Running Full Circle

The boisterous PAD (People's Alliance for Democracy) is now pushing further, bringing their protest right to the doorstep of Thai Prime Minster Samak Sundaravej's office. Since the People's Power Party (PPP) came into office in January 2008, they have been beset by numerous domestic problems ranging from allegations of corruption, threats of dissolution, lese majeste charges and others all aimed at stressing and undermining the unity of the fragile six-party coalition government led by the PPP.

Today, the opposition Democrat Party will be tabling a motion of no-confidence to be put into vote in parliament on Thursday. Insofar as Mr Samak is expected to survive the challenge, the motion underscores the political uncertainty surrounding Thailand's domestic politics. Defection from the six-party coalition may engender the collapse of the current government anytime.

It has been almost two years since the military staged a coup. Yet the spectre of Thaksin returning to power has never be fully exorcised. Then the interim administration after the coup was predominately occupied with Thaksin's presence. Today, the PAD continues to play upon this fear and is quick to emphasize that the present government is no more than an extension of Thaksin's influence or an incarnate of the former Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party. Nothing has changed. Indeed the present PPP is filled with many of former Thaksin's loyalists and clients. Nonetheless, while it is one thing to say that government may be pro-Thaksin, it is certainly unfair to allege that every single action or motive is geared towards returning Thaksin to power. Take the recent Cambodia registration of the old Preah Vihear with UNESCO. Undoubtedly, Mr Thaksin is known to be a friend of the Cambodian strongman Hun Sen and the former certainly has a shrewd mind for business. However not a single inch of Thai territory has been surrendered. Not only is an important detail like this overlooked, it also obscures a positive development to a dispute that has long plagued relations between the two countries. PAD hardly bat an eyelid to the warming of relations between Thailand and Myanmar's military junta, yet it is so eager to speculate on the issues surrounding Preah Vihear to score political points.

Barely six months has past since the PPP took over the reins of power. It has been leveled with a whole host of criticisms aimed at undermining its credibility. As far as it looks, the PAD doesn't seem to be just an innocuous motley of NGO groups and civil activists. In 2006, its 100,000 strong protesters created a 'legitimate' pretext for 'popular' support for the military to stage a coup. At present, the demonstrators amount to no more than 20,000 but they are certainly edging forward on something similar. Their actions, however, have made it almost ungovernable for the PPP led coalition in Bangkok.

The PPP is no angel and has its fair share of skeletons tucked away in its own closet, but the Democrat Party's no confidence motion in response to the government's refusal to permit a debate of its performance for the last six months is nothing short of mischief and incredulous. Despite its reputation for clean and phudi style politics, the Democrat Party still enjoys playing up to the gallery. A six month tenure in office is still too short to adequately measure its performance.

At the end of the day, whether the PAD succeeds or the PPP government manages to straddle through another six months, the biggest loser in this whole game of politics is Thailand and the average man in the street. Confidence in its economy has plummeted and investors are jittery about its political future. Inflation from rising cost of fuel and necessities have hurt the pockets of the average Thai and if politicians only see it fit to squabble over the short term at the expense of the long term, the country in 2006 would have ran a complete circle only to find itself back to square one.

-Eugene Chew

Fellow Indonesians: no more xenophobic, it’s time to revive!

Asia and Southeast Asia have been developing quite rapidly and some nations are just unavoidably more advanced than the others. What do Indonesians have in mind when they look around at other countries in the region, in particular their two closest neighbors? Singapore, the region’s financial hub has managed to maintain its status as the wealthiest country in ASEAN. For the last 10 to 20 years, Malaysia has been basking economic growth resulting in much better quality of life including education system, leaving Indonesia far behind.

Admiration or envy?

These two countries are Indonesia’s closest neighbors, yet it seems to be having hot and delicate issues in its relations particularly with them in the past few years. Just to name some issues with Singapore: disagreement still looms on extradition treaty and defense agreement, and many feels the heat with the presence of Singapore’s Temasek in the country’s economy, while export of sea and land sand were suddenly banned in the name of environmental conservation. To Malaysia, anger was vented when it used a nusantara folksong for its tourism campaign, and accusation of stealing Indonesian old literature manuscripts was targeted with frustration, when Malaysia seems to care more about it than ever.

The list goes on and on, but as an Indonesian, I will not try to analyze why those episodes happened. It is how strong our reactions are to those issues that struck me. To my opinion, somehow we overreact to issues that touch nationalistic sentiment. Then we try to fight and act inappropriately. As an Indonesian, I am bewildered and worried how parliamentarians and even minister can sometimes be so emotional on certain issue. The fact that politicians play an issue that may affect relations with the neighbors for their political interest is simply irresponsible. This could be a reflection of inferior and insecure feeling over inability to compete. The country might have been infected by pandemic xenophobic sentiment.

From this point, I question the readiness of Indonesia for an ASEAN community and broader Asia. First, there is so little information about it, so most people are not aware. Second, amidst difficult life Indonesians have to face everyday, people might not care about ASEAN. They will contradictorily accuse globalization as the scapegoat for the rise of soybean price, for example. Third, many people do not benefit directly from globalization and internationalism. As an Indonesian who was fortunate to taste international education in Germany and experienced multicultural interaction during life in Singapore, I am lucky enough to benefit a lot from internationalism and enjoy learning other culture and languages. But other people may not get the same chance. Some people seem to be ‘allergic’ to whatever coming from outside (i.e. from the West), or even from Singapore. What would it be like if ASEAN community materializes? Are Indonesians ready to take the chance and win, or are we going to just sit still and blame others if we lose the competition?

With the benefit of being the fortunate few to bite into the fruit of globalization, I bear the burden to also reflect deeply on our nation’s mentality. Only condemning others –when in fact our own incapability plays a bigger role– would not help if we do not self reflect on our part of the blame. Retaliation is not beneficial, if we do not improve for the better life of our own people. We need to stop this and start doing something meaningful and revive! Perhaps in the future we do not ban the export of sand in the name of environmental protection, while we still fail to address the environmentally more destructive mud-flood caused by our own mistakes. And we would not need to wait until our neighbor complain for us to stop the export of haze, if we care enough about the life of our own people who are as badly –or even worse- affected by it. Sometimes, the best way to improve relation with others is to do the best to improve our own life.

Indonesia: Jewel of the equator - on the quest to shine in Southeast Asia

Indonesia is the largest country in ASEAN and historically the leader and initiator of the organization. With its 220 million population, Indonesia is the third largest country in Asia, after China and India. Yet, we are not number one in ASEAN in terms of economic development. In comparison with China and India, we are still lagging behind. The government does not seem to bring significant progress despite good commitment from the leaders. Corruption still persists – if not manifolds; policy failures are among many other things that slow down the development. Even some would prefer to go back to Soeharto’s era, as their life was much easier during that time. Although Indonesia may claim as the most democratic state in the region, many obstacles stand in the way in its thrive to realize prosperity in democratic way. Immature democracy has made decision process difficult and wearisome. Indonesia is also vulnerable to any global change, ranging from unstable oil prices to food security.

Indonesia, home to about 300 tribes and dialects and abundant natural resources, knows exactly its capital. Being the biggest country as well as having significant role in the history of Southeast Asia, Indonesia earned respect from other ASEAN and Asian countries. Indonesia was the leader of Southeast Asian countries with the foundation of ASEAN and its development to be an important bloc well respected by others. Going forward, Indonesia should play the leadership role to make ASEAN a new strength to balance the resurgence of China and India. By setting the vision towards an ASEAN Community, the goal has been defined and now the path has to be followed through. Stronger ASEAN will definitely benefit Indonesia economically and politically. Safe and stable Southeast Asia will harness the country’s defense and security.

However, heterogeneity also entails threat. Multi-ethnic and multi-religious society coupled with poverty pose risk to the region’s security, terrorism among other things. Indonesia’s vast and sprawled territory and disorder administrative system make it a safe and easy place for terrorists to hide. For instance, most people would instantly say that Singapore’s most wanted fugitive Mas Selamat Kastari who escaped the detention centre a while ago had fled to Indonesia.

So many challenges lie ahead. The juggling game is that Indonesia has to solve its domestic problems while playing important role in the region. Yudhoyono’s government has earned credit for its good work in relation to the international world. However, domestically many people are still unsatisfied with the government’s work, especially when macro economic stability fails to address poverty and unemployment. Indonesia should not spend too much energy to build international image, without paying enough attention to real action that matters for the people on the ground. Now we want to see how Indonesia tackles its domestic problems gradually, for it to gain the trust of ASEAN and Asia to lead the way forward.

Martha Maulidia is a full time yummy mummy to Amabella Fatima (8 mos) and a part time research associate with SIIA. An environmental engineer by training, she worked as Climate Change researcher in a Jakarta-based NGO and is engaged with SIIA intermittently since 2005. She has passion on issues related to sustainability, environment and development and Indonesia and ASEAN.

Thoughts from afar on Burma

On a cursory and wholly unscientific survey of the newspaper articles, the television reports and the speeches of government officials in the "West" on the crisis in Burma, it is interesting to see how Asean is perceived with regards to Burma. Entering the words: 'Burma', 'cyclone' and 'Asean' on the bbc.co.uk website, a mere one page of hits was generated by the search engine. Going into the details of these hits, the only statements which linked Burma and Asean with regards to the cyclone was:

"The European Union is to hold an emergency meeting on getting aid to Burma on Tuesday [13 May 2008] - while Asean (the Association of South-East Asian Nations) says it will discuss the issue next Monday."

Interesting. So the EU which is miles away from Burma has already had its meeting on getting aid to Burma while Asean which Burma is of course part of, is still dithering on the issue of aid.

"In an apparent concession to international pressure, the generals say they will allow 160 foreign aid workers into the country, as well as an emergency relief team from the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean).

But it was unclear whether the workers - from countries including Thailand, China, India, Bangladesh - would be allowed out of Rangoon into the stricken delta region, where help is most urgently needed."

Interesting. Even Asean countries which belong to the same regional organisation as Burma, are treated as foreign.

Of course what's more interesting is the paucity of references to Asean by the UN, the US, the EU and the media. Put simply and bluntly, Asean is not regarded as a regional body which is capable of influencing the situation in Burma. Sadly, Burma appears to share that view as well. You would at least expect the Burmese government to show some respect to the organisation that it belongs to and grant the aid workers from Asean countries the freedom to do what is necessary to help the Burmese people. But unfortunately, this is not the case. This is of course a problem stemming from the principle of no-interference.

Asean has to ask itself: does it owe a duty to the military junta, the government of the day for Burma or does it owe a duty to the Burmese people to protect their lives and rights? One can understand the political benefits of the principle of non-interference: to preserve the territorial and political sovereignty of the countries which form Asean. That being said, Asean must realise that qualifications must be made to this principle. Where human rights and the lives of Asean "citizens" are at stake, the principle of non-interference must be abandoned. The only issue now is: does Asean have the political will to do that? I am not advocating that Asean invades Burma. That is a decision that has to be considered by the UN, the international community. What I am asking for is that Asean denounces the actions of the military junta and add to the chorus of voices asking for the junta to do what is necessary to save the lives of the Burmese people.

Burma is the litmus test for Asean as an organisation to show the world that it is a legitimate organisation capable of influencing at least the region's affairs. Unfortunately, Asean has failed abysmally so far.

Just a note that another journalist is toying with the idea of invading Burma, albeit less emotionally than yours truly.

Sometimes, the politically incorrect way seems like the only way

Reading and hearing about how aid is NOT making its way to the people who need it most in Burma set me off on a tirade. I will not and do not advise donating money or any form of aid to Burma. I know the devastating news of the cyclone hit us bad. I know many Burmese had died and are dying. However, I feel that it will do nothing more than to make us feel less guilty about our own bourgeois capitalist comfort in Singapore. The aid and the money will only end up lining the pockets of the military junta who does not seem to care about its people, only about reinstating and hanging onto its unreasonable power in the country.

Yes - I've also read that some money and aid do get past. Perhaps 30% of whatever was sent there. Is that enough? Is that a solution to a problem exacerbated exponentially by natural disaster? I do not think so. As I grow older, I also begin to see how futile it is to give aid or attempt to save just one or a few persons - it has stopped mattering if we can save or make the life of just one person better. What about the gazillion others suffering?

We must do something to help. But it seems like the only way we can help, is helping the enemy instead of the people.

Perhaps, this is the time for ASEAN to step in and stop its gutless attitude of non-interference. What is the point of being a community if part of your community is dying, battered and bashed? Why work and shake hands with a military junta who will not listen? Why talk about economic integration and community when there is a regime next to you that obviously goes against the values of humanity?

This is not about the respect of cultures and sovereignty. We should respect cultures and governments that the people support. We should help defenceless people when their governments don't. Do we report or intervene if our neighbours abuse their children? There is no dilemma here. It's a matter of right or wrong.

And I believe the right way might sound horrendously incorrect in the wake of the Iraq problem. But I do agree with Steve Sesser of the New York Times. Perhaps some stronger country should invade Burma.

Second Disaster

cry
Originally uploaded by fringuellina

First was the cyclone and the surge of water, the second is the Myanmar military government’s feeble response to one of its worst disasters in memory.

A week after Cyclone Nargis hit Myanmar's Irrawaddy delta, killing thousands and affecting milliona of lives, the devastated region remained largely cut off from the rest of the world and the impoverished country's needs remain enormous. The refusal to give landing rights for relief flights as well as the refusal to allow doctors and disaster-relief experts to enter in large numbers contributed to the growing concern that starvation and epidemic diseases could end up killing people on the same scale as the storm itself. More fatal than the storm could be the junta's action.

Myanmar military government’s main reason for not letting foreign aid workers in seems to be that they are afraid of foreign influence within the country. They view foreign assistance as a potential threat to their two-decade rule. In the eyes of the military rulers, everyone, including aid workers, is a potential enemy who can spearhead the overthrow of the government. It seems clear by now that the junta members are that paranoid.

To make their idea of holding on to power clear, as hundreds of thousands of its citizens struggle for basic shelter, food and health care, the junta government holds a constitutional referendum on May 10, just one week after the cyclone. Instead of putting all resources toward saving the lives of the victims, the military has prioritized on legalizing military rule in Burma through the referendum.

From all these, I can see the regime that care more about control over the country than the lives of people. I see the regime that does little or nothing to protect or help its people in time of great crisis. I see the worst kind of despotism and irresponsible ruler that the world should not have by now.

I fully understand that voicing outrage with the junta over the aid delays or how they behave would not help improve the situation or make any difference. But for now, I just can’t help feeling frustrated and sorry for Myanmar’s people. I hope those people will receive what they deserve soon. Everything.

Status quo, tomorrow

Ok, Mr Ma Ying-jeou is handsome, but he isn’t drop-dead gorgeous. Yes, he is a Harvard graduate but the President of a country does not necessarily have to be book-smart. It is true that his appearance and personal image played a role in his electoral victory in Taiwan, but a great number of votes seem to have come from his emphasis on economic invigoration.

Frankly, I do not think that his career path towards presidency was terribly rocky. He was seen as a politician with personal integrity and a keen sense of justice. He is good-looking elite. Those who loathed old, money-power politics especially had expectations on him and ‘change’. However, he has often been exposed to political attacks due to his mainland-born origin. I would have thought he would put great emphasis on Taiwan’s independence during the election, to silence his critics and enemies. His overwhelming victory, however, came from other reasons. He stood for the status-quo. He stressed neither unification nor independence nor military clash. Instead, he focused on the revival of the economy and economic coorperation with China.

I am not so sure what consequences his cautious political approach will bring about. The status-quo he stands for is vulnerable to regional and international conflicts; the preservation of this status-quo may require strong crisis management skills, that some doubt he possesses. What draws my attention is that realistic voters are more concerned with economic growth than unification. With Ma Ying-jeou’s administration, will the unification issue disappear from Taiwanese politics?

My view is that the issue will certainly remain. The Democratic Progressive Party (DDP) has suggested thawing policies before the election, and the DDP will try to rally its supporters around the clear view on this. As the KMT drives forward economic cooperation with China, the DPP might make a fuss over cross-straits issues, particularly in the Legislative Yuan. Will Ma Ying-jeou simply use China for Taiwan’s development and prosperity without magnifying any of the hot issues, i.e. unification versus independence, military conflict? How are China and the US going to react? With recent developments in Tibet, is China going to leave the status quo in peace? It will be interesting to see the changes and strategies that newly elected Asian leaders will make.

written by Minju Kim