There is an interesting article on democracy in Southeast Asia over at the East Asia Forum.
Chayut Setboonsarng from the CIMB ASEAN Research Institute notes that:
ASEAN governments are not liberal democracies, nor do they claim or desire to be. Stability, an attractive investment climate and economic growth are their priorities. Expecting the ASEAN countries to become free societies may be impractical at this stage, but the current liberal momentum could usher in substantial change.
The timing of this article is interesting - as Malaysia prepares for the general elections.
The article also raises several important questions.
(1) Can illiberal regimes ensure long-term stability and/or economic efficiency?
(2) What should these illiberal governments do with their citizens who want greater freedom?
(3) As the citizens of these illiberal regimes become richer, would they continue to accept this trade-off (curtailed freedom in exchange for economic growth)?
(4) What about ASEAN governments who actually do desire to be more liberal such as Malaysia Mr. Najib Razak who promised to make Malaysia a world class democracy?
New Mandala readers may also be interested to know that CIMB is Malaysia’s largest bank and a key player in Southeast Asia. It is a Malaysian government linked corporation.
Its Group Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer, Nazir Razak, is the present Prime Minister’s young brother. They are both of course sons of Malaysia’s second prime minister and nephews to Malaysia’s third Prime Minister. In 2011, Nazir Razak was among the Forbes Top 40 richest people in Malaysia.
CIMB itself has a chequered history, with its evolution representing some of the worst excess in Malaysia’s financial sector (from corruption and mismanagement to forced mergers/buyout of more profitable non – Bumiputera owned banks).
All of these does beg the question, (5) What is the role of government linked corporations such as CIMB in promoting greater political freedom?
1) Singapore
2) Governments shouldn’t do anything with citizens who want greater freedoms. Doing something with them would be illiberal.
3) The tipping point would be where many are restricted from doing things with their money which wouldn’t harm another. At that point, the government would begin to make liberal concessions to adapt to new circumstances to maintain governance.
4) Governments who need to say they’re going to do something positive for democracy or freedom need to be slightly more specific about what they’re going to do rather than make shell-like statements that are later found by excited children to be empty on the beach of political despair. Malaysia’s world class democracy seems to be a bit like I-City in Shah Alam.
5) If government linked corporations adhere to the principles(?) of the free market, they should feel obligated to enable citizens growth, which is best achieved with more social and political freedom.
Feel I’ve answered some loaded questions, but in this case, I am happy to be a fish caught on the beach of political despair!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Thanks Colum for being a brave fish.
Mark MacKinnon, East Asia correspondent for Canada’s The Globe and Mail has come up with new terminologies for autocrats based on their characteristics. Four Southeast Asian countries and two leaders made it to this list of autocrats in the world.
Najib Razak is a “false democrat” along with Cambodia’s Hun Sen while Vietnam’s Communist Party and the past Myanmar’s military junta were in the “callous capitalists” category.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Fortunately we don’t see the rampant corruption in Asia with politicians in bed with business in the West…well assuming you choose to ignore minor exceptions such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Big Oil, Solar, GE, GM, Fannie Mae, MP Capital, AIG, Arms Manufactures, Halliburton etc, etc. And certainly in many western countries since the supposed war on terror things have just gotten so much more liberal.
I don’t deny the truth of the article, however living in Asia is these days has much more freedom than in the increasingly fascist West.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Freedom in Asia Mr. Damage,
It depends.
I guess Asia is a great place for expatriates and the upper middle class (those who have social mobility) but not for the millions who eke out a miserable living, and who face the daily grind of corrupt businesses, and even more corrupt governments.
As for the West, I’m sure the citizens of the West, with their long history in fighting for the rights of the individual (beginning with the overthrowing of monarchs, to fascists leaders) will know how to deal with the JP Morgans, Goldman Sachs, etc..that you mentioned.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
The article seems to equate the middle class with democracy which, by now, appears as an outdated model of modernization. Movements in Northern/Northeastern Thailand since May 2010 (and its links to pro-democracy affiliates in Bangkok that trump previous class divisions) illustrate a democratization at new dimensions. The top-down democratic fatalism projected upon Southeast Asian countries using these standardized models of so-called “illiberalism” not only fails to register where exactly democracy happens, but also ignores the undemocratic nature of liberalization.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
Noah Viernes,
What you wrote is absolutely true. One has to agree with Joshua Kurlantzick on this. But the liberal in the article may be used loosely and may not mean what you take it.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/22/bangkok_blues
Unfortunately there is no example of any executive or legislature in any political system going round to get genuine opinion of the people. They form their opinion and then sell it to the people. That’s all. Sell is the catch word. Opinion can be anything.
Only later that these practices come back to bite.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Coming from a layman perspective with working class parents and living in a small rented apartment in one of the southeast asian states, I would judge a government by what it is suppose to do. In general a government is supposed to ensure the well being of the citizens, and if the government of the day fails to meet this objective, whether it is illiberal or not is not relevant to me and some of my contemporaries struggling to survive.
One example of a liberal government that has failed to ensure the well being of the citizens (with the exception of the top 1%) is the United States. It has a strong democracy, liberal media and clear separation of powers between the judicial, executive and legislative branches of government. From the Reagan era down to Clinton and the Bush period, there had been strong movement towards deregulations and shifting of wealth concentration to the elite. Between 1992 to 2007, the top 400 earners in the US saw their income rose by 392% while their tax is reduced by 37%. It is a well known fact of the widening income gap and social injustice in the US that led to the OWS movement. I could not see how things could change as the elite has managed to manipulate the democratic process to protect their wealth.
In Southeast Asia, Thaksin was viewed as a hardline ruler when he was in charge of Thailand. Yet it was during his time when attention was paid to the rural masses. Countries such as Thailand and Singapore experienced strong economic growth with income rising for the majority of the population. In the case of Singapore, it was only recently that the idea of liberal democracy started to take place within the larger population as it was perceived the government policies had failed to improve the quality of life of the population.
My take is that each country is unique and there is no standard template on how countries should be run. What could work in the US may not work in Europe, likewise what is practical in the West may not be applicable to countries in this region due to historical factors or other form of constraints. We tend to use the West as a yardstick which has its own shortcomings. The historian John Smail has argued that many historians tend to use Europe-centric approach in studying Southeast Asia, therefore unable to appreciate local contributions to the regional’s development and history. Likewise, the danger of thinking that there is only one way and that everybody else must follow that one way is a failure to appreciate the uniqueness of each country and region, which is a recipe for disaster.
In the current context, we may not be aware but subconsciously we could be adopting one view and use it as a basis to judge others, while the fact there is no absolute truth.
Whether a government is liberal or not, the bottomline for the government of the day is that it must allow each individual to reach his or her full potential, and to treat a person with dignity and respect, and to act in the interest of the citizens, not a narrow elite.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I support your views broadly, but have one question.
Do you think that an illiberal government can actually do what you said in your closing statement: “… must allow each individual to reach his or her full potential, and to treat a person with dignity and respect, and to act in the interest of the citizens, not a narrow elite…”
My humble opinion is the above are contradictory (illiberal government and the freedom for each individual to reach their full potential, and to treat a person…etc)
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
UMNO and its place in Malaysia’s “New Politics” – The only genuine democrat in UMNO talks about his party’s ability to reform on Radio Australia.
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/asia-pacific/umno-and-its-place-in-malaysias-new-politics/1018568
Quality comment or not?
0 
0