Malaysia has just finished its General Election. Like the
election in Singapore two-years ago, there was plenty of euphoria and hope that
things would change. Like its Singapore counterpart, the ruling Barisan
Nasional (BN) coalition held onto power but with its “worst-ever” election
result. Like his Singapore counterpart, Malaysia’s Prime Minister had to acknowledge
that despite his victory, he had received a proverbial slapping.
Things as they say, are getting interesting in the politics
of Southeast Asian countries. There was a time when politics in Southeast Asia
was boringly predictable. Western commentators went as far as describing ASEAN,
the regional body, as a cozy dictators club. To a certain extent it was. The
rulers of the various Southeast Asian Nations ruled for so long that they became
synonymous with their countries. Mahathir was Malaysia as much as Lee Kuan Yew
was Singapore and Suharto was Indonesia.
ASEAN’s strongmen attributed their longevity to things like culture
and values (Asian culture instils a desire for strong leadership) and most
importantly spectacular economic success. Singapore’s success story is so well
known that it gave Lee Kuan Yew a nearly two-decade career as a “must-have”
speaker to countries wanting to go from the Dark Ages into the Space Age in
less than a decade. While Singapore’s development story takes the front pages, the
rest of the region also saw economic growth that raised millions out of
poverty. So, given the economic growth and the spectacular raise in wealth of
the people, why have people in Southeast Asia become so angry with the systems
that have brought them so much?
Well, the most logical place to start, would be with the
1997 economic crisis. People across the region found that the hot air lifting
the balloon of economies was just that – hot air. The biggest casualty of the
regional crisis was Suharto, the strongest man in the biggest country in the
region. Mr Suharto, a former army general who had ruled as a Javanese emperor
for 30 over years was ousted by student protest (children of the middle class
he had helped create).
As many have pointed out – people were tolerant of abuses
and corruption from the top as long as they were getting richer. When the
economy collapsed, the poor and the newly created poor (formerly known as the
Middle Class) would not tolerate wide-scale corruption amongst the elite.
Neither Singapore nor Malaysia have seen the type of
collapse that happened to Indonesia. The conditions in Malaysia and Singapore are
far milder than what hit Indonesia in 1997, yet the populations in both nations
are reacting and not waiting for things to happen. Why?
I suppose you could say that there are two-key factors,
namely communications technology and the size of the middle class.
Communications technology has grown by leaps and bounds.
Today, it’s not just about the mobile phone and the internet but about the
internet being received on the mobile phone. People can pick up all sorts of
information delivered into their palms in an instant. Officials can no longer
censor information the way they use to and the official version of the truth is
not the ONLY truth. Thanks to “Smart Phones” – everyone is a news reporter. At
the time of writing, one of the most prominent stories coming out of Malaysia
is the deluge of videos “allegedly” showing trucks bringing in “fake” ballot
papers to various polling stations and “phantom” voters from Bangladesh.
Such videos will make it imperative for Mr Najib to distance
his government from the ‘corruption’ that his party has been accused of. The
public will pounce on every perceived injustice that the government tries to ‘cover
up.’
Economic success also created a large middle class. In
Singapore one can argue that the majority of the population can be considered
middle class. Unlike the poor, the middle class will not wait for an economic
collapse before taking to the streets. The moment this group feels its basic
aspirations (sending kids to college and good jobs) it starts to act.
So what can the political elite do? The most obvious is to recognize
that times have changed. Both the BN and PAP have remained in power through the
votes of older voters who remember the good things they did. Both have used the
powers of incumbruancy and the power of patronage to shamelessly.
However, these things will not work on their own forever. It’s
perhaps time that the ruling elite in Singapore and Malaysia recognize that
business is no longer going to be as usual.
No comments
Post a Comment