains to be seen if this foreign investment can be sustained or will actually yield long-term benefits. Malaysia will continue straddling this neutral position, but for a majority of Malaysian policymakers, dealing with the US is merely an economic necessity, but does not hold any of the cultural, political or historical significance like it does with China. Over the longer term, Asian trade and investments will only continue to increase in relevance, with the flagship BRI project, the East Coast Rail Link, on track to finish by next year, bringing needed development to deprived east coast communities and enabling another potential rail link to Thailand.

The Malaysian establishment’s continual acquiescence to Western Capital and unwillingness to be at the forefront of a Global South alternative will undoubtedly continue to roadblock further prosperity and harm the country when the middle-ground becomes impossible, giving further ammunition to those outside the current ruling coalition.

To reiterate what I have wrote in the past, this means that Malaysia can only lean more East as time goes on. It is simply unfeasible for Malaysia to shift West. Economically, politically, culturally, and historically. Do not believe the “analysis” of those that have only stepped foot in this country to visit the beaches. All signs are leading to greater Eurasian and especially ASEAN integration.

And to connect it to current events, having never recognized the Zionist Entity, the country has called the “Israeli Zionist regime” strikes on Iran a “flagrant violation of international law” but falls short of naming the key supporter of “Israeli” aggression, the US of A. Furthermore, Malaysia-Iran relations are friendly although minuscule. In the long-term, I do see growth as the US empire weakens due to both being Islamic countries and high potential for co-operation in many industries, but especially in oil and gas.

Bulletins and News Discussion from June 16th to June 22nd, 2025 - Iran, Harden Your Heart in c/news@hexbear.net
[–] seaposting@hexbear.net 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That specific comment on comprador diaspora refers to the infamous Indisch peoples , the mixed-race compradors of the Dutch East India now residing in the Netherlands. See for example “Racial apartheid continues, targeting Indonesian war victims”.

I definitely agree that Indonesia, the largest and yet one of the poorest in Southeast Asia, face numerous class divides of multiple levels, both nationally, and sub-nationally, especially with regards to East Timor and West Papua.

As for the rest of what you said, of course it is true, and the film takes the point-of-view of those involved in the massacres, in which they have already justified it all in their heads - they wouldn’t be alive to that day otherwise. The historical tragedy and trauma of the destruction of the Parti Komunis Indonesia can not be understated, and the further massacres as well.

I said what I said, because in postcolonial societies there is resistance to colonization and also submission to colonization.

For Indonesia, decolonization has been part of our daily life, we have been doing it every day, in all aspects of life, economics, education, technology and sociocultural. The Western domination is everywhere and we fight it every day. In its true sense the term decolonization puts the experience of the (ex) colonized and oppressed people in the center. For Indonesia, decolonization is not just an agenda to look for truth, it is much bigger than that. To be an independent country we have to turn away from the Western guidance and get back what the colonizers took from us. We must re-own the term decolonization again and start to enlighten the Dutch how to decolonize their mind.

Indonesia is indeed a sick society, a country with scars etched by colonization, but what I won’t accept is that Indonesia has no form of agency from Western Capital that we can plainly see through their interactions and relations with Russia and China as part of the Global South semi-periphery.

The country is suffering from the contradictions of the past and present but that does not negate the atrocious Eurocentrism when Indonesian history is talked about. It’s own unique cultural history that is intertwined with other Southeast Asian nation-states and continues to be an anti-colonial and anti-imperialist force within Indonesia, and although many were and continue to be silenced, aspects of their continual sacrifice can still be seen in the present day.

That is what I am trying to highlight when I say that Indonesian history is unique, because despite of what you mention, Indonesia still takes a neutral stance to the modern-day US-China rivalry. China has been Indonesia’s largest trading partner since 2005, 20 consecutive years. That in on itself suggests something more going underneath the surface. But a lot does not appreciate this history, and only look at traumatic events in the past without actually moving the discourse forward to present-day realities.

For an example of what I am saying, see this article for example, “International Discussion: Building International Solidarity Against Militarism in Indonesia”

and

“Indonesia’s Probable Foreign Policy Shift from the West under a Prabowo Administration”

This gives a part of the analysis, but many still need to be carried out and importantly practiced so Indonesia can finally move away from a dark period of it’s history.

Bulletins and News Discussion from June 16th to June 22nd, 2025 - Iran, Harden Your Heart in c/news@hexbear.net
[–] seaposting@hexbear.net 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Ah apologies, I didn’t mean to come off too strong. I was still pissed off at the article - let’s use that as the excuse.

The point of my reply was to emphasize that there are anti-imperialist and independent forces within each country, but it is very easy to paint Southeast Asian countries as sinophobic and fall into pessimism when this is not nearly the case, especially with the South China Sea issue.

view more: next ›