Then, in 1963, with the support of local political parties (e.g. People’s Action Party in Singapore) and the British Government and its allies such as Australia, the Federation of Malaya grew to include the states of Sabah and Sarawak on the island of Borneo, and Singapore, and became the Federation of Malaysia. However, Singapore was expelled from Malaysia, after the Singapore state government, continued to demand for a “Malaysia – Malaysia” instead of the Malay First Policy which was promoted by the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO). In expelling Singapore (more explicitly, Lee Kuan Yew and his party), UMNO continued to be the dominant part of the Alliance.

In 1969, the Barisan Nasional was given a terrible shock when its coalition partners were nearly wiped out, while UMNO itself was badly damaged. This was followed by a race riot —Malaysia’s worst on May 13, 1969 which many argue was engineered by factions within UMNO and later used by Alliance leaders to consolidate control over the country.

The Alliance, led by UMNO, reconstituted itself as Barisan Nasional and co-opted all the opposition except the Democratic Action Party. This is one of the amazing abilities of UMNO and Barisan Nasional — the ability to co-opt all forms of challenge both at the party level or at the level of the coalition.

There are numerous examples of this ability: the split in 1969 of the Alliance was quickly restored, the split in UMNO in 1987 (Tengku Razaleigh challenging Dr. Mahathir) and 1998 (Dr. Mahathir sacking Anwar Ibrahim) and now, after the resounding victory of the opposition in the 2008 election.

Hence, the question — is UMNO at its death bed or is it alive and kicking? Will UMNO (and the politics it practises) go the way of the LDP in Japan or will it reconstitute itself and live another 50 years?

If UMNO reconstitutes (often through violent means as in May 13, 1969, Operasi Lalang in 1988, crackdown on Reformasi in 1998, and increasingly since the latest election defeats), will Malaysia suffer from rising ethno-nationalism or will UMNO become more benign?

And will there ever be a Malaysia without UMNO?

Another degree for Lee?

It has come to my attention that the University of North Carolina has also decided to confer an honorary degree on Lee Kuan Yew. Perhaps the public relations debacle at the ANU may make them think twice about this. New Mandala readers may want to make their views known to UNC Chancellor Jame Moeser  [James_Moeser@unc.edu]

Bangkok rallies

The ongoing anti-coup rallies in Bangkok seem to be making the junta very nervous indeed.  Rural residents have been prevented by army and police from travelling to join the rallies and, most recently, the junta has persuaded authorities to close off Sanam Luang altogether. In response, today’s rally (4.00 PM) has been relocated to the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Building Square. Puppet PM Surayud has held off on declaring a state of emergency in Bangkok (as requested by the generals) but there can be little confidence that open expressions of anti-coup sentiment will be tolerated much longer. Particularly galling for the regime is the protesters’ condemnation of Privy Councillor Prem’s role in the coup. This is is about as close as protestors can come to directing criticism at the monarchy itself. Australian Foreign Affairs authorities are sufficiently concerned about the increasingly tense situation in Bangkok to advise travellers to avoid “demonstrations, political rallies and concentrations of military personnel.”

Suchinda’s wisdom

Earlier this month Thai newspapers featured an interview with former coup-maker General Suchinda Khraprayoon. An English language version of the interview is available here. And here is a fuller Thai version [suchinda-interview.pdf]. Here is a brief extract from the English version:

Q : Do you agree with the idea that the prime minister does not need to come from the election?  A : I agree with this idea 100 per cent because if any of politicians are ready to assume this position, they would not let others to take it. But now we just look at this issue as a continuation of power (of the military leadership). We can’t tackle this problem alone without resolving the longer-term problem. I don’t agree with the constitution that dwells on details until we cannot move. The constitution must not have too many articles. It should be written in broad term, so that we can fill up the details in the organic law.  I don’t agree with a public hearing on the constitution either. The people don’t know anything. Even myself have not read the old constitutions. The people would not know how many articles in the constitution there are.

Suchinda’s views on the will of the people were rather different when Thaksin was still in power:

Former prime minister General Suchinda Kraprayoon has a word of advice for the current head of government. He said the best option for Thaksin Shinawatra to get off the current political turmoil was to dissolve the House and pave the way for a snap election.  “The House dissolution will be the best way out of the crisis facing Thaksin.” If Thaksin was still popular among voters, his party would win the election and return to power again, Suchinda said.

Switching patrons?

A number of New Mandala readers have drawn my attention to a recent article by Shawn Crispin in the Asia Times. There is not a lot that I agree with in the article, but at least it does represent some attempt to take rural public opinion seriously. But, in the end, it relies on the old stereotype of patronage driven politics, with the military now replacing Thaksin as the ultimate patron:

“Thaksin’s grassroots support was always more financial than philosophical,” said a researcher connected with Chiang Mai University’s Social Research Center. “After the coup, those allegiances broke down. Now that the military is stepping in to fill [the] financial gap, now the people are suddenly on their side.”

Nice to see those Chiang Mai researchers demonstrating such ethnographic nuance! Perhaps they should invite Suchinda up to present a seminar on rural ignorance.

Migrating to Laos

Critics of economic development in Thailand often point to the apparently terrible impacts on the livelihoods of rural farmers. In response I have often wondered why Thailand’s rural masses are not migrating across the border to Laos where they can pursue lifestyles relatively untroubled by the trappings of modernity. Well, some have threatened to do just that:

(BangkokPost.com) – More than 300 debt-ridden farmers dispersed Wednesday after a week of failed attempt in getting assistance from the government in settling their debts. The protesters gathered in front of the Government House since last Monday to ask the government to give concrete measures to help them settling debts after those who failed to repay their debts for creditors including financial institutions and agricultural cooperatives started seizing their assets. The protestors expressed disappointment with the government’s reaction and intention to help the farmers, considered the grassroots of the Thai economy. The group representatives said they would migrate to Laos and set up an immigration centre there. They said they would hand their Thai identification cards back to the government before entering the neighbouring country in response to the government’s negligence to the villagers. The group planned to meet National Legislative Assembly members before migrating to Laos.

Will this trickle lead to a flood of refugees from Thailand’s capitalist excess? I don’t think so.

[ANU Chancellor] Dr Hawke conceded he was personally responsible for nominating Mr Lee for the honour, discussing it with his vice-chancellor Ian Chubb before taking the suggestion straight to council for approval. Under normal circumstances, the nomination would first have been considered by the Committee for Honorary Degrees, but Professor Chubb said yesterday that the fast scheduling of the diplomatic visit in December meant it went straight to council which, he noted, also contained six members of the Honorary Degrees Committee. “It was simply a timing thing and you can argue it is right or wrong, but you can’t put every decision out for public acclamation.”

I don’t think public acclamation is the issue. The issue is due process. The Honorary Degree Rules of 2006 [honorarydegsrules1.pdf] make it clear that proposals “must” be referred to the Honorary Degrees Committee. The quorum for the committee is eight and the proposal must be approved by at least 80 percent of those present. Importantly the Rules provide for academic staff and student representation on the Honorary Degrees Committee. While the rules emphasise the confidentiality of the process (not “public acclamation”) there is provision for consultation with appropriate persons.

Reading the Rules, I get the clear impression that they were specifically designed to avoid ill thought out proposals being rushed through.

All this make me wonder if the earlier proposal to award Korean industrialist Ku-Taek Lee with an honorary Doctor of Science also received Dr Hawke’s fast-track treatment:

The Chancellor, Dr Allan Hawke, would like to invite the academic staff of the ANU College of Asia and the Pacific to a special ceremony at which he will be conferring the degree of Doctor of Science, honoris causa, on Mr Ku-Taek Lee, AC, Chair of POSCO, the Korean steel manufacturing company. The ceremony will take place at 11am on Thursday, 15 March, in the Great Hall of University House… The ceremony is a special occasion to honour Mr Lee’s achievements and further the University’s relationship with Korea. The Chancellor hopes you will join him for this event.

The ANU honorary degree “citations” for the two Lees are now available. Enjoy the reading.

leekuanyewcitation.pdf;  leeku-taekcitation.pdf

I have just returned from the protest outside the degree conferring ceremony for Lee Kuan Yew. About 150 protesters (mostly students) welcomed Lee’s arrival with chants of “Lee Kuan Yew – ANU is not for you”; “No doctorates for dictators”; and “Masters for Mugabe.” The occasional “shame, Chubb, shame” was also heard.

Protesters were kept well back from the entrance to the hall by a line of tape and a small contingent of police, security staff and some ANU suits. There seemed to be a strong media presence so this action should get some good coverage.

During the protest additional signatures were collected for a petition to be submitted to ANU Chancellor Allan Hawke. Based on the almost complete silence so far from the ANU leadership, I don’t expect that this will meet with much response.

At the protest there was further informal talk of possible legal action against the decision to give Lee an honorary degree. Apparently there was some discussion of an injunction yesterday, but sufficient evidence could not be put together in time. Options are being considered for further action. Whether or not the ANU actually followed the required procedure for the granting of this degree may well be a key point in any further action. As I have indicated before I have a suspicion that the ANU Honorary Degrees Committee was bypassed in this process, contrary to the provisions of the Honorary Degrees Rules. I have sent a number of emails requesting clarification on this but still no response.

Last night the ANU did emerge from its bunker, briefly, on this issue. Vice Chancellor Ian Chubb stated on ABC television news that the degree reflected the strong relationship between ANU and the National University of Singapore (this is my recollection, I have not been able to find a transcript). No one at ANU would disagree with the importance of good relations with other universities, but is this really a basis for the award of an honorary degree? Incredibly Chubb indicated that he was not completely aware of Lee Kuan Yew’s background when the decision was made. Unbelievable from the head of one of the world’s leading Asian studies universities but all the more reason why due process should be observed and appropriately informed people consulted.

[UPDATE: for other coverage of the protest and recent developments see: Canberra Times; Radio Australia; The Australian; and the Sydney Morning Herald.]

No attempt is being made to be accountable to the broader ANU community on this decision. My enquiries about the decision making process for the award have run into a brick wall. I was referred to the Minutes of the ANU Council meeting of 8 December 2006 but these provided no information at all given that the Lee Kuan Yew matter was considered in a confidential session. I have also been trying to get some details of the relevant Honorary Degrees Committee meeting, but as yet no luck on this either. It is important to remember that the ANU Honorary Degree Rules state that:

A proposal must be addressed to the Chair of the Committee and delivered to the Head, Council and Boards Secretariat who must send it to the Committee for consideration and, if supported by the Committee, for recommendation to the Council.  [Note that “the Committee” is defined in the rules as the Honorary Degrees Committee.]

I must admit that I am now wondering if the Honorary Degrees Committee was bypassed in this rather mysterious process. I will keep New Mandala readers posted on this.

A good indication of the level of discomfort at ANU is provided by an email from the Dean of the College of Law that is circulating within the ANU (and outside):

As you know, the ANU is on Wednesday of this week conferring an honorary doctorate on the former Prime Minister of Singapore Mr Lee Kuan Yew. This has produced a storm of protest, both within our College and outside it. The essence of the protest is that it does not sit easily with a College and a University that values human rights and academic freedom to honour a person, whatever his tangible achievements in nation-building in Singapore, whose regime was associated with the erosion of those values and the suppression of freedom of speech and expression.

It is a matter of particular concern that, because Mr Lee Kuan Yew is to be awarded an honorary LLD, there may be an assumption in relevant communities that the ANU College of Law is somehow implicated in the decision, whether by way of initiation or endorsement.

In fact, neither I, as Dean of the ANU College of Law, nor, to the best of my knowledge, anyone else in the College, was consulted on the proposal or took part in the decision. Indeed, I was unaware of the decision until I received an invitation to the ceremony. As I understand it, the decision was a decision of the ANU Council, following a proposal from the Chancellor. 

Given that the decision is a fait accompli and, in the nature of things, effectively irreversible, it is a matter for individuals now to determine how they wish to respond. Many have registered their protests with the Vice Chancellor, who has forwarded them to the Chancellor. I have informed the Vice Chancellor that I will not be participating in the degree ceremony. I have also informed him that neither do I expect many, if any, colleagues in the ANU College of Law to participate, if only because of our College Advisory Board meeting that day.

I believe that the decision to honor Mr Lee Kuan Yew was driven in part by the desire to strengthen our ties with the National University of Singapore, with whom we are a partner in the International Association of Research Universities. May I say that, whatever one thinks of the decision, and whatever criticism one makes of it, the controversy surrounding it should not be taken to detract from our good relations and connections with the National University of Singapore, with whom we continue to explore opportunities for fruitful collaboration.

The ceremony is to take place at University House, this Wednesday, March 28 at 11.00 AM. Protests are planned. Another email circulating at ANU states:

I am writing to inform you that there will be a gathering to protest the ANU’s decision to award the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr. Lee Kwan Yew, an honorary degree in Law. All concerned members of the ANU community are invited so please feel free to come along and/or invite others to attend. If you happen to have a class at that time it would be a great symbol to encourage as many of your students to go and for yourselves to lead them there. I’m sure most of you are aware of the autocratic and repressive regime that Mr. Kwan Yew presided over, and still heavily influences, so I encourage you all to attend this event as a sign to the ANU that pandering to corrupt (former) world leaders will be condemned by its members.

New Mandala will be there.

It is frankly very disturbing that Australia’s national university would bestow upon Lee Kuan Yew an honorary Doctor of Laws degree. It also seems rather odd that this important visitor and event are not mentioned on the ANU events calendar. Is there some reason (beyond security) that there is apparently a degree of secrecy surrounding this event? Is the ANU embarrassed by this choice of candidate? Given a recent report in Crikey that the Vice-Chancellor at ANU told staff they would be supported for exercising free speech it seems somewhat inappropriate to be awarding Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew with a Doctor of Laws. Lee has demonstrated a complete lack of respect over the years (and certainly no honour) for free speech and used the laws of Singapore to ensure he gets his way.

If the ANU wishes to recognise the role Lee has played in Singapore’s economic development or his success as a social engineer then by all means award him a degree in government, development or perhaps even business but not any kind of degree with the word “law” attached to it. Can there be anyone at ANU who does not know something of Lee’s total disregard for legal process and decency when it comes to dealing with his country’s own citizens?

For more than forty years now under Lee’s stewardship the Peoples Action Party (PAP) government of Singapore has manipulated and controlled the country’s legal processes as one of many measures to help ensure the status quo with respect to governance. The laws of Singapore under Lee and his successors (really no true successor while he lives on forever in the background) have been used as a very blunt instrument to bludgeon any and all political opposition, academic independence, freedom of the press and citizenry generally who are deemed to have stepped out of line. Has no one at ANU heard of Chia Thye Poh and his thirty two year detention by the Singapore state without ever being convicted of any crime?

Is it possible that no one at ANU knows just how the judiciary of Singapore is compromised by and compliant to the wishes of Lee and other senior government voices? Or does everyone really believe that all those newspapers and news journals were guilty of a crime because they were sued successfully in Singapore’s courts for hundreds of thousands of dollars by Lee and other government figures? Were they not doing what a free press is supposed to do? I think you will find that between them various news outlets such as the International Herald Tribune and others have paid out millions of dollars to settle various liable claims. Let us not forget that the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) is currently banned in Singapore and is being pursued by Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong for damages simply for daring to allow an opposition party leader to speak his mind on PAP efforts to silence dissent. Perhaps someone at ANU should read the FEER’s account (easily accessible on the web) of how the law is being manipulated by the government of Singapore to shut them up. Thailand’s king hides behind the archaic law of lèse majesté and Singapore’s leaders hide behind a tamed and obedient judiciary.

I suggest instead of rewarding Lee (with a Degree in Laws at least) the ANU honour some of Lee’s victims with this degree, particularly those who have been mercilessly pursued by him through the country’s legal system for no other crime than attempting to have a say in their country’s future. There is quite long list of these people, some former insiders who fell out with Lee and others who were never part of the Lee clique. There is no doubt that some of these characters were as disreputable as Lee would make them out to be but many others, whatever their personal faults and weaknesses, were simply citizens who wanted something more from their government.

Notable among the victims of Lee’s manipulation of the legal process are Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, and more recently Dr Chee Soon Juan. Jeyaretnam has struggled for more than two decades to create and maintain a viable political opposition in Singapore in the face of intense political persecution backed up by a complicit pro-government judiciary. From the moment he won a seat in Singapore’s parliament in 1981 he became the target of a relentless pursuit by Lee and the PAP more broadly. In fact he was already a victim of Singapore’s legal system in 1976 when he was found to have defamed Lee and had to pay a large damages settlement. His persistence and refusal to be cowed has cost him dearly. He has been publicly derided by the government of Singapore on a regular basis, imprisoned, bankrupted through endless and baseless lawsuits (baseless because in any other democratic legal jurisdiction the government’s claims would have been thrown out of court) and prevented from running for parliament on the basis of the outcome of these lawsuits.

Dr Chee Soon Juan a former lecturer at Singapore National University now finds himself treading similar political ground to Jeyaretnam. It is his interview reported in the FEER last year which has lead to its recent banning in Singapore. As leader of the Singapore Democratic Party he has been bankrupted by libel and jailed more than once for organising public meetings and speaking publicly without the proper permits. He has spoken out often on the tainted judiciary of Singapore particularly in conflicts between the government and opposition politicians. There simply is no such thing as a fair trial for anyone who enters the political fray as an opposition politician in Singapore.

On its profile web page under “Research at ANU” it states that ANU is “Home to some of the world’s finest minds … expanding the boundaries of human understanding through research of the highest quality”. I have always believed this very big claim to have some substance. However, if the ANU bestows on Singapore’s strong man Lee Kuan Yew a Doctor of Laws honoris causa degree then clearly not all the minds are as “fine” as we would wish them to be nor are the “boundaries of human understanding” being pushed too hard.

But a search of the web does reveal some growing interest in the ANU honour. Uncle Yap’s eccentric looking blog even calls for a boycott of the ANU! And Viogger and Singabloodypore carry a letter protesting the honour purportedly written by Chee Soon Juan, Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party. Here is an extract from the letter:

Academic freedom is a ghost consigned to wandering hopelessly in the halls of Singapore’s state-controlled universities. Academics such professors Christopher Lingle, Bilveer Singh, and Lim Chong Yah who publish information unflattering of Lee’s government were bullied into submission; Dr Lingle was forced to flee Singapore when he was interrogated by the police and subsequently criminally prosecuted. As a neuropsychologist, I was teaching at the National University of Singapore. I was sacked three months after I joined the SDP. When I disputed the dismissal, I was sued for defamation.

And given that ANU is honouring Lee with a Doctor of Laws the controversy about the decision of the International Bar Association to hold its 2007 conference in Singapore is worthy of some attention. The ever-informative Asia Sentinel has two very recent articles on the topic: here and here.

Food for thought.

[UPDATES: The Road to Surfdom has also has a brief post. Channelnewsasia has a story about Lee's schedule in New Zealand and Australia. The letter quoted above is available on the Singapore Democratic Party website. The Canberra Times is running a front page story today (Thursday) about "Anger at ANU honour for Lee."]

The Chancellor, Dr Allan Hawke, would like to invite the academic staff of the ANU College of Asia and the Pacific to a special ceremony at which he will be conferring the degree of Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, on Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Minister Mentor and former Prime Minister of Singapore.  The ceremony will take place at 11am on Wednesday, 28 March, in the Great Hall of University House and will be followed by a reception in the central courtyard.  Guests are asked to be seated in the Hall by 10.45am. The ceremony is a special occasion to honour Mr Lee’s achievements and further the University’s relationship with Singapore.  The Chancellor hopes you will join him for this event. If you have your own academic regalia, you are welcome to join the Chancellor’s Academic Procession – please indicate this in your reply and we will advise arrangements for gowning and processing.

My question is … why? In response to my email enquiries I have been told that the award is being made to Lee Kuan Yew “on the grounds of his service to the development of Singapore, his international statesmanship and his friendship with Australia”. Under the ANU guidelines for honorary degrees I assume the award is being provided on the basis of “outstanding creative achievement by the person as a scholar in any field of scholarship, letters or the arts; or outstanding creative contribution by the person in the service of society”.

At least one of my colleagues at ANU has also wondered out loud about this. Andrew Leigh writes:

On March 28, ANU will give an honorary doctorate to former Singaporean PM Lee Kuan Yew. I have rather mixed feelings about this. True, he presided over significant growth from 1959-90 (Singapore is now richer than New Zealand). But his regime was a pretty autocratic one… Lee Kuan Yew also abolished trial by jury, and incarcerated one opposition MP for 32 years. Singapore certainly isn’t as bad as China on the democracy front, but I hope the ceremony doesn’t gloss over his political record when talking about the many good things he’s done for his country’s standard of living.

When a similar honour was bestowed in 2000 by the Chinese University of Hong Kong it was met with vigorous protest. Here is a brief extract from the CU protest web site:

Legislative Councillor and Chinese University council member, Cheung Man-kwong, opposes the plan. “It will be a shame to CU. Mr Lee is an exemplary model of someone who is good at using the law to suppress people. He is an important leader in Asia but an academic institution should avoid conferring a honorary degree to someone known for his autocratic style.” Another petition organiser said: “Public order laws, press freedom, and academic freedom are areas the police state of Singapore encroached upon one by one in its 35-year-rule. When a Hong Kong university confers a doctorate degree to Lee Kuan Yew, the value of this society is changing for the worse. The basic premise of right and wrong is being compromised.” 

I am sure that there are many at the ANU (and elsewhere) who know much more about Lee Kuan Yew’s record than I do. I would be interested to hear their thoughts on this honour.

[For an interesting overview of honorary degrees see Wikipedia. Interesting background includes: "In 1996 Southampton College at Long Island University  awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Amphibious Letters to muppet Kermit the Frog. Although some students objected to awarding a degree to a puppet, Kermit delivered an enjoyable commencement address and the small college received considerable press coverage."]