Malaysia, ASEAn and The New World Order

GHAZALI_ SHAFIE
Malaysia, Asean and the New World Order
Tan Sri Ghazali Shafte
Malaysia, Asean and the NewWorld Order
PENERBIT UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA BANGI
2000
PERPUSTAKAAN NEGARA
1000254726
Cetakan Pertama / First Printing, 2000 Hak cipta / Copyright Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 2000 Hak cipta terpelihara. Tiada bahagian daripada terbitan ini boleh diterbitkan semula, disimpan untuk pengeluaran atau ditukarkan ke dalam sebarang bentuk atau dengan sebarang alat juga pun, sama ada dengan cara elektronik, gambar serta rakaman dan sebagainya tanpa kebenaran bertulis daripada Penerbit UKM terlebih dahulu. Ml rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Penerbit UKM. Diterbitkan di Malaysia oleh / Published in Malaysia by PENERBIT UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor D.E. MALAYSIA http://www.penerbit.ukm.my Penerbit UKM adalah anggota / is a member of the PERSATUAN PENERBIT BUKU MALAYSIA / MALAYSIAN BOOK PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION No. Ahli / Membership No. 8302 Dicetak di Malaysia oleh / Printed in Malaysia by PERCETAKAN WATAN SDN. BHD. 26, Jalan Daud, Kampung Bharu 50300 Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia Data-Pengkatalogan-dalam-Penerbitan Cataloguing-in-Publication-Data
Muhammad Ghazali Shafie, Tan Sri Dato', 1922Malaysia, Asean and the New World Order / Muhammad Ghazali Shafie Includes Index. 1. Asia, Southeastern- - Foreign relations- - Malaysia. 2. Malaysia- - Foreign relations- - Asia, Southeastern. 3. Asia, Southeastern- - Foreign economic relations- - Malaysia. 4. Malaysia- - Foreign economic relations- - Asia, Southeastern. 5. Muhammad Ghazali Shafie, Tan Sri Dato', 19226. Speeches, addresses, etc. I. Title. 327.590595 ISBN 967-942-479-0 ISBN 967-942-487-1 (International Edition)
Contents
Introduction . . . 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Malaysia : Facing The Global Economic Challenges of The 1990s . .'.11 Establishing a United Malaysian Nation .. . 16 Democracy and Development. . . 19 Political and Economic Issues in Nation Building - A Malaysian Experience. . .25 Issues and Responses in the National Setting: Malaysia and its Changing Political Economy .. . 40 National Unity: Key to the Ultimate Malaysian Society .. . 53 Conflict Resolution: The Malaysian Experience . . . 65 Leadership, Development, Evolution of Culture: The Malaysian Experience . . . 76 Creating a Malaysian Nation . . .94 The Making of a New South East Asia: Our Regional Vision . .. 107 A Response to the Changing Security Environment in South East Asia. ..121 Into The Nineties: Global Economic Challenges and ASEAN Responses . .. 141
12.
6 I Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ASEAN: Shortfalls of the Past and Pitfalls of the Future ASEAN - Two and a Half Decades and Then What? ASEAN: Twenty-Five Years and Beyond ...165
...149
...157
History and Prospective Views of ASEAN . ..178 Experiences of ASEAN and Prospects of ASEAN - SAARC Cooperation . . . 188 Managing Political Differences to Enhance Cooperation for Economic Development Among ASEAN Countries . .196 The Bamboo Cluster Symbolises the Common Destiny of Asia . . . 202 Blossoming Trade Blocs . . . 207 Freedom: The Asian Perspective . . . 214 Possibilities And Roles for Asia in the 21st Century: The Evolution of Asian Culture . . . 221 Perestroika - European Home and the Islamic World . . . 227 The Changing World: A Viewpoint.. . 235 Economic Issues and Challenges in Vision 2020: International and Regional Ramifications . . . 244 Culturaland Religious "Tolerance" in the Emerging International Order? The Challenge to Humanity . . . 254 South-South Cooperation and South-North Axis: A Concept for the New World Order . . . 270 The United Nations in the Post-Cold War Era ...279
Contents / 7
29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Asia Pacific Leadership Increasing the Role of Youth . . . 289 Crafting The Future, Dismantling, Maintaining, Creating Lessons for South Africa . . . 297 In Search For a New Order in The Post-Cold War Era ...308
Leadership, Development, Evolution of Culture: The Malaysian Experience .. .310 Development and Cultureal Evolution . . . 328 United Nations Fifty Years - Political Perspective . . . 337 Some Thoughts On Politics and Government in the Next Millenium . . . 345 The Forum 1992: "East Asian Economic Development and Japan's Role" ...354 Tenth Regiment. . . 364 EC-ASEAN Relations in a Changing Equation . . . 376 Malaysia-Indonesia Relationship: Looking Back . . . 381 Index . .. 397
Introduction
hen someone suggested to me that I should put down in writing and in print my thoughts on several issues germane to our people and country, I shuddered at the thought because it was never out of my mind that a certain character in China once caused tremendous unheavals with lots of life and dignity lost because he published and turned his "thoughts" as the Holy Scripture. This is not to suggest that my thoughts would equare that of the guy's. Eventually I was persuaded to put in print some of the speeches and papers I had made to be read against the background and the ambience of the time when the ideas were thought out. However, they are like a string of beads and consistent with the idea that humans from the household to the level of international relations, if peace were to be abound there must be stability. It is the sine qua non for sustainable development with social and economic growth. The key to stability in any level of society is "Power-sharing". It is the willingness on the part of a family to share power or in a nation among the people and peace for all nations if power is shared. Malaysia has demostrated this powerful concept. "Power shared endures" has kept the multi-ethnic multi-religious society which bristles with inter communal problems, in peace and stability with the hitherto consequentional independence and high growth. ASEAN a group is in the process of espousing this concept as evidenced in a number of ideas such as the Zone of Peace, Freedom & Neutrality (ZOPFAN) or the ASEAN FREE TRADE AREA (AFTA). It is this concept of "power sharing" as the basis of stability which has been constantly and consistently maintained in my thoughts, beliefs, words and actions. I wish to thank my publisher, the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, particularly their untiring editor, Encik Roosfa Hashim for his encouragement and labour in collating and collecting my humble ideas and having them published in the form of a book, which according to Roosfa will give the present and future generations an insight into the mind of an old fogy during his time. GHAZALI SHAFIE
Malaysia: Facing the Global Economic Challenges of the 1990s
number of issues germane to the question of global outlook and the economic challenges of the 1990s have been discussed with a number of possible policy directions for Malaysia. There is very little that could be added to the already many brilliant observations. Hopefully those who are concerned with policy planning and implementation would take note of and ponder over the above-mentioned observation. There is one particular aspect which Malaysian policy makers should not and cannot ignore. This is related to the question whether Malaysia should fit into the global flow or merely be an appendage hanging on to the tail end of the industrial revolution. Should Malaysia continue to address as top priority the questions of cheap labour and exports of raw material and such pertinent determinants that were once extremely relevant to the creation of wealth in the industrial revolution or should Malaysia begin to discover and discern that the world has moved to a new dimension. Malaysia has reached a stage of her political, economic and social development whereby she has with her own paradigm in viewing the future vision which can no longer be based on the dominant pattern and determinants of the 80s. In other words the power matrices have moved and given way to new configurations. The industrial revolution spawned Marxism with the concept that power was in the hands of those who controlled the means of production, therefore the workers or the proletariat should, if necessary by force, seize control of the means of production. Owners and employers of a factory were the oppressors and workers were exhorted to "unite" in the fight for their rightful earnings through trade unions and cooperatives. In the Marxian view and others of that time, wealth through manufacture of goods was created in the factory.
* Text of Speech at the 1990 Malaysian Institute of Economic Research (MIER), National Outlook Conference on December 6,1990.
Is this still true? It appears that the enterpreneurs, owners or managers no longer hold the control of the means of production but that someone, somewhere with the computer could influence the direction of the business. The old beliefs and assumptions no longer hold true. It is the man with the information which is turned into knowledge that now holds the means of production. Knowledge is power as Francis Bacon had said. Therefore, power has moved away and is now in the hands of those who have knowledge about knowledge. It is a "cognitionism" which has become the most important determinant in the creation of wealth or the acquisition of power and control. Where the work is repetitive, robotisation takes place without jeopardising the human workers who are given alternative training for new jobs. Again, the robots are controlled by those who handle the softwares with their fingers on the computer keyboard. The point here is that the global challenges of the 90s are of the kinds that render irrelevant the challenges of the past Malaysian agricultural, industrial and trade policies which hinges on capital, low wages, cheap material resources of the 60s, 70s and 80s with downstream activities of resource-based industries aimed at encouraging greater value-added import substitute industrialisation. The world of the 90s is a new world altogether, where power of wealth creation, of Government, of international economies and trade are polarised among those who know how to create wealth through knowledge and those who know not. When deregulation and privatisation became fashionable it was not because of a victory of capitalism over socialism or private enterprise over official bureaucracy. It was merely an adjustment to the needs of time. Likewise the crumbling of Communism in Eastern Europe and the USSR was the result of the spreading of high technology which broke the cord that bound in captivity the minds of men. Computers, communication media and fax machines exploded in the face of socialism and Tienanmen Square. The progressives have now become reactionaries. Gorbachev is paying for the sins of Lenin and Stalin and the people of Russia are receiving German charity. All this means that values, ideologies and outlook have changed. The roles of Governments too are being redefined. Thatcher has no place in the new European configuration with a common European currency. Dow Jones or KLSE cannot be indifferent to a Japanese earthquake if it destroys NIKKEI.
Malaysia: Facing the Global Economic Challenges / 13
If Malaysia wishes to be relevant and updated she will have to respond to the global challenges of the 90s by emphasising an enculturalisation of the process towards mastering the new role of knowledge for the creation of wealth. This must naturally begin through all levels of educational curriculum and include studies that of wages, motivation, values and technical skills and all the know-how in wealth-making. In fact there should be an educational revolution. Experts that will teach the new forms of education should be recruited from anywhere and information on subjects like biotech should be purchased or exchanged. Such education must be universal encompassing all schools in all parts of the country. With this approach a new realisation will emerge that will transcend racial, religious and communal barriers thus accelerating the speed of nation-building process. In the short term there should be retraining and crash programmes allocating new knowledge and skills. There should be schemes inducing brain drain into the country. The challenges of the 90s would dictate Malaysia's greater collaboration with her neighbours particularly through the strengthening of ASEAN. She should step up cooperation with the rest of the Third World where the marketing of some of her industrial projects should be aimed. There must be greater flow of information particularly among the private sector in ASEAN. Malaysia should initiate together with some other Third World countries to organise the information exchange programmes that could serve as a bridge not only among themselves but between the South and the North. The private sector role must be encouraged and assisted wherever possible. The annual Malaysian budget should reflect Malaysia's interest in ASEAN and in the Third World. There is no doubt that Malaysian agriculture and industries must be based strongly on the culture of information technology which can do more with less natural resources and human labour. In order to bring simultaneous modernity to the whole country, industrialisation should go to the countryside in the form of medium and small-sized industries that would be supportive of the large industries and agriculture. Consequently, new townships will mushroom and relevant service industries will also emerge. The service sector referred to is not just "teh tarik" stalls but a range of services from machine repairs to recreations. Corrective measures must be taken in the areas of indigenous capabilities and industrial linkages. Outmoded concepts with respect
14 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order
to the Free Trade Zones must be reviewed to strengthen linkages to the rest of the economy and also to free work force from low-value added labour intensive manufacturing activities. As labour costs will rise in the years ahead Malaysia must be prepared to revise the idea of cheap labour to attract foreign capital. The concept itself is colonial and can be demeaning. There is sufficient local and even foreign capital that could go into ventures using high and fast information technology which save costs much better than the outmoded sunset machineries. Quite often countries like ours offering cheap labour have to install them at a premium. A better educated work force with knowledge in information technology may be expensive wagewise but as I have observed in Shanghai, a factory has to spend more even if the wages were low. When one talks of higher level of industrialisation one must include the importance of having a workforce that has the culture of information technology creating wealth through knowledge that creates knowledge with speed and security. Speed is the essence because knowledge can become obsolete very quickly - within seconds a current fact becomes history. Equally important is security. All it needs is a virus and it could turn a million into a zero. When Malaysia became independent her policy focus quite rightly having inherited a colonial economy, was in diversification of the crop mix modernising the small farming sector through such programmes as FELDA. By the end of 1960 Malaysia introduced the Investment Incentive Act with the aim of attracting pioneers to the industrial and manufacturing sector. This was the phase of Malaysia's silent revolution. In the 70s Malaysia took corrective measures to obliterate the colonial vestiges of identifying race with vocation. A societal engineering plan was introduced together with the plan for the eradication of poverty. Then came the phase in the early 80s when it was declared to be a decade of the resource-based industries encouraging downstream value-added processes. It was also a phase which saw the beginning of investment in heavy industries. This phase also saw Malaysia going through the recession with a heavy debt burden. This was also a phase of deregulation and privatisation. The policy veered towards manufacturing for export. It is therefore timely that the 90s should be a decade of recognising and doing something about the increasing value in information technology for wealth creation, a decade of preparation and adjustments with enlightened environmental, ecological and
Malaysia: Facing the Global Economic Challenges I 15
consumerist programmes towards being a full fledged player in the economic world with Malaysia's own mega-conglomerates and multinationals. It should be a decade of fruitful cooperation in ASEANCENTRIC activities, ASEAN in APEC, and Malaysia collaborating closely with the rest of the third world. It will be a decade when, with Malaysia's initiative, should the Uruguay Round fail, an Asian trading bloc could be actualised with Japan as the core in a laterallyintegrated investment and production structure.
2
Establishing a United Malaysian Nation
ince the MacMichael Treaty the concern of politics in this country had been the unity of the nation even if the preindependent colonial measures towards achieving that end were clumsy. Positive approaches began when the 1948 Federation Constitution was promulgated. Essential issues relating to national unity were rationalised to meet the future challenges of a Westminster type democracy, dovetailing them with the roles of various elements from the sultanate to citizenship. By 1957 a Constitution for a united independent nation was put in place. Federal and state government relationships were institutionalised together with that unique device of the office of His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the symbol of national independence and unity. Political wisdom and maturity of the leadership of the land was clearly shown during the pre-Merdeka elections for the Municipal Council of Kuala Lumpur when UMNO and MCA joined hands. Later MIC joined the UMNO-MCA grouping forming a single political entity known as the Alliance. They were in the forefront in the struggle for independence. They participated in all future elections forming governments in the states and the Federal level until it was replaced by a multi-party alliance called Barisan Nasional which guarantees that a united nation would always be the fundamental basis of all political, economic and social endeavours. It will be noticed that the Alliance or the Barisan Nasional is a coalition with a single manifesto before and not after elections. This is the underpinning of a united Malaysia. Since Merdeka, politics and Government had never deviated from its chartered path and continued with the programme of nurturing national unity in terms of races as well as the relations among the states of the Federation. 1963 saw the Federation expanding into
* Article for Malaysian Business Council, April 1991.
Establishing a United Malaysian Nation / 17
Malaysia. To meet new challenges the Constitution was duly amended which included, through democratic consultations, rationalising the relationship of the new states with the federal system. A big blow to Malaysia's endeavours at national unity was felt in 1965 when Singapore separated from Malaysia. Before that there were dark, turbulent clouds foreboding national calamity. It was the decision of the leaders then that to obviate a nationwide bloodshed the most agreeable of the options would be the separation. The wisdom or otherwise of that choice may continue to be debated on both sides of the Causeway in years to come but most would agree that with Singapore in Malaysia May 13 1969 would have been a disaster of greater magnitude. Like a person afflicted by a minor seizure the nation paused and Parliament was suspended in May 1969 prompting an erroneous remark by a senior Malaysian politician that in Malaysia democracy was dead. However, nowhere else in the world was a small group of people, manning the National Operations Council (NOC) with absolute power yet so wedded to democracy that they returned the power to the people in a record time. With the return of normalcy in respect of public order situation, the National Consultative Council presented a shared vision of the future in the form of Rukunegara. Without much "aduh!" the NOC had successfully brought about its own demise. Democracy returned in less than two years and has since blossomed. Rukunegara which made national unity as its primary reference for all endeavours in nation building inspired overarching ideas, plans and programmes of action towards shared objectives, measured by the five principles which were designed to satisfy not one race, not one creed, not one class but all. The New Economic Policy (NEP) is an example of a programme which drew inspiration from Rukunegara. The restructured society has not experienced any ethnic conflagration since the NEP was launched. Touch wood. 1991 to 2020 will be another phase of the nation's march in development, the process of establishing a united Malaysian nation is a continuum and what has been achieved must be nurtured and kept in constant repair. In order that the process will not in any way be impaired, policy makers, planners and implementors have to be committed to the principle that their thoughts and deeds would always be governed by the objectives and standards of Rukunegara and the sacrosancity of the constitution. All plans for growth, all schemes for industrialisation and all corrective measures for societal imbalances
will be meaningful only if they were mutually reinforcing towards national unity. For Malaysia, whatever may be the argument for or against the doctrine of laissez faire, the role of the government in societal engineering is vital. Both economic and non-economic tools must continue to be used by the government as well as others in the process of establishing a united nation which had been in train. Programmes of action for Malaysians shall continue to aim at nurturing and heightening the spirit of love and loyalty for the country and pride in being Malaysians. They must also continue strengthening the racial harmony at every level. The regional and national integration of all states should always receive the highest attention as also all efforts at creating a very special and distinctive Malaysian identity. These threads should run through the national fabrics transcending party ideologies and demolishing walls between hearts of men. The nurturing of unity through economic and non-economic plans and programmes must ensure that justice is for all, opportunities to create wealth and wealth itself are equitably distributed. Education should continue to aim at creating a society as envisioned in Rukunegara imbibing the common culture of entrepreneurship and that of modern science and technology. Racial fixations and vestiges of religious prejudices should be banished through intellectual upbringing in the schools and in the homes without extirpating the respective cultures of the various races and creed. A distinct way of life and identity in which all Malaysians share a common fate and destiny is the ultimate Malaysian society. Malaysia may be a country with a government but it is a fractious and fractured nation if she did not possess her own national identity and culture and if she did not inspire among all its citizens to render their undivided loyalty to her.
3
Democracy and Development
n dealing with subjects such as DEMOCRACY and DEVELOPMENT you will soon discover that unlike the TEN COMMANDMENTS the understanding of those subjects is not written on a tablet or concrete but rather they are viewed with subjectivity depending very much on needs, demands, preferences, orientations, experiences, self-interest and a host of other things which point to the notion that these matters are indeed relative. Even their impacts on society are not consistent and indeed diverse with unpredictable consequences. Who could imagine that the late President Marcos would turn into a dictator - a man who became a President through a process of what has been claimed as democratic; and who could predict after sputniks and high-tech achievements of the Soviet Union that its development programmes as a whole had brought disaster on its own people? I therefore venture to suggest that only through subjectivity can one describe and define, weigh and value those two words. In dealing with words that are not concrete but abstract one must not confuse the "fact" that is the thing to be described and the "symbol" that is the description of the "fact" and assume as if there is a universal acceptance of the "symbol" or word as describing the "fact". One has to relate the "symbol" with the "fact" only through a mental "reference". Let me illustrate it by way of the "fact" whose "symbol" is the "pen". This is easy. The "fact" in this case the "pen" is on the table; the light hits the "pen" and is reflected into the eyes which transmit it to the brain where the image is translated as "reference", according to universal experience describing it in any language as a "pen" which is the "fact". In other words the process is "fact" going through the "reference" then out comes the "symbol" or
Speech delivered at the Institute of Diplomacy and Foreign Relations on Wednesday, December 4, 1991.
the word "pen"! Everyone accepts it. But the "symbol" is completely absent if there is no light to transmit the "fact" into the "reference" although the "pen" is still there. See how a situation has changed where once there was a "symbol" called "pen" it is now absent simply because there is an absence of "reference" or thought process. Likewise, a person is shown a yellow card. If the man is colour blind that is to say the "reference" in the brain is absent he will not use the symbol "yellow" although there is no change in the colour of the card. It becomes more complicated when the "fact" is abstract. But it boils down to one thing - that is, what is it that takes place in the brain? That is the "reference". I remember an incident during the early years of our independence. I was asked to speak to a group of visiting generals from Indonesia. I talked to them about our Constitution and democracy. During the briefing, one officer, I think he was a general and leader of the team asked me, "If your Constitution is democratic why is it that you ban the Communist Party? We in Indonesia do not ban the Communist Party yet many in the world do not regard us as democratic." I must admit I felt trapped and had to find an answer. At that time the Foreign Ministry was in the Clock Tower Building opposite the Selangor Club. In between there was a padang with two playing fields. On one side was a field with goal posts and nets. On the other field there were two goal posts without nets but the tip of the posts extended up suggesting that scoring should be made between the two upper extensions of the posts and not below the bar. I requested the delegation to look out through the window at the Selangor Club and the Padang. I said if at 4.00 that afternoon they went into the dressing room of the Club they would find some people dressed in jerseys and boots. Should one of them be asked what he was going to do, quite promptly that guy would answer he was going to play "football". Now, if the inquirer did not ask any further but assumed that the guy was going to play "soccer" he might be in for a surprise because the guy would be running towards the field with goal posts extended upwards. There would be fifteen on each side and the shape of the ball was not round. They also would be using their hands running with the "buah kana" shaped ball. On the other field, whose goal posts had nets, the players were eleven on each side and only one on each side could handle the ball which is round. He is the goalkeeper. Now if one of the other players handled the ball and ran with it, the referee would blow his whistle
Democracy and Development / 21
for "handsball." Should the penalised player protest that he was playing "football" and as in the other field they could use their hands why should he be penalised, the referee would explain that the two games have separate rules, one for "soccer" football and one for "rugger" football. If he wanted to play "rugger" football he should not be in the "soccer" football field. Likewise, communism I said had different rules. Since the Communist Parties of the world did not allow rules other than their own we found it necessary not to allow them to play among us according to their rules with unfair advantages to them including the right of armed insurrection which they were at that time vigorously carrying out killing and intimidating our people in order to impose their form of government. I then warned the Generals that the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) would try to take over power by force because to them it was a legitimate method. I did not know if my explanation was adequate but I observed later during the unhappy period of Confrontation, Sukarno advocated the principle of NASAKOM (Nasionalisme, Agama, Komunisme) putting on equal basis the Communist Movement with the nationalist and religious movements. The ultimate result we know when the PKI organised GESTAPU. Today the party is totally banned. Perhaps the course of history would have changed if the PKI succeeded in their rebellion. The point of the story is that when it comes to abstract matters such as Democracy, Freedom, Human Rights or Development it is important that the person using the word must not presume that the listener shares his "reference". Likewise, the listener should not assume that he and the speaker share the same "reference" although the "symbol" is the same. Today we hear these words incessantly. We even hear them as if that DEVELOPMENT is contingent upon DEMOCRACY. We hear that even trade is contingent upon the process of democratisation and so is AID which is an important element in DEVELOPMENT among poor countries. It was reported in Brussels by the press agencies as recent as last Friday November 29 that the European Community Development Ministers on the previous day had decided that the EC would terminate aid to Third World countries where human rights were consistently violated, but to increase aid where progress was being made towards democracy. Although the EC never specifically said that steps towards multi-party system would now be a condition for EC
development funds, it was clear to all that the EC was opposed to a one party system. Japan's ODA policy issued last October clearly made promotion of democratisation as a condition for Japanese aid. This was a photocopy of US and EC foreign aid policies. The United States is now locked in a tragic wrangle with China in trade relations which were linked with US principles of democracy and human rights. Democracy as practised by the West did not have an attractive history and that history is long. Slavery whether in ancient Athens or America was an important element in the process of Western democracy. So were colonisation and imperialism, child labour. Likewise, genocide of natives and indigenous peoples were practised and inequitable land grabs were done in the name of Western civilisation which later brought Western democracy. Lincoln made a profound statement but the US put it in practice only quite recently. Yet, the West wants its form of democracy imposed on those victims of Western democracy as soon as the colonial flag went down. Western kind of democracy requires a political consciousness brought about by a long period of economic development on the basis of free market system. Therefore DEVELOPMENT has to come before DEMOCRACY. Without development the West cannot talk of its present values in respect of human rights or democracy. In other words, the first freedom is freedom from want. If one's family is in a state of extreme poverty, everyone in the family has to eke out a living. That was what happened during Charles Dickens' time. And without wood how can a family keep warm and provide fuel to cook food? So they cut down forests and the West had cut down their forests in the process of developing themselves. Now the poor peoples of the South are told not to cut their trees. How are they going to keep the home fires burning, let alone develop? Of course the devastation of the Brazilian forests is criminal yet it is done by people from the socalled civilised countries to exploit timber and ores. When it comes to Malaysia we are lumped together with those Western monsters without even examining our own silviculture and methodology of timber extraction. There seems to be a conspiracy not to allow developing countries to develop and every reason is given to impose conditions and shibboleths in order to stultify growth. No wonder the Third World is getting closer together. Just listen to the recent Caracas Statement. Because of that there is every prospect that the next confrontation
Democracy and Development / 23
replacing the East-West relations is the North-South contradiction with China in the South! Japan today boasts of its democracy. Just think. Was not Japan's constitution imposed on the Japanese people? Is imposition of an idea "democratic"? The incessant attack by the West against China for her reaction to Tienanmen Square seems to be quite counter-productive and lacking in understanding of what China is all about. Go anywhere in the villages of China and you will find people are better fed, clothed and housed than say India which the West boasts as the biggest democracy. To that man in the padi field his main concern is whether the Chinese government has the mandate of heaven, that is whether it is capable of good governance. Confucious wrote about one of his experiences and that was about 2000 years ago. He was on his way somewhere passing through a county where he noticed at a cemetary a woman was wailing and hugging three tomb stones. The sage asked her why she was in such dire distress. The woman pointed to a tombstone and said, "That is my father. He was killed by a tiger last year. That next to him is my husband. He was killed by a tiger last month. And this is my eldest son. He was killed by a tiger last week." Confucious then asked the woman if there were so many dangerous tigers in that country why did not she and her family move to the next county. The woman replied that the Governor of the next county was a tyrant. Work out for youselves the moral of the story. China has more than 6000 years of history and advanced civilisation compared to the United States with a very short history and for that matter most of the West, except for the moment they excel in some aspects of modern science and technology. During the 6000 years China had a number of revolutions when the mandate of heaven was withdrawn from the emperors. In modern history the Sun Yat Sen's revolution followed by Mao's are examples of Chinese revolution. But never in these revolutions they were carried out by students and youngsters carrying a plastic statue of a foreign mother of all democracies. A Western journalist who was just outside Peking at the time of the Tienanmen shootings sat sipping tea in a teahouse full of farmers with their eyes glued on the television screen watching in dead silence the behaviour of the young demonstrators. When the troops of the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) came persuading the demonstrators to break up and when the troops were defied shots were fired. There was a thunderous applause among the farmers as the demonstrators ran
helter-skelter. The Western journalist was horrified to see the approbation given by these farmers to the PLA action and he went away very confused. I explained to his friend who communicated to the journalist that in the culture of the Chinese a revolution should be a people's action and not that by a group of students who should first imbibe knowledge through learning. They were unqualified to make societal changes. One should not be too surprised if Mr. Baker, who claimed that Americans spilt blood (against China) in Korea or US trade officials insisting on Western values as trade conditionalities would find themselves knocking their heads against the Great Wall! What the Chinese had always valued was good governance on the basis of education and scholarship. Well, I am not going to discuss with you the various modalities of democracy and development. You must discuss among yourselves and pick out points that are germane to Malaysia. I am leaving a few essays on the subjects including one of mine. But one thing I must keep reminding you. As diplomats when you use a word to represent "fact" do not assume that both you and your listener agree on the "reference" regarding those words are the same as his. You both have to dig into that "reference". Don't forget "Alice's Adventure Through the Looking Glass" by Lewis Carrol. Alice and Humpty Dumpty were having a dialogue. Let me quote, "And only one for birthday presents you know," said Humpty Dumpty, "there is glory for you!" "I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't till I tell you. I meant there's a knock down argument for you!" "But 'glory' doesn't mean a 'nice knock down argument'," Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master that's all." This perhaps answers our Prime Minister's question which he asked at the Harare Heads of Government Meeting, "What worries me is who decides when a government is not a good government. . ." Now, if Humpty Dumpty, sitting on the Great Wall of China and has a great fall, all the President's mules and men can never put Humpty Dumpty together again.
4
Political and Economic Issues in Nation Building a Malaysian Experience
he history of Malaysia centred around Melaka (Malacca) which was a port of great fame situated between India and China - the homes of two peoples with the highest civilisation and power for thousands of years. Fa-Hsien, a Chinese traveller and Duarte Barbosa a European chronicler described Melaka as an international port which had just laws and good merchants who traded in silk and spices, precious stones and rare metals, the products of the Malay archipelago. Melaka was the meeting point of diverse cultural influences from India, China, Persia, the Arabian peninsula leaving their permanent mark in what is now regarded as the Malay culture. The spices of the Banda islands brought the curse of Western Imperialism and Melaka became a victim when the Portuguese robbed the Sultan of his throne and the Malay empire broke up into little sultanates. The Dutch defeated the Portuguese and the British replaced the Dutch. The British spread their tentacles and brought all the sultanates into its imperialist web. The British, in order to satisfy the needs of the industrial revolution, not only exploited the natural resources of Malaya but brought immigrants from China and India to help them do so. This served the economic interest of the imperialists as well as their political hold by compartmentalising the three main races according to their vocations, thus turning the native Malays into subsistence fanners, the immigrant Tamils from South India as labourers in estates, railways and public works while the Chinese were labourers in the tin mines. Those Chinese who were able to deploy the triad method of secret societies and opium trade emerged as leaders based
* Paper Presented at The Straits Times Regional Experts Programme, Singapore, January 21 and 22,1992.
on their wealth and influence and as money lenders for those Chinese who opted to leave the labour force to become petty merchants. Many from this Chinese group became compradors or commission agents or even tin miners and estate owners thus becoming wealthy and powerful. These are the people encouraged by the colonial government to delve in the economic life of the country while the Malays through their Sultans and administrative elites lived in the myth that political power was in their hands. The policy of divide and rule was at its best. The Japanese came in 1941 and for 3 years and 8 months, they kept the British out. That gave a new insight to the Malays that the British power which boasted of the sun that never set on the British Empire was after all not invincible. When the British and their allies came back in 1945, they did so with a vengeance this time throwing away their pretext of indirect rule and removed the political powers of the Sultans through the infamous MacMichael Treaty. The Federated Malay States, the Unfederated Malay States and the Straits Settlements of Penang and Malacca were to merge into one British Colony to be known as the Malayan Union while Singapore was to be a separate colonial entity. The Malays who had been deprived of their economic power, which they once had, now discovered they also lost the political power which they thought they had. The feeling became even more peaked when the British declared that the Chinese and Indian British-sponsored immigrants were no longer able to return to their original homes as promised by the British to the Malay rulers because of changing circumstances there. For that reason together with the Malays they would be given the same colonial citizenship status. Malay nationalism asserted itself. After the formation of the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) the Malays with their Sultans rose against the British colonial designers in one mighty heave. The British government gave way and in February 1948 a new Federation Constitution was ushered in burying forever the Malayan Union arrangement. But Singapore remained outside as a colonial territory. The fervour of Malay nationalism became even more stimulated with the success of the HIDUP MELAYU (Long live Malays) struggle and encouraged by the independence of Indonesia and India, MERDEKA (Independence) became a new beacon. However, there was one monumental hurdle. Hitherto the political expressions were made only by the Malays yet there were about 45% of the inhabitants of Malaya who were not Malays. These non-Malays
Political and Economic Issues in Nation Building / 27
were the British-sponsored immigrants during the inter war years who are now in Malaya yet living in their own splendid vocational compartments with their own exclusive imported education systems using their own languages. Their objects of loyalty then were their respective motherlands. How will it be possible for a country to be independent when nearly half of its population would be upset by independence? After all the non-natives did not regard themselves as belonging to Malaya then and they had the economic power and completely lived as foreigners and owed their presence and well-being to the British. The Indians had focused their attention to the Indian Independence Movement and a great number of them became members of Chandra Bose's Indian National Army. The post-1948 period for the Malays was one of serious soul searching, of coming to terms with the fact that these non-Malay British sponsored immigrants had nowhere else to go. Except for those who came before World War I and had been assimilated living in the former Straits Settlements or in the East Coast States, the nonMalays too realised that they were living in a country which they were never actually encouraged by the colonial authorities to call their own. It took a bit of time for Malays to be reconciled to that and when they accepted the presence of the British-sponsored immigrants as a fact of life all what the Malays wanted was that the burden of loyalty to the country as well as the economic life was to be shared by all. At that juncture loyalty could only manifest through Citizenship laws. 1948 also was the time when the communists in South East Asia decided to stage armed revolutions because, according to them, the situation was ripe for such action. However, all the communist parties in South East Asia owed their origin, support and inspiration to the Communist Party of China which together with the Soviets had started their subversive work as early as during the inter war years. The Muslim Malays were never attracted to the atheistic communist ideology except a sprinkling few who shared the communist method rather than ideology of armed struggle against the colonial Government. Most Malays preferred peaceful struggle to achieve their ends. While the majority of the rank and file of the communist movements and their armed wing were composed of overseas Chinese but not all Chinese in Malaya favoured communism particularly its ideology of armed revolution which upset their business and investments. The armed struggle of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) helped to draw the various races into a common cause of anticommunism.
If MERDEKA was the objective for the Malay nationalist struggle the whole of Malaya irrespective of race had to be energised to that end. An opportunity offered itself at the first Municipal elections for the city of Kuala Lumpur. The United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) which was formed in 1946 and defeated the British Malayan Union in 1948, for the purpose of the Municipal elections thought out the idea of an alliance with a Chinese political party. However, since the Chinese as yet did not strongly feel they belonged to Malaya such a party was not to be found at that time except a welfare association known as the Malayan Chinese Association. The main objective of the association was to assist Chinese who were exposed to the communist armed threats and subversive activities to move, under the Briggs plan vigourously pursued by General Templer, to new villages where they were given security. The leaders of this Association (MCA), naturally anti-communist and many shared Chiang Kai Shek's (Koumingtang) fight against communist Mao, agreed to transform their Association into a political party. After some serious heart to heart discussions, both UMNO and MCA decided to form an alliance for the purpose of contesting the Municipal elections. They decided together as to the allocation of candidates and shared a political platform. The alliance would use a single symbol. Thus began a new chapter in the political development of Malaya. The experience of the Kuala Lumpur Municipal elections led to the Indian community as a political party known as the Malayan Indian Congress (Note: The affinity with the Indian independence movement) banding together with UMNO and MCA and became the new political movement which led the country first to a partial elections before independence winning all but one seat. It was this solidarity which befounded the cynics and the colonial apologists. The British Government could no longer sustain the independence denial argument that Malaya was too divided to govern itself if given independence. MEEDEKA was won on 31st August 1957 not by UMNO alone but together with the MCA and MIC representing all communities living in Malaya. The nine Rulers played a major role and together with the alliance grouping devised the concept of citizenship which owed allegiance and loyalty to not other than Malaya and provided for in the Constitution the status of Islam as the religion of the Federation and the special position of the Malays. This special position of the Malays on the formation of Malaysia was extended to all natives known as Bumiputras. Fundamental liberties were guaranteed
including equality before the law, freedom of religion, of speech, assembly and association as well as rights to property. There were other political parties that came into being before independence. Indeed, a former leader of UMNO led a party which was non-communal and it failed to gain support. There were left wing parties as well. It was clear that the people of Malaya was wedded to democracy yet they wanted the comfort and the security of their respective communal groupings, not to represent them in Parliament but to be factors in the Alliance Party to safeguard their interests and determine their future. All discussions in the Alliance Council were in camera. Thus sensitive and difficult issues could be thrashed out in detail without the fuss of publicity. By the time the Alliance as a Party was ready to face the people, the three political components were of one mind and stood for a single manifesto even though each component represented the interest of a racial community. There was a time during the early days of Malaysia when Singapore was a part of the Federation, the Alliance was prepared to include the PAP in the political combine and Cabinet. Unfortunately some influential members of the PAP politbureau preferred to join the Malaysian Cabinet on their own strength as representing the Chinese. It did not work and the PAP was thoroughly rejected in the first Malaysian elections (1964) except for a solitary candidate, even then he was not a Chinese. History might have been different for Singapore and Malaysia if this had not happened. That has been the pattern of Malayan and Malaysian politics and in the early '70s more communal parties and non-communal parties joined the Alliance and changed it into Barisan Nasional (BN) or the National Front using a common logo - the Balancing Scale symbolising justice, equilibrium and equity. It is therefore clear that while there are components of BN which possess the make-up and character of racial and communal groupings, the BN as a political party is non-communal and at this time it has more than 2/3 majority in Federal Parliament and controls eleven out of the thirteen state governments. Malaya was a federation composed of eleven states, nine of which had a Sultan each or a title of similar significance as a Constitutional ruler. The Constitution of 1957 provided that Malaya was a Federation and the residual powers remain with the states. Matters such as land, mining were state matters while such subjects as foreign policy, defence, security were within the purview of the Federal Government and Parliament. Each state has its own single
camera parliament with a Chief Minister or Menteri Besar to head the Government. In the former British colonies of Penang, Melaka, Sarawak and Sabah where there were no Sultans on independence the Head of each state would be appointed by the King according to some constitutional procedures. An interesting feature of the BN is that its components are allowed to stand against each other in the State elections towards the formation of a State Government. The recent elections in Sarawak testified to this. The governmental system is to some extent like that of Westminster which stipulates that the Government should be formed by a person as Prime Minister who commands the biggest support in Parliament. Invariably this falls on the head of the BN and it had always been the President of UMNO. Leaders of other component parties in the Government have a place in cabinet according to a certain protocol in seniority. There is a Judiciary independent of the Executive and the final court of appeal is within that system although for a period, the House of Lords in the UK played that role. Parliament itself is composed of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the House of Representatives (Dewan Rakyat) whose members are elected every five years or earlier as determined by the Government, the Senate (Dewan Negara) whose role and functions are not dissimilar to the House of Lords but its membership is composed of those selected by His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (the King) and a certain number sent by the State Governments. The two states controlled by opposition parties naturally sent members to the Dewan Negara to serve as opposition to the (BN) Government members. The Constitution provides that the Parliament shall consist of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (the King) and the two Dewan. This is an interesting provision because it renders a role for the King in the House of Parliament. And as the Executive Head, the King is subject to the advice of the Cabinet. The Sultans in the nine State are hereditary rulers and assume office according to the Constitution of each state which stipulates for an elected legislature and the appointment of a Menteri Besar or a Chief Minister. In most cases, the heir apparent assumes office on the demise of a Sultan. However, there is an exception in the appointment of the Ruler of the State of Negeri Sembilan. On the demise of a ruler, the new ruler is elected by a constitutional body. Once elected, he stays as ruler for life. With modifications it is this system which was adapted for the election of the Federal King. There is a Conference of Rulers of which Governors are also members. They
have certain powers including the giving of assent to any changes of the boundary of Malaysia. The Head of the Federation is elected once every five years from among the nine Sultans according to a constitutional procedure. After his tenure of office he returns to his state and awaits for a re-election. Indeed this is evidence of democracy at work at all levels. In 1963 as a result of the wishes of the people of Singapore and of British Borneo as confirmed by the Cobbold Commission and later reconfirmed by a UN team sent by the Secretary General the former colonies of Britain, namely Sarawak and North Borneo (now known as Sabah) and Singapore, supported by a referendum, joined the Federation as states with additional powers retained by them as opposed to the existing states of Malaya. For example, powers regarding immigration into the states are controlled by the states by which in essence it is possible for the new states to deny entry into their states people from the other states of the Federation. This was inter alia to prevent job hunters who would upset the local employment opportunities for people of the respective states. The new federation became Malaysia. This became the object of Sukarno's (President of Indonesia) confrontation. For more than two years Malaysia stood united against Sukarno and brotherly relations with Indonesia returned when Suharto took over power. In 1964 Singapore was separated from Malaysia thus averting a serious bloody clash between the Malays and the Chinese since Singapore had a preponderance of Chinese population. Sukarno's confrontation which was a baptism of fire for Malaysia served to glue Malaysians together irrespective of race who came out of the ordeal fully satisfied with the test of loyalty of all Malaysian citizens. The policy of the Alliance Government led by the late Tunku Abdul Rahman was one of lassez faire. At that stage of the national development it was considered a priority to tackle the problem of income differentials. Since the Malays were in the rural subsistence economy sector the Government devised policies to increase their income by providing land and employment through the various schemes as exemplified by the activities of Federal Land Development Authority which gained renown the world over. Provisions of the Constitution gave the Malays a special position in certain areas of the economy and Government Service. As it turned out the measures for the correction of income differentials did not by themselves blunt the edges of racial conflicts. Races were identified according to their vocations. The rate of growth
was such that the differentials between urban and rural incomes became even wider. While the rural (Malay) income had increased the urban (non-Malays) had increased even at a higher rate which was only natural. Because of the identification of race with vocations, economic contradiction appeared as racial conflict. By May 1969, less than 12 years after independence following a series of racial crisis a serious racial conflagration erupted. To manage the bloody situation the King declared a state of emergency, suspended activities of Parliament and the democratic Government, appointed Tun Abdul Razak as Chairman of the National Operations Council (NOC) to make laws and execute them in the absence of Parliament. While day to day business of Government must go on, the NOC concentrated all its best endeavours in analysing the situation and to seek new measures to guarantee that such a bloody affair would not recur. The magic of "Merdeka" could not glue the people any longer after about twelve years of independence. The country needed a new vision which should be overarching and could be shared for all and by all. This led to the birth of Rukunegara which became the committed objective for all Malaysians. It reads as follows: "OUR NATION, MALAYSIA, being dedicated to achieving a greater unity of all her peoples; to mantaining a democratic way of life; to creating a just society in which the wealth of the nation shall be equitably shared; to ensuring a liberal approach to her rich and diverse cultural traditions; to building a progressive society which shall be oriented to modern science and technology; WE, her peoples, pledge our united efforts to attain these ends guided by these principles:Belief in God Loyalty to King and Country Upholding the Constitution Rule of Law Good Behaviour or Decorum and Morality"
Clearly now there was an agreed vision of the future and a yardstick to measure thoughts and actions to actualise the vision. Inspired by the Rukunegara the New Economic Policy (NEP) was promulgated with the mutually reinforcing twin aim of (a) eradication of poverty irrespective of race and (b) to restructure society so that ultimately there would be no identification of race with economic vocation. A National Consultative Council was established composed of persons of all races and creed and all walks of life, including priests, peasants, teachers and writers, males and females. They met to consider both the documents in camera. They finally came out with their support for the Rukunegara and the New Economic Policy. Having achieved this understanding the NOC decided after twenty-one months that the country could now go back to Parliament and return democracy to the people. It was a tremendous relief for the nation as a whole in that the junta, respectably entitled the National Operations Council, had the historical credit of working for its own demise within a short space of time.Very few seem to notice this extraordinary demonstration of faith in democracy. The Tunku resigned as Prime Minister and his place was taken by the late Tun Abdul Razak. On the resumption of democracy, Parliament promulgated a law outlawing open debates on sensitive issues such as the question of race and religion. This would appear to be a diminution of basic freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution but Malaysians accepted this handicap until such time when those issues are no longer sensitive. It was a small price to pay for stability which is sine qua non for growth and development without which independence and rights would have little meaning. In today's Parliament there are fourteen parties ribboned together in the Barisan Nasional. The core parties represent ethnic groupings while most others are multiracial in composition and character. The BN has 129 seats in the Dewan Rakyat (the People's Assembly). The opposition numbering 45 members is composed of one Malay party, a breakaway from UMNO, one Islamic party and two non-communal parties. There are four independent members. In the Dewan Negara (the Upper House) the BN has fifty-five members while the opposition has four. UMNO on its own or perhaps together with other Bumiputra parties could comfortably command a majority in a national elections but the natives and others keenly believe that in developing Malaysia that concept of BN was most suitable since it obviates the public rancour
which slows progress particularly when the impression is given that a particular ethnic group is dominating the others. The philosophy of the BN is based on the need for an integrative process and the basis of the integrative process is the value of solidarity and not of power. Malaysia's foreign policy is interesting and perhaps needs a deeper treatment which may cover volumes and should be dealt with separately. The one feature which may be mentioned about Malaysia and previously Malaya is that her foreign policy has always had a tremendous faith in the concept of "togetherness". The Government led by Tunku Abdul Rahman soon after independence began consultations with the aim of organising a cooperative grouping for mutual benefits of its members. Approaches were made even to Sri Lanka. However, only Thailand, the Philippines and Malaya agreed to form ASA. Unfortunately, in the context of the Cold War East-West rivalries without Indonesia the home of the Bandung spirit, the grouping was suspect. After all, Thailand and the Philippines were the allies of the United States and Malaya had a defence treaty with Britain. Sukarno was finally persuaded to get into a grouping but it had to be on his terms. ASA was kept in cold storage and Maphilindo was heralded with Malaya, Philippines and Indonesia as members this time without Thailand. That smack too much of a racialist gathering of Malays. In the meantime, again in the spirit of "togetherness" Malaysia was formed in September 1963 causing Indonesia and the Philippines to collide with the third member of Maphilindo which in fact never really took off. After the end of the confrontation, the late Tun Abdul Razak together with Suharto initiated the idea of ASEAN embracing the former members of the proposed ASA and the aborted Maphilindo. Now Brunei is also a member. Not long afterwards Tun Abdul Razak proposed ZOPFAN and was adopted by ASEAN. Malaysia was quick to support Suharto's proposal for a Nuclear Free Zone. Malaysia welcomed the Bali proposal of the Treaty of Amity and Friendship which provided for accession by other countries. Malaysia's involvement in all these were in keeping with the spirit of "togetherness". It was the Tunku who first proposed the Commonwealth of Islamic States which later became Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) in which the Tunku served as its first Secretary General after his resignation as Prime Minister of Malaysia. Malaysia in the organisation of Islamic states found comfort in the "togetherness"
with fellow Muslim countries as she had found ready-made friends in the Commonwealth of Nations which shared the experience of being under the British colonial rule. True to the principle of "togetherness", the present Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir proposed the meeting of G 15 composed of countries of the Third World. It had its first meeting in Kuala Lumpur and the second meeting recently in Caracas. Seeing the world trends appear to be turning towards protectionist grouping as in NAFTA and EC, the failure of GATT in December 1990 prompted the Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir to propose the formation of an East Asian Economic Grouping which the ASEAN economic ministers preferred to call a Caucus (EAEC). There is nothing bizarre about this nor is it a trade protectionist bloc. If the Europeans are getting together and Perestroika has succeeded in finding for Moscow a "European Home", and if the United States are actively organising AFTA which may eventually extend from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego then it is strange that any one should be antagonistic towards the idea of EAEC which is only a forum even less institutionalised than the two giant blocs. The idea of the Caucus is a getting together of likeminded countries in a defined geographical region to exchange ideas when the members are facing common issues in international meetings such as the UN, the GATT meetings, APEC, Non-Aligned Movement or any forum. It is capable of becoming an Asian Caucus with the SAEC countries and Myanmar joining. A country outside East Asia may be invited to join in a meeting of the Caucus if her participation was considered relevant. It would be helpful for all round in East Asia to have such a Caucus so that China in the Security Council could express her views having taken into consideration the feelings of the members of the Caucus and likewise in the G7, if Japan agrees to be a member. The Caucus will be a powerful instrument to deny the growth of protectionism anywhere. If the United States Government officials still insist on claiming that such a grouping would become a protectionist bloc, the promoters of the idea could only give a genuine assurance and explanation that such a preconceived idea is erroneous but it is not for the advocates of the idea to give those who opposed it an understanding. One wonders if the advocates of democracy for any nation required plurality and opposition, why those very advocates of democracy cannot accept a different way of thinking or even an opposition in the international arena even to the extent of denying the people of this region to call themselves East Asians but only members of the Pacific community. After all ASEAN in the international arena is
no more than a Caucus and the EAEC is an extension of that concept. For example, in APEC, EAEC will be a caucus which ASEAN is a caucus in EAEC and therefore is a subcaucus in APEC. If groupings are good for EC and AFTA then it should also be good for Asians. Clearly the world is not being turned into blocs by East Asians who must do something about the bloc building by others. Even then the East Asian concept is not intended to be a bloc but may well serve as antibloc tendencies. Returning to the political and economic scene since independence the Alliance Party except for one election and now the BN had always been returned to the Federal Parliament with 2/3 majority. There was not a single incident of racial conflagration since the NEP was introduced in 1970. The NEP also had produced a middle-class common among Bumiputra, Chinese and Indians, and others as products of the restructured society sharing common values and belief in Rukunegara without the previously pre-determined vocational compartments for the races. Incidence of poverty too had been reduced. Such changes make it possible for "Bangsa Malaysia" to dream of Wawasan 2020. The mean monthly household income in Peninsular Malaysia has increased from RM264 in 1970 to RM1,163 in 1990 while in Sabah from RM513 to RM1,148 and in Sarawak from RM427 to RM1,208. The bottom 40% of household income in Peninsular Malaysia has increased from RM76 in 1970 to RM421 in 1990 while in Sabah and Sarawak the increases were from M$68 to RM390 and RM74 to RM436 respectively, thus showing a faster and equitable rate for the bottom 40% than the others. For the second prong of the NEP which was the process of restructuring of society aimed at breaking down the identification of race with vocation, Government intervention was necessary in many cases. For example, in order to provide the Bumiputra retailers with the opportunity of proving his credit-worthiness with Chinese wholesale dealers, the Government had to set up a wholeseller company - PERNAS. If the Bumiputra was unable to obtain goods from a Chinese wholesaler or that the premium was too high the Bumiputra could get his supplies from Pernas until such time as the Chinese wholesaler was prepared to provide the Bumiputra retailer with supplies and credit. It had been made clear that Pernas was not intended to replace Chinese traders and merchants and the record had proven to be so. Pernas had to some extent succeeded to make that connection and to encourage the spirit of mutual trust, the Shin Yoong - between the Chinese and Malay traders.
Policy guidelines, regulations and laws were also promulgated in some cases to set up organisations and enterprises both at Federal and State levels to spearhead the objective of the New Economic Policy. Some of these bodies are now being privatised. In January 1989, a National Economic Consultative Council was set up to make recommendations to the Government regarding the economic future after the end of the NEP in 1990. The original membership of the Council was 150 comprising people from all walks of life including opposition parties. The Council took two years, first to assess the performance of the NEP, and then to recommend a future course. During the period of discussions altogether nineteen members including the delegatiosn from two opposition parties withdrew after all important submissions had been made. The Report and recommendations were completed with the unanimous agreement of the remaining 131 members and presented to the Government in February 1991. The Report and recommendations became the basis of the National Development Plan (NDP) towards the year 2000 and the 6th Malaysia Plan. The one important feature of the Report as accepted by the Government and Parliament was the nomenclature of a caring and sharing Malaysian Malaysia with its "Bangsa Malaysia" the mention of which would have been premature before the endeavours at societal restructuring. The last twenty years of societal engineering had indeed brought about a remarkable change in the mental make up of the Malaysian citizens. An urban middle class Malay is at par with his urban middle class Chinese. The identification of race in that situation becomes irrelevant. Malaysia also suffered in the late 1960s a steady decline in terms of trade. She had already then begun to think of industrialisation and not to depend too heavily on such resources as rubber and tin, products needed for the European industrial revolution. That revolution was coming to an end. Greater attention was to be paid to the manufacturing sector which could take care of the large number of school leavers. By 1968 the Investment Incentive Act was promulgated with the aim of encouraging the development of import substitutes, export-oriented and labour-intensive industries. During the NOC days (1969-70), the Government began to view in all seriousness the importance of foreign direct investments in the manufacturing sector which are equally export-oriented and labourintensive. Free Trade Zones were created in several places and into these Zones such labour-intensive as well as export-oriented
industries were encouraged which resulted in rapid growth of the manufacturing sector during the 2nd and 3rd Malaysia Plan period 1971-1980. Since 1987 the manufacturing sector has replaced the agricultural sector contributing 22.5% to GDP as compared with agricultural sector 21.8%. In 1989 the sector's contribution to the GDP was 25.2%. The Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir in presenting the Second Outline Perspective Plan (OPP2) 1991-2000 exhorted the people of Malaysia towards the creation of a fully modern industrialised society 2020. Malaysia is now caught up in the fever of "Vision 2020" with the Government and the private sector in one vehicle moving forward as "Malaysia Incorporated". Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir trots all over the world followed by groups of businessmen in order to understand better the market opportunities for a young industrialising nation. Dr. Ismail Salleh, a distinguished scholar and economist, had made a study and commented on the National Development Policy (NDP) in a paper presented at the Third Japan-South East Asia Conference held in Kuala Lumpur from 12-15 January 1992. He finds that the NDP as a sequel to the New Economic Policy (NEP) is holistic in approach with the idea of promoting economic growth and equity, with the added promise of addressing human-related and environmental issues. The basic strategies of the NEP are still maintained. The ultimate development goal for Malaysia is the nurturing and strengthening of National Unity. The NDP will strive to strike an optimum balance between goals of economic growth and equity. At the same time the Plan will ensure a balanced development of the major sectors of the economy so as to increase their mutual complementarities to optimise growth. As in the NEP it will continue to reduce and ultimately eliminate the social and economic inequities and imbalances in the country so that there will be a fair and equitable sharing of benefits of economic growth by all Malaysians. Equally important it will simultaneously further strengthen the national integration by reducing the wide disparities in economic development between states and between urban and rural areas. This will be easier to achieve if all the State governments were from BN. The NDP aims to provide Malaysians with greater material welfare with positive social and spiritual values. Human resource development is an important element in the Plan. A productive and disciplined workforce with the necessary skills for high quality productivity shall be developed to meet the challenges in industrial
development through a culture of meritocracy with excellence without jeopardising the restructuring objectives. Science and technology as mentioned in Rukunegara are an integral component of the development plan with the aim of building competence in strategic and knowledge-based technology through the promotion of science and technology culture. An extremely important feature of the National Development Plan is the awareness that in the pursuit of socio-economic development, great attention will be given to the environment and ecology. While programmes will be made to reduce the relative poverty, the focus of anti-poverty strategy under the Plan will be towards the eradication of hardcore poverty (household living below one half of the poverty line index. In 1990 this equals to RM185 and below). There will be more reliance on the private sector to be involved in the restructuring objective by creating greater opportunities for its growth. Attention will also be focussed on the question of disposal of Malaysia-made products in the international market. Towards that end Malaysia must continue to enjoy political stability, improved infrastructure, disciplined and trained manpower, and good public administration with transparent plans and implementation policies and an overarching value system that conduces all Malaysians to share a common fate and destiny.
Issues and Responses in the National Setting: Malaysia and its Changing Political Economy
ecause of the persistence of beliefs and perceptions of a people based on real or imagined factors, it would be well nighimpossible to fully understand the popular responses to whatever may be the issues. These responses are impulses usually shaped by antiquity and sometimes by recent history. Nevertheless, the past whether recent or otherwise moulded the present and the future. Therefore, one should expect rather unique political and economic developments in a country like Malaysia where the population comprises people of various ethnic origins and creeds who had in the past, some recently, some long ago, come from countries with long cultural traditions thrown together into a strategic geopolitical area and exposed to the influences of peoples even from far away places with strange sounding names. Malaysia as a case study requires the study of its backdrop in order to discover the focus of life which is the emotion of hopes and fears of the ordinary people now crystallised as political determinants when political freedom permits political expressions. In the case of Malaysia we need not go into the feudal world of old with its glorious or shambling epochs. For our purpose suffice to say that modern Malaysia began with the British colonial period. The present political structure and thoughts owe their origin much to British imperialism through its policies and actions. The policies and actions of British imperialism in the governance of Malaysia had indeed gone through some important transformations which should take into account the British Straits Settlements, the Federated Malay States, the Unfederated Malay States, Sarawak and North Borneo. And then there was the period of the Japanese
* Sixth Annual SSRC-Macarthur Foundation Fellows Conference, May 23 - 27,1992.
Issues and Responses in the National Setting / 41
occupation followed by the short-lived Malayan Union, replaced by the Malayan Federation separating Malaya from Singapore which developed its own constitutional process and progress. In Borneo, the Sarawak of Brooke, the North Borneo of the Company, both territories became British colonies after the Pacific War. I shall not delve into the various transformations which are best left to historians. But two consequences of the imperial policies need to be mentioned in order to understand the policies and actions in the governance of the country since 1957 in better perspection. These two relate to the problem of ethnicity of communalism based on ethnic groups and the other is the problem of poverty which transcends all ethnic boundaries. The problem of ethnicity started with the industrialisation of Britain in the 19th century which required natural resources and cheap labour. To fulfil this requirement, colonialism was the answer. Colonialism in the traditional meaning of colonisation by Britons as in New England or Australia did not take place because of the hostile climate. However, the need for control of trade and acquisition of natural resources prompted the metropolitan power in London to seize power by fair or foul means over the territories where trading factories and lands for plantation and mines could be made available - easily and cheaply. The formation of the Straits Settlements with Singapore as its capital brought about a revolutionary change in the character of the those territories of Singapore, Malacca and Penang which included Province Wellesley. This was the beginning of the influx of cheap labour from China in particular with others from Java and India. It was not as if there were no Chinese in the Straits Settlements but the Babas were well assimilated and played the petty role of middlemen or clerks of the European financial and business houses. With the influx of the Chinese from the provinces of Guangdung and Xiamen, unskilled labour to work in the plantations and the mines became available. These Chinese communities were left to themselves often at the mercy of secret societies who supplied these "sinkek" with opium and expensive loans. These Chinese as more and more of their numbers came, spread into the Malay states in particular those tin and gold rich areas. In those areas corruption and gang wars became prevalent. The growing of gambier, pepper and rubber in Singapore by the Chinese found its extension into Johore. Sungai Ujong, Selangor and Perak became the mining areas for Chinese workers. There are many stories of Chinese disorderliness
and secret society wars in these places. The Chinese having been left alone by the British to fend for themselves, appointed their own leaders usually chosen for their ruthless toughness. Yap Ah Loy was one such person. Through such persons the governance of the Chinese was carried out by the rulers in the Malay States. While there were only about 500 Britons in Singapore and 300 in Penang and sprinkling number of administrators in Malacca, they were influential enough to obtain the governance of the Straits Settlements transferred from Calcutta to the colonial office, London, which was reportedly reluctant to deal with the Chinese problems particularly their secret societies. In keeping with the usual tradition a Chinese merchant nicknamed Whampoa (Hoo Ah Kay) was the first and only Chinese to be appointed in the otherwise all white Straits Settlements Legislative Council (1896). Dinding in Perak became a part of the Straits Settlements under the colonial governance until the thirties. At the beginning of the 19th century, there was yet no action taken by the British to bring the Malay States under the British colonial rule. However, the pressure of industralisation and the race for colonial territories with other European industralising powers made it imperative for the British to bring the Malay States under its rule or at least in the jargon of those days, "protection". The need for market and natural resources became paramount and the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 providing for easy access and transport of these resources made the temptation for colonies irresistable. The British began to intervene by all wiles and pretexts in the Malay States and one by one they came under the British domain. Those which were under the suzerainty of Thailand also became British. By 1895 the process of establishing British "influence", the other name for governance, was completed. By the end of 1890 Johore received the overflow of Chinese foreign workers into Singapore and her population soon became unbalanced. These Chinese agriculture, labour and enterprise made Johore the world top supplier of gambier which was then very much in world demand. The Malay states where tin and gold could be found flourished thanks to the colonial policy of encouraging foreign workers (Chinese) and Pax Britannica did much to pacify the Chinese secret society gang wars as well as the excesses of the Malay rulers. From 1893, the British had tried to develop the idea of a closer association of the
Malay states to include those in Borneo. Success was limited to the formation of the Federated Malay States (FMS) in 1896 comprising Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang. Brooke became the Raja of Sarawak when he succeeded in bringing peace to the area which was part of Brunei. With the pacification helped by the British Royal Navy of the Saribas and Skrang Dyak rebellions, Brooke was confirmed by the Sultan of Brunei in 1847 his tenure as Raja in perpetuity although it was reported that the British Government did not then recognise that title nor bring Sarawak under the British protectorate. Gold had been found in Bau and pepper was a lucrative business. Chinese workers had to be brought in and together with them came the secret societies and the opium trade. Funds to subsidise the importation of Chinese labour were provided for. The administration was strictly in the hands of the few British officials and Malays who were the traditional administrators since the days when Sarawak was under the Brunei Sultanate. The Iban and other indigenous communities were undisturbed to continue in blissful ignorance to live in their traditional styles. A few Malays and other indigenous communities and Chinese were appointed to serve in the Council Negeri which met once in two or three years. Although Sarawak was not a British protectorate then, the pattern of compartmentalisation of societies as in the Peninsula persisted. The Brooke regime in Sarawak soon appeared to Brunei to be now more of a threat than a friend. The Sultan of Brunei in 1865 perhaps to counterpoise both Brooke and the British who by that time were perched in Labuan, offered by way of "pajak" to an American named Lee Moses the area now covering Sabah. The project did not get off the ground but the British recognised the signal that the Sultan had ideas of widening his choice of friends. Britain did not like other European powers to get into the act in that part of the world. The company of Lee Moses established in Hong Kong was sold in 1877 to an Austraian, Overbeck whose partner was an Englishman, Dent, who eventually bought out Overbeck. Very quickly the British colonial authority in Whitehall adopted Dent and granted his company a royal charter. The British North Borneo Company was born which became the kind of a chartered company to procure the need of the industrial appetite and to deny other European powers from entering into that part of South East Asia. Brunei had been nibbled away by the Brooke regime. Brooke had to be controlled lest some other European colonial powers would be
tempted to make a deal with Brooke or dominate Brunei. London then decided to put both the North Borneo Company administration and the Brooke regime under British protectorate and there was no difficulty in placing Brunei under British protection with the British Governor in Singapore serving as the British imperial representative over the three territories. Oil, rubber and pepper were the main industries of these territories which necessitated labour, and Chinese coolies were brought in. The North Borneo Company recruited foreign workers from Hong Kong and China but the Chinese who came were mainly interested in trade and they soon became merchants and traders. In any case, there was no natural resources or commercial agriculture except tobacco to speak of. From the beginning of the 20th century until the outbreak of the Pacific War, the number of Chinese workers swelled. Indentured labour from India was also brought in large numbers but not to the extent of Chinese workers, for the rubber and tea plantations and for the building of the railways and roads. Workers from Java also came but after a while they were discouraged to enter; some gutta percha estates which were shortlived were worked by them. There were population movements between the Indonesian islands of Sumatra, Java and Sulawesi and the Peninsula as well as the Borneo territories and West Kalimantan. These movements were traditional that had been going on for centuries. The sea was not a hindrance but a bridge between these peoples of Nusantara with similar cultures and ways of life. Likewise those from the Southern Philippines found their way into Sabah. Whether they were Javanese, Bugis, Banjaris or Timorese or Suluks, they were soon assimilated into the local scene of the Malays. This was even more so in respect of those from Sumatra or Riau islands into Singapore and the Peninsula. Culturally, all of them and the indigenous peoples of the Singapore, Peninsula or Borneo belong to the Malay world of Nusantara. They came to look for land and a better life. Civil wars and oppressive Dutch, Spanish or American colonial administration forced them to flee. Words had gone around that the British colonial administration although highly exploitative was less oppressive. By being easily assimilated, they became identified as Malays. The British had a special policy for the Malays of not using them for labour. Because the Malays and their Sultans had the political status, they were dragooned by policies and laws to be reduced to the
status of subsistence farmers. A few amongst the sons of the royalties and of the gentry were sent for special education to be junior officials in the administration and the police. To provide further employment for young Malays the Malay Regiment was established during the inter-war years. Because the imperial policy was to exploit the wealth of the country, there was no long-term consideration other than to get the maximum out of the imported labour. Those Chinese or Indian coming in as labourers but chose to trade became a part of the imperial scheme since these little traders promoted the petty services in which the British colonial masters had no inclination to be involved. Where the imperial power did not have any direct interest, the immigrants were allowed to delve in whatever they liked and to manage themselves in any way they chose to. After all, they were to be in Peninsular Malaya or Singapore or Borneo for a specific purpose until they were useless and to be repatriated home. Indeed, during the inter-war years, thousands were sent home because of old age or sickness or being rendered incapacitated. In the meantime, their children attended, if at all they did, schools in their respective dialects financed by themselves. Teachers were imported from home countries. The educational policy of the British then was that the Malays should receive sufficient education, as Winstedt said, to be better farmers or fishermen than their fathers. Chinese and Indians and the indigenous people were arranged to be separated. Except for a few Government English schools and Christian missionary schools the governments of Malaya and Borneo took no responsibility in educating the children of those Chinese and Indians. Even in the government vernacular schools, the quality was much to be desired. The rural and indigenous people who were Muslims had always been suspicious of the few English medium schools of the government and the missionaries. They feared that these were Christian proselytising centres. They were reluctant to send their children particularly girls to school. Hence, the Malay children could not when they grew up enter the mainstream of the economic life. They were left uninterfered and undisturbed. On the political front the indigenous peoples, particularly the Malays who possessed some semblance of the right to political power through their Sultans or tribal hierachy were content to live in the belief that the foreign interventionists were protectors who brought
peace, stability, law and some kind of order. They were quite unaware of the exploitation until nationalist movements began to emerge in Java, Sumatra and Sulawesi at first wearing the cloak of Islam which had always been the champions of the oppressed. Various movements came to be noticed in the Nusantara. Since their cultural proximity was such these movements also found their counterparts in the Peninsula, Singapore and the Borneo territories. Before the outbreak of the Pacific War, nationalism was expressed through Islam or literature on whose basis political or quasi-political associations sprouted. It should be noticed that nationalism was universally rampant as an anti-colonial expression for the whole of Nusantara including the Philippines. Rizal was regarded by everyone as the leading Malay nationalist. The nationalist movements of Nusantara felt that they represented the definitive peoples since the foreign workers brought by the colonialist governments were not allowed to identify themselves and assimilate with the locals. Whether the movements were pure nationalistic or Islamic or Trotskyists their targets had always been the natives. It must be pointed out that the Iban and Kadazan of Borneo were left untouched by this fever. While the Malays of Sarawak before the Pacific War were touched by the fever of nationalism, most of them never felt the pangs of colonialism since for some strange reason the Brooke regime had made them feel they were not only the definitive race but also the administrative race. Indeed when the Brooke regime was taken over by the colonial office after the War, Malay nationalism which was anti-cession found its expression in the killing of the Sarawak Governor. The Malay nationalist expression was at its best when both the anti and pro cession factions joined hands in support of decolonisation and independence of Sarawak through Malaysia in 1963. We have seen the colonial policy of using foreign workers for no other purpose than to use their sweat and toil for the benefits of the metropolitan power. The intensity of this policy was at its highest when the 1939 European War broke out. The raw materials and the American Dollars were very much needed for the war effort. Poverty was rampant amongst the rural Malays whose agriculture and fishery were at subsistence level. The royal houses and the small elitist group of Malays and other indigenous people were only slightly better off than their compatriots. But being the definitive people irrespective of their status, the natives and those people who came
from Nusantara and who had been assimilated as natives irrespective of class and status in life believed that their adverse situation was temporary. Nationalism made them impatient; rulers and peasants alike dreamt of the day when they could be free. With freedom there would be prosperity. For so long as the Chinese could serve to create prosperity, they would be welcomed as foreigners during their sojourn. After all that was the colonial policy and the definitive people genuinely felt that nationalism would unite the Nusantara and it was they who would replace the colonial masters. This sentiment during the inter-war years was fuelled by the Marxists and Trotskyists, nationalists of different hues and religious groups. The Japanese too exploited this sentiment and sent their agent provocateur, like Fujiwara Kikan, to incite the members of Kesatuan Melayu Muda into believing that the Japanese Imperial Army would liberate Malaya and Singapore from British colonialism and the Malays would become the masters of their own land. As for the Chinese, they had a longer and higher form of culture and it suited them that the British "barbarians" left them alone to fend for themselves. When they came, they brought with them the tradition of guilds and secret societies which developed into an imperiumin imperio. They brought also the habit of gambling and the use of opium which were lucrative sources of revenue to the colonial governments. Those who were able to free themselves from the trap of indentured labour became merchants or compradors of the British business financial houses. This development in turn suited the British since they had no policy of making the Chinese permanently settle in the peninsula particularly in the Malay States. This policy of impermanent workers was also noticeable in Sarawak and North Borneo. The Chinese ran their own schools with teachers and syllabi from China. With these teachers and text books came the politics of China. The concern of any Chinese during the inter-war years in Malaya was events in China. When Chinese revolutionaries against the Manchus were hatching their plans, places like Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Penang were the centres of their activities. Dr. Sun Yat Sen was no stranger to Malaya. Nationalism among the Chinese in Malaya was an extension of China Chinese nationalism. Chinese language newspapers printed in Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Penang were at that time advocating
and inciting rebellion against the Manchus. When Kuomintang was established in China in 1912 its branches were opened in Malaya and Singapore. After the Kuomintang came into power in China in 1927 San Min Chu I was adopted. The "Three Peoples' Principles" was taught also in Chinese schools in this country and they embodied the thinking of Dr. Sun Yat Sen on "Nationalism", "Democracy" and "Livelihood". The principle which left an impact and became an extremely important element in the politics of Malaya, Singapore and the Borneo States is "Nationalism" advocated by Dr. Sun Yat Sen. Under this heading it was drummed into the heads and hearts of every Chinese everywhere that China was the only country where Race and Nation were the same. It talked of the bloodstock of the Han people. All these meant that the principle of jus sanguinis should always apply to Chinese everywhere. The irony of it is that this principle was thought out by the Manchus, applied by the Kuomintang and inherited later by the Communist Party of China. Because of the number of Chinese present in Singapore and Malaya these territories could be read in the context of Chinese nationalism as terra irredenta. During the rebellion against the Manchus and the war against Japan, a great deal of funds came from these parts. Likewise the rapport and split in China between the CPC and KMT reflected themselves in Malaysia among the Chinese who came during the inter-war years. As a footnote it is important to mention that the Babas as opposed to those who were brought by the British took little notice of the developments in China. In fact they, who claimed to be British subjects or subjects of the Rulers, were the most uncomfortable. Yet the blood affinity seemed to conduce the Baba leadership like Tan Cheng Lok during the inter-war years and those years in exile in India to speak on behalf of all Chinese although those Chinese who believed in Chinese Nationalism had their own leaders some of whom returned to China to fight the Japanese. The Indians who were brought in as indentured labour, mostly Tamils, also had to fend for themselves except a little better attention was given to them than given to the Chinese. Estates had to provide schools for their children and a fund was available to send them home. The number was small but there was no assimilation with the locals or the Chinese except those Muslims who came to trade. They were not allowed to be involved in local politics since there was no politics to speak of until the trade union laws were passed just before
the war. Since the Indians were the majority of the estate workers and in the civil works many of them became active in trade union activities. Before the beginning of the Pacific War communism began to spread and trade unions in Malaya and Singapore were targets of infiltration. With communism there appeared to be a political rapport between the Chinese and the Indians in the trade union which had been infiltrated. Otherwise Indians like the Chinese followed a great deal of the politics of India and their nationalism was identified with that of the linguistic areas of India based on the common antipathy against the British rule. They watched closely the politics of India and became easy recruits for the Indian National Army which came into being during the Japanese occupation. Chinese nationalism was exploited by the British only when the Japanese was on its way to the South. The response of the Chinese nationalism had nothing to do with their sentiments towards Nusantara but that the Japanese who had attacked China were regarded as enemies. In the Straits Settlements a Chinese volunteer force was organised but it had not met with any success. Only those Chinese who adhered to Communism joined the belated "Dalforce". During the Japanese occupation, these communists whose source, affiliation and inspiration was China, organised the Malayan Peoples Anti-Japanese Army and the various communist front organisations to mobilise anti-Japanese feeling. But they were equally anti-British although during the war this sentiment was somewhat suppressed. Small wonder that the Japanese treated the Chinese harshly because they were regarded as enemies as if they were in China. The Japanese Imperial Government extorted large sums of money from the Chinese as a reprisal for the Chinese contributions to the antiJapanese war fund in China. As for the people of Nusantara and the Indians being subject peoples, the Japanese treated them as such and sent thousands of them to their deaths building the railway lines in Thailand. The Japanese were also imperialists. Their militarism was a consequence of them trying to be Britain of the East who must industrialise and conquests became inevitable. They were to replace the British, French, Dutch and the US in South East Asia which would then be known as the "Great East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere". It was an economic concept of the colonial era no worse than the exploitation by Western imperialism. The Western concept of divide and rule was also copied by the Japanese. Communities were compartmentalised and at the same
time exploited and squeezed until dry. Racial compartments and poverty remained rampant. It has been mentoned that during the Japanese occupation the Chinese who were communists or their sympathisers had organised themselves in many anti-Japanese movements. Their leaders who fled the country went back to China to join the Chinese army to fight the Japanese. Some went to the UK and the US to mobilise Western support. Some were given official titles by the Chunking government. There was, however, one small group of Babas who escaped the Japanese occupation. Some found themselves in India. Tan Cheng Lok was one of them. He had envisioned that the Chinese in Malaya had come to stay and that they should be assimilated into the local polity. The concept of the MacMichael Treaty was conceived in the colonial office with the help of Baba Chinese like Tan Cheng Lok for whom Malaya was his home and sole object of loyalty. He wanted for all Chinese a common citizenship with the definitive Malays. However, the MacMichael Treaty ushered in 1946 after the war was completely rejected by the definitive Malays. It was replaced by the Federation of Malaya agreement which satisfied the Malays who by that time had organised themselves into political parties. Neither the Chinese nor the Tamils had any political organisations since they were still dazed by the war and had continued to believe the British policy that they were sojourners. The Malays also never let them forget that and would share citizenship under certain conditions which were rather restrictive. And so there was no real support for the MacMichael Treaty from the Chinese and the Indians and no real opposition to the Federation of Malaya Agreement. It was until the Chinese realised that China was closed to them and that the communists had defeated the KMT tht they found the value in Tan Cheng Lok's idea. Some feeble effort to oppose the Federation of Malay Agreement was organised but the Chinese as a whole were apathetic. Those Chinese who were communists opposed it simply because the Agreement did not rid the British colonial administration. The Federation of Malaya Constitution came into being on 1st February 1948. That was the beginning of a great deal of soul searching among the Malays. The Chinese now had no where to go and had to be brought into the Malayan polity, otherwise the Malay ambition of Merdeka could never be realised. Once the Malays became reconciled to the fact that the Chinese could not be rid of, the sharing of citizenship became the obvious solution. The only problem was to
ensure the Malays that the citizenship would oblige the holders to regard Malaya as its permanent home and sole object of loyalty. This problem arose because of the principle of jus sanguinis which had hitherto been a factor in the nationalism of the Chinese. Tests had to be devised to overcome this problem. Legal swearing and language tests seemed acceptable to all. Citizenship was a legal and constitutional arrangement. On the political front the Malays were devising a "togetherness" through the formation of the Alliance Party which had the virtue of three components, one a Malay organisation, one a Chinese association and the other an Indian congress. This arrangement provided security and comfort for each community. In this way also the struggle for Merdeka became easier since there could be no anti Merdeka argument that the ethnic groups could not be united. In return for the sharing of citizenship rights a special position was provided for the Malays in the Constitution. When Malaya became independent in August 1957, it was the spirit of togehterness which made everyone feel confident for the future. The Malays alone could govern the country since they were sufficient in number to rally support but such a development would certainly create chaos. Therefore, it was not power but stability which energised the people to move together to make up what everyone had lost as result of colonialism and the Pacific War. It was the same spirit that brought Malaysia into being in 1963. Equally, it was in that spirit Singapore was allowed to be separated and to develop its own future though her destiny is always one with Malaysia. The Constitution guarantees human rights, the feedom of worship and democracy based somewhat on the Westminster kind. The States were sovereign with residual powers whilst the Central Government ensures the security, stability and prosperity of the nation as a whole. Law and order is maintained by the civilian police and courts are independent. The military is under the control of civilian power and political. During the first twelve years of independence, the government concentrated on the income differentials between the urban and rural people through various laws and policies. Then for twenty years from 1970 corrective measusres through affirmative laws and policies were taken to restructure society so that races would no longer be identified with their vocations. Equally important and mutually reinforcing is the second prong of the societal engineering policy of the eradication of poverty irrespective of race. These policies were
introduced to undo the explotation and divide and rule policy of past colonialism. They were to be implemented in accordance with the yardstick of Rukunegara. After twenty years the vestiges of colonialism which compartmentalised the races in accordance to their vocations but all equally exploited they were more or less enmoved and it was not possible for the nation to look far ahead in confidence with a middle-class composed of all races interacting with one another on the basis of shared values as one Bangsa Malaysia. This is the background to Wawasan 2020. The future is complete modernisation as promised in Rukunegara through Wawasan 2020. Industralisation shall play an important role. The planning for industralisation and its consequences are being taken care of by the government both centrally and at the State level. The government mechanisms which have been set up for the purpose of monitoring any social stress will alert the government as soon as such negative signs emerge. Societal engineering will go on with care to bring about changes in the environment of stability so that the ideology as reflected in Rukunegara which energises the preservation of the present way of life in freedom and democracy will forever prevail.
National Unity: Key to the Ultimate Malaysian Society
he ugiy events of 13th May 1969 are best forgotten except for the lesson posterity should always remember that national unity must always be kept in constant repair. We are blessed for having a society that is rich in the diversity of its traditions and religions which have roots in the ancient cultures of great peoples who have through divine revelations or wisdom provided the basis of living together, in mutual respect and tolerance with ethics and morals conducive to peace and well-being. Nevertheless, how easy it was as witnessed in 1969, for the dark age of ignorance to creep in and old inherited prejudices would rear its ugly head. Divine revelations and the wisdom of yore were cynically invoked for passions to run wild beyond rational control. From 31st August 1957 for a decade we went through life in the belief that income differentials between communities could be narrowed through intensive programmes worked out for the rural poor. However, the increase in the rural income created a bigger gap in the differentials between the rural and urban incomes. Since the rural economy was identified with one community, the bumiputras, while the urban with the Chinese, the contradiction between rural and urban economies led to a racial conflict. With the declaration of a national emergency, a National Operations Council was formed chaired by the late Tun Abdul Razak. Parliament doors were closed and functions of Ministers were on hold. Everything whether legislative or executive was centred around the NOC of which I was a member. I must admit it was the most uncomfortable period in my long career as an administrator or a politician. To me the declaration of the state of emergency could be
* Article for publication in "SERU FOKUS" (ISIS), July 1992.
likened as coup and the NOC a junta. Happily, it lasted less than two years thus holding a record that we were the only group of people in the world who returned power to the people in such a short time. The primary task of the NOC was to bring back the country to normalcy. Every device was sought to restore confidence among the races. Even durian parties became a vogue. It was during this period I was entrusted to find ways and means of ensuring that the conflagration of May 13 would not recur. We in the NOC realised that the state of emergency was an opportunity without which the Government in power would not have the chance to work out a long term programme for the nation as a whole. Democracy dictates that the political life was based on short term consideration of five year periods. This opportunity should not be missed and in the aftermath of the incident the people were more amenable to changes than otherwise. I had always believed that the one previous opportunity which had been missed was when Merdeka came in 1957. At that time people might have been more generous, what with the relaxed provisions of the citizenships and the special position of the Malays, drastic changes could have been brought about without too much hoo-ha. But the wisdom of the day was that, as mentioned earlier, what was needed was only to correct income differentials without correcting dramatically the other inequalities brought about by the colonial administrations. It was sufficient if people were encouraged to have fun and national unity would have been assured. Even then national unity was a priority because it was well recognised that without it there would be no stability without which there would have no opportunity and resources for national development which in turn would conduce towards national unity for more development. That was and still is the golden rule of the cycle. The various studies indicated that the magic of Merdeka had by 1967 begun to wear out and it was no longer able to glue the people together. Alternative slogans like "Berjaya" because of the ever widening gap in the income differentials made the masses say "they" may be "Berjaya" but what have I got. "Berjaya" was for the few and the fruits of Merdeka had not as yet dropped on the laps of the masses the bulk of whom were rural and therefore Bumiputra. The building of a Malaysian nation out of the diverse ethnic and religious groupings would be a monumental task and would have to take time. Therefore as a first step recognised by NOC was to blunt the
National Unity / 55
edges of conflicts to revive mutual respect and confidence and at the same time to provide the people with a vision of what they could work for and finally achieve. The National Consultative Council which was appointed by the NOC agreed to the proposal that there should be national dedication towards the creation of a united Malaysian society. This came about in the form of Rukunegara. The Rukunegara was announced by His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on Merdeka Day 1970 and soon after that the doors of Parliament were opened and democracy, once feared dead, re-emerged fully and what more, re-energised by a new national purposiveness. What was the Malaysian society as envisioned in Rukunegara which should be the objective of all endeavours for every Malaysian? The declaration spelt it all. "Our nation, Malaysia, being dedicated to achieving a greater unity of all her peoples; to creating a just society in which the wealth of the nation shall be equitably shared; to ensuring a liberal approach to her rich and diverse cultural traditions; to building a progress society which shall be oriented to modern science and technology." It is easy enough to understand the message above. They are expressions of a vision and a yearning. Basic to all is the need for achieving a greater national unity through political stability, a sine qua non for growth and development, towards creating (as envisioned in Rukunegara), a nation with social justice and equity, with a liberal approach towards the varied cultures, and not least, a modern and industrialised society. However, there was one difficulty. Everybody not only in Malaysia but all over the developing world wanted in varying degrees, the kind of nation a envisioned in Rukunegara. For Malaysia, there had to be a common and acceptable yardstick by which thoughts and action of individuals, groups or the Government could be measured in actualising the desired objectives. If they are not up to the mark the society thus created may turn out to be something unintended or even undesirable. After long and serious deliberations, it was decided that the nation as a whole should make a solemn undertaking that to realise the national objectives it had to be principled. And so the second part of the Rukunegara eptomises the steering rules for action towards the
actualisation of the purposive resolution envisioning the society which all Malaysians desired. The five overarching standards for critical judging of thoughts and actions became enshrined as the alter idem of Rukunegara and expressed as follows: We, her peoples, pledge our united efforts to attain these ends guided by these principles:Belief in God Loyalty to King and Country Upholding the Constitution Rule of Law and Good behaviour and morality. The Rukunegara is therefore not merely the five principles nor is it something to be shouted once a year during Merdeka celebrations nor something like an emulet to be hung on the wall. It is a system with normative values to motivate ideas and action towards nation building. It was Rukunegara which inspired the formulation of the New Economic Policy which in itself is not the end but one of the means to turn into reality the society as envisioned in the first part of Rukunegara. How is a united society with modern science and technology to be created if the citizens of Malaysia as a consequence of history had existed in compartments based on the identification of race with vocations? How can a united society be achievable if poverty irrespective of race was still rampant and the gap between the poor and the rich was too wide? The NEP as inspired by Rukunegara is in fact composed of two measures with the single objective of realising national unity of the most enduring and durable kind among the people as well as regional integration. The first was to restructure society so that races could no longer be identified with vocations. The second was the eradication of poverty irrespective of race. These two prongs were mutually reinforcing. Planners put meat to these two simply worded ideas and implementors would actualise them. Grumblers to be sure were not against the basic two-prong objectives but rather they were commentaries on the implementation policy and implementing activities. Beginning with the second Malaysia plan until the fifth - for twenty years, those plans were aimed at achieving the kind of society as spelt out in Rukunegara with its built-in normative system. During
National Unity / 57
those four five-year plans, the smallest unit in the society, namely the individual, found validity in the values of unity, of democracy, of a socially just and economically equitable society, of the flowering of cultural development and of modernisation. More or less the planning thoughts and implementing activities were fired by the keen desire to create a new Malaysia. The period of twenty years was sufficient to maintain the zeal and acceptance since a longer period would mean a new generation who might not appreciate the raison d'etre for the New Economic Policy. The new generation may not even have the sense of urgency to be fully committed to the dreams of those who went through the baptisms of fire of the British and Japanese colonialisms and their policies of divide et impera which rendered people living in the same country to entertain mutual prejudices and suspicions which eventually exploding in racial strives. The NEP was no more nor no less than corrective measusres to right past wrongs and to return an equilibrium among the races that make up the common citizenry of this country. Certainly the NEP was not intended to solve all the ills but it undeniably contributed towards blunting the sharp edges of conflicts between races and dissatisfaction brought about by poverty irrespective of race. What gave hope to the people was that the Rukunegara had inspired many new ideas for the improvement of the society and its strength. One of the many things which Rukunegara inspired was the encapsulating of all sensitive issues so that they would not be the subject of public discussions. When Parliamentary democracy returned those sensitive issues were attended to. It had been recognised that these issues when unscrupulously exploited would cause the flaring up of emotions which eventually might go beyond control. Of course these laws prohibiting sensitive issues were not intended to be a permanent feature. At some future date when the edges of racial and religious conflicts have been totally and truly removed, these provisions would no longer be necessary. For the time being Parliament considered that it would be in the best interest of the nation in the process of strengthening national unity and confidence building that we the citizens would refrain from exercising some of what we regard as the fundamental right of free expression. Parliament in March 1971 took the drastic measure of amending the Constitution causing a dimunition of the freedom of speech of Members of Parliament because of its own awareness that in a country like ours there should be a balance between the demands of
idealism of Westminster-type democracy and the limitations imposed by the local realities of present day life. It will be noticed, in any case, that such unusually dramatic and seemingly fatuous measures were taken strictly and with care in accordance with the standards demanded by Rukunegara. Because of the faith that Malaysians have in the Barisan Nasional, by itself is a creature of Rukunegara which inspired the various political parties to embrace each other before elections (as opposed to a coalition post-elections) thus assuring the political stability so necessary in any developing country, the Barisan Nasional has continously been returned to the Federal Parliament with very comfortable majority. It is a pity now that the Barisan Nasional had lost the State of Kelantan to PAS and to PBS in Sabah (both were once in Barisan Nasional) with the net result that modern political rivalries can be an impediment to development which will benefit the ordinary rakyat. Because lands and all the residual powers constitutionally rest with each state in the federation much of the federal projects and provisions could be stultified to serve the narrow interest of power at the expense of the development of the people and the regional unity of the whole nation. Nevertheless the voters in a democracy have to be respected. Hence the best commentaries about Rukunegara was that there was no racial riots of any kind since 1970, and the NEP had produced during the twenty years a middle class composed of all races who share common values in their corporate endeavours. Business was no longer done in the old style of making offers and acceptance scribbled in coded characters on the back of cigarette packets. It is hoped that Rukunegara would inspire all concerned into selfexamination in order to remove cobwebs which might hinder a clear view as to what should be done in the interest of the nation as a whole. It is not enough that the Rukunegara had produced a state of peace with the absence of racial conflagrations. It is not enough that the exercise of the freedom of one man one vote should hinder rather than facilitate development and growth. It is desirable that there should be a positive cooperation inspired by Rukunegara towards strengthening the spirit of togetherness. If political parties did not hang together now during this period of development, history would hang them individually. The NEP had proven its worth. A new middle-class has emerged among Bumiputras, Chinese, Indians and others as products of the restructured society, sharing common values without the previously
National Unity / 59
predetermined vocational compartments for the races. Of course there were casualties who had become fractured rather than restructured but these, like all struggles, are to be expected. And on a further negative note crimes particularly of the white collar kind have been of late characterised by restructured community of offenders! On the issue of eradication of poverty which is the other equally important prong of the NEP namely, the eradication of poverty irrespective of race, if I am allowed to take the mean monthly household income, for example, in Peninsula Malaysia in 1970 it was RM264 and by 1990 it had risen to RM1,163 while in Sabah from RM513 to RM1,148 and in Sarawak from RM427 to RM1,208. The more interesting development is that the bottom 40% of household income in Peninsula Malaysia has increased from RM76 in 1970 to RM421 in 1990 while in Sabah and Sarawak the increases were from RM68 to RM390 and RM74 to RM436 respectively. This showed that there was faster and equitable rate for the bottom 40%. These figures speak for themselves regarding the NEP. Because Malaysia experienced a decline in the commodity trade in the late 1960s, she had realised that the European industrial revolution was coming to an end and therefore also the demands for those important commodities which fueled the revolution would diminish. Malaysia began to turn towards the manufacturing sector. In 1968 the Investment Incentive Act was promulgated with the aim of merging the development of import substitutes, export-oriented and labour-intensive industries. Foreign direct investment began to be viewed in all seriousness particularly in the manufacturing sector. It was during the Second Malaysia Plan that the Government created with the cooperation of the State Governments, a number of Free Trade Zones. These measures resulted in rapid growth of the manufacturing sector. There were some negative effects of these foreign direct investments but on balance Malaysia benefitted from them. The manufacturing sector in 1987 had overtaken the agricultural sector was 21.8%. By 1989, the industrial sectors contribution to GDP was 25.5%. The NEP as inspired by Rukunegara and implemented in accordance with the spirit and its yardstick has certainly brought about a revolution in the life of the people who are now becoming affluent. Labour has become scarce and Malaysia has for sometime already had to rely on foreign workers in estates and the construciton industry. She will soon find difficulties in recruiting semi-skilled labour. A very intensive programme of education in that direction has to be devised.
In January 1989, a National Economic Consultative Council was constituted with 150 members from all walks of life, reminiscent of the National Consultative Council of the NOC days. Government and opposition parties were fairly represented together with other interest groups. A number of the opposition members and some others, totalling 19, withdrew their participation but not after they had submitted their viewpoints orally and in writing which were fully considered. The deliberations took two years, characterised by candour and intelligence, but more so motivated by their honest desire to continue pursuing the objectives of the Rukunegara which was freely invoked in the debates from time to time. I was privileged to be elected by the Council as its chairman which gave me the honour of being directly involved in the two plannings for processes of change, once in the preparation of the NEP and now this, with the aim of making a thorough assessment of the NEP and to make recommendations to the Government as to the future national economic policy post NEP. After considerable debates with candour without rancour, the Council considered seriously all the views not only of the council members and those who withdrew but also written documents submitted by concerned citizens. It was truly a monumental task but nevertheless a satisfying one for all concerned. The Report which contained recommendations embracing all aspects of societal developments was adopted by all members (less those nineteen) unanimously. It was then submitted to the Government through the Perdana Menteri, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. It appeared that the Government had studied the Report thoroughly, (it was a matter of disappointment for me personally that the 19 withdrew participation even though their recommendations had been considered). In the Second Outline Perspective Plan (OPP2) covering the period 1991 to 2000 I noticed the bulk of the recommendations in the Report was reflected therein. The Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir went a step further by exhorting the people of Malaysia to aim for a fully industrialised society by the year 2020 now better known as Wawasan 2020. The Government found it necessary to project this idea in order to fulfil the aspirations envisioned in the Rukunegara. After 20 years of NEP now it is possible to think of industrialisation in full by the year 2020 with the present emphasis on small and medium industries for the rural areas. Above all as recommended in the NECC Report, the nation has positively accepted the concept of Bangsa Malaysia. At the time when Singapore
National Unity / 61
was in Malaysia a much touted but premature idea of a Malaysian Malaysia was the cause of a great deal of controversy and unhappiness. It was clear that Rukunegara helped to evolve the idea of Bangsa Malaysia which can only nuture and mature with time. Now that the middle - class is in place, locally accumulated capital is available and so is the technical know how, the process towards the realisation of the society as envisioned in Rukunegara will become a natural process but each twist and turn has to be guided by the standards as laid down in Rukunegara. Now more so than ever in the societal restructuring, Rukunegara standards would have to be articulated in such a way that they could truly relate to the generation which had no memory of the injustices committed by Western and Japanese exploitation and racial acrimony. As mentioned earlier the Rukunegara must be understood in toto. While there is no doubt as to the clarity of the national dedication towards creating a society as envisioned perhaps the principles through which thoughts and action should be measured would require articulation even if it is repeating what we already know. The first, namely, "belief in God" and the fifth which is in Bahasa Malaysia "Kesopanan dan Kesusilaan" require special examination. With regard to the first, even if an individual is an atheist, it is not open to him in the context of Rukunegara to promote a movement that denies the belief in God. The very ideology of Marxism and the communist party are by definition contrary to the first principle of Rukunegara. This Belief in God is consistent with the Constitution that has a religion of the state. And it is on the basis of the belief in God that the fifth principle "Kesopanan dan Kesusilaan" can be truly meaningful. Ethics and decorum are strongest when they are inspired by the belief in God. To believe in God is to love God. I would say, "love God and do what you like", which simply means that any action on the basis of love of God would never deviate from ethical and moral conduct and decorum. The question that often arises is the valuational system. Since the religion of the Federation is Islam, the question is whether the valuational system for Malaysia should be publicly claimed as based on Islamic values. There are, inter alia, further questions as to how Muslims regard non-Muslims and vice versa in their endeavours towards achieving Wawasan 2020 in the context of a united nation. The Constitutions of the Federation and the states as they stand in
relation to Islam as the religion of the Federation and the states, had been accepted by all for over three decades. Recently the Chief Secretary to the government Tan Sri Ahmad Sarji organised a seminar to delve into this extremely important matter. People are confused by many aspects of the position of religion. If this was not clarified, for instance the existence of Muslim Banks and of others would suggest that there are contradictions in practice. Or the question of laws in the state or at Federal level which are claimed to reflect or are consonant with Islamic values would need serious discussions in the context of the Constitutions. Tan Sri Ahmad Sarji will be submitting his report of the Seminar to the Government. Hopefully this is the first and not the last of a series of deliberations on such an important topic. I attended that seminar as the Chairman of one of the sessions. I broke the rule of silence for a Chairman and suggested to Tan Sri Ahmad to organise a seminar among experts of the various religions and secular groups to beat up some values that would be overarching and applicable to all irrespective of creed or belief. If some common values could be aggrouped to give meaning to the first and fifth principles of Rukunegara then I think we shall have less controversies which might lead to serious acrimony. What I thought should be avoided is the public claim that a particular religion or creed has dominance or worse the domination over others. Any particular religion or creed claiming dominance or domination will render the valuational system as exclusive. Such a system is a sure prescription for divisiveness whereas the aim should be such as to conduce towards unity. I am very hopeful that Tan Sri Ahmad Sarji will in his wisdom find it possible to have a seminar as proposed. Its recommendations could then be the subject of deliberations in bigger national seminar not unlike the meetings of National Consultative Council of the NOC days, where subjects could be debated in camera, free from the glare and blare of publicity, and of party political and purely theological debates. This time the Rukunegara should be invoked that in the interest of the nation as a whole, the question is not who is right but what is right for the nation. These deliberations would not be geared towards winning points in argument but gaining a strong bond that would bind us together. The conclusions should be presented to the people as a well considered valuational system of ethics and morals that will guide citizens in all their private communal, and public endeavours.
National Unity / 63
Unless this issue is resolved, Wawasan 2020 may suffer road blocks and hurdles due to lack of societal and political direction. There would be no consensual route and shared objectives. There are of course other constraints that must be addressed. Wawasan 2020 means that it is imperative for the nation as a whole, Government and private sector alike, to consider very seriously the question of market for Malaysian manufactured goods. The rate of our national growth will be determined by the growth in trade. And this implies international trade since there is a very limited national market. We may now feel somewhat relieved that we are less subject to the idiosyncrasies of volatile commodity market yet we are completely subject to international trade in respect to made in Malaysia products. There must be intensive studies of international market trends and demands. Our goods should be saleable at prices which are competitive. For instance to stretch the point ad absurdum there is no use for us to manufacture very sophisticated hospital beds if the market in the developed countries are closed to us and then there would be no market for such items in the developing countries. The failure of the Uruguay Round was a source of great anxiety for Malaysia. We had supported the free market system and had placed high hopes on General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT). With the quarrel between giants namely the US and EC all hopes for fair international trading system seem to evaporate. The situation would it seems, not get better but worse with the establishment of the USCanada-Mexico Free Trade Area which eventually would extend from Alaska to Tierra del Feugo and the operations of EC which like osmosis would join up with the former Soviet bloc and the European side of the Soviet Union. After all Perestroika was to find for Moscow a European home. The Russian Commonwealth with those Asiatic republics would not be eligible to be under the umbrella of Europe. But Russia, Bylorus and Ukraine would be. Hence the Malaysian reaction as expressed by the Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir to the failure of the Uruguay Round was swift and definite. He urged for the getting together of countries of East Asia in order to meet the challenges of the economic blocs which must be made to deny any exclusivist tendencies. This typical Malaysian reaction was given all sorts of interpretations including one of haste and hysteria losing the perspective of decorum by not consulting friends and neighbours. Some western commentators began to label the idea as "blocism" and the word "bloc" now has become filthy.
The reactive behaviour of Malaysians is instinctive. We have always believed in "togetherness" whenever we face a common danger. American, EC and Japanese protectionism and blocism appeared to us to be menacingly threatening when the Uruguay Round floundered at the end of 1990. We know of no other remedy or acts of self-defence other than "togetherness". It was the spirit of "togetherness" that makes Rukunegara relevant to Malaysia. It was the spirit of "togetherness" that prompted the proposal to establish ASA. It was the spirit of "togetherness" which considered Maphilindo as exclusivist to the Malay peoples only therefore contrary to the spirit of Asian "togetherness". ASEAN was conceived in the spirit of "togetherness" and so was the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. ZOPFAN was largely motivated by the spirit of "togetherness". Naturally when we are facing such formidable dangers of economic strangulation, the Malaysian instinct as expressed by Dr. Mahathir was to shout for help and reach out to our neighbours who might be in the same predicament. It was all done in good faith. Now that the concept of an Asian Consultative forum in the form of an East Asian Economic Caucus has been endorsed by ASEAN Summit in Singapore and supported by China and the Indo China states, I think any procrastination would be an opportunity lost; all the endeavours of developing countries of ASEAN and East Asia will come to nought in particular our objective of Wawasan 2020 and the ultimate society as envisioned in Rukunegara.
7 Conflict Resolution: The Malaysian Experience
hen I was requested to present a paper at this Workshop with Conflict Management and Conflict Resolution as its theme and to share some of my thoughts on the Malaysian experience, I felt as if I had been asked to look back on the future. To understand the situation when edges of conflict were sharp and pointed, one had to look back at the properties of the social arrangement of the past. These properties are the elements which determine relations of humans and their group behaviour in a society. If these properties had sharp edges there would be tensions and if the degree of the sharpness was very high, there would be confrontations which may lead to conflicts of the violent kind. This country was never a single nation until 1946 after the formation of the Malayan Union; the Japanese linked Malaya and Singapore to Sumatra and in a limited way introduced a new identity. Late in 1948 it was replaced by the Federation of Malaya and in 1963, Malaysia. During the colonial days, the territory was subject to a number of exploitative policies which, by deliberate design or absentmindedly motivated by greed, resulted in acrimony between the races. The only reason why these antagonistic elements did not seriously flare up was because stability had been maintained through authoritarianism. Whether it was the British or the Japanese, their authoritarian rule Pax Britannica or Pax Japonica had kept the antagonistic factions apart. This certainly was one method of conflict management. During the European Industrial Revolution, tin and rubber were needed for the factories. Tin, from time immemorial, had been mined by the Malays in the Kinta Valley of Perak and in other states. They used primitive methods of "dulang" and the productivity was therefore
* Paper Presented at the Workshop on Conflict Management and Conflict Resolution held in Kuala Lumpur, August 7 & 8, 1993.
limited. By 1901, the British colonial government of Perak decided that a more modern method had to be found and cheap Chinese labour coolies for the mines were brought in from China. However, the Malays had to be given alternative employment. The colonial administration then devised the native reserves system as all colonial powers in the age of industrial revolution did. Malays were then moved into these reservations and to qualify for a place in the reservation, the British defined the status of a Malay who should be a Muslim, spoke the Malay language and practised the Malay custom. It was not at all odd to find a Chinese who qualified according to the three requirements by a process known as "masuk Melayu" or to have joined the Malays. By 1903 Malay Reservations were made into legal entities in the Federated Malay States. Henceforth, the status of the Malay was one related to his occupation in subsistence economy agriculture. He was no more a miner nor a businessman but a yokel. Winstedt, the colonical educationist dictated the policy that the Malay child should be given schooling only to the limit of becoming a better farmer or a coastal fisherman than his father. A few selected sons of the Malay gentre were selected to attend a special school in Kuala Kangsar, to be minor subordinate adminstrators or magistrates or collectors of land revenue. Some young Malay youths would be recruited for the police force or the clerical services or peons or as chauffers to the colonial raj. The Chinese who were brought in as coolies in the mines were definitely told that their stay in this country was a temporary sojourn. It was the intention of the British that they should return to China after their labour had been milked dry. In order to subjugate them, a few enterprising ones were encouraged to take up trade and very often it involved opium or some such products which fetched a great deal of risk and profit. All these led to the growth of triad secret societies imported from China and gang wars. Again it was the British authoritarian rule that kept the peace. Many escaped from the trap for singkehs and coolies and by all sorts of devices and hard work became petty merchants and some rose to be compradores for British business houses or banks. The Chinese as a community were never allowed to integrate with the Malays although a few had already been fully integrated as Baba and Nyonya who came before the British colonial period. The colonial policy of "separateness" resulted in independent Chinese schools with teachers from China. The British administration even had a Chinese
Conflict Resolution / 67
Affairs Department as a protectorate to handle matters pertaining to the Chinese who were also subject to the consular offices of the Chinese Government. While the Malays thought of politics even rebelling as witnessed in Perak and Pahang in the 19th century, the Chinese never thought of politics in relation to this country. They involved themselves with what happened in China. Sun Yat Sen's revoluation against the Manchus was greatly supported by the local Chinese. Later when the communists began to be active in China some who became teachers here were communist cadres from China. When Japan attacked China in furthererance of their concept of coprosperity sphere, emulating the European colonical powers, the war in China was also fought from here by remittances of war funds, volunteering to fight in China and the boycotting of Japanese goods locally. The Chinese was oblivious to the growing Malay nationalism which was linking itself with the rest of the Malay archipelago notably with the people who are now called Indonesians. Much of the pattern of the Chinese was also seen among the Tamils of India who were brought here as coolies to build the railway lines and road and to work in the rubber plantations as indentured labour. This separateness was clearly seen during the Japanese occupation when they joined the Indian National Army. Again like the Chinese through no fault of theirs, the Indians were turning their political faces towards the struggle for independence in India. Jai Hind was the slogan. To the Chinese China was home as India was to the Indians. When the British formed Malayan Union, naturally only the Malays paid a great deal of interest in the matter since neither the Chinese nor the Indians thought they had a stake in it. The end of the Pacific War did not bring to the Chinese or Indians any political consciousness that would relate them to this country. Indian independence brought euphoria to the Indians while the Chinese celebrated China's victory over Japan and later had to decide whether to support the Koumintang or the Kyongsantong. During the Japanese occupation the tin mines were not being worked and the Chinese coolies fled to the rural areas to grow food. They became squatters and were easy contacts for the communist-led anti-Japanese guerilla groups which had links with the communist anti-Japanese movements and the Communist Party of China. Except for a few, members of the anti-Japanese guerilla groups were Chinese. In short, the anti-Japanese groups were serving the interests of China and political consciousness were nuanced towards the Middle Kingdom.
Naturally, the formation of Malayan Union was treated by the nonMalays as non-event since it had nothing to do with them. Little did they realise then that the question of citizenship and constitutional rights had a direct bearing on them. But they were mere spectators to the Malay resistence to the Malayan Union concept. In any case the Malays were then not as yet prepared to share rights with those who ostensibly had no political stake and interest in the country. History might have been different if the Chinese and Indian communities had supported the British Malayan Union. When a few of them realised the advantages, they formed political parties and even organised hartal but it was too late. The Malays had won with the support of pro-Malay British politicians and former colonial civil servants who were at that time influential enough to be noticed and heard in the United Kingdom. After the defeat of the Malayan Union the British began to worry as to what had to be done to the Chinese and Tamils. The new communist government of China did not want to accept the Chinese back since they wanted the overseas Chinese to serve the interests of China abroad. Neither would the Indians Government accept the Indians back in India. Nehru urged them to be good permanent residents and citizens of those places where they were domiciled. India had too many Indians already and those overseas Indians could help Mother India by their remittances which were substantial. Soon after the demise of the Malayan Union replaced by the Federation of Malaya in February 1948, the communists took up arms against the British Government. As mentioned earlier, the personnel in the communist guerilla groups were mainly Chinese and during the Japanese occupation they had depended a great deal on the support of the Chinese squatters. The British, in fighting the communists, thought of the idea of sending back the squatters to China or at least cut off their contacts with the communists by concentrating them in areas respectably known as "new villages". When it was clear that China's Government did not want to receive the Chinese, there was despair and despondency in the new villages. To alleviate the plight of the new villagers in the spirit of self-reliance the Chinese merchant community formed an association known as the Malayan Chinese Association to cater for the welfare of the Chinese squatters funded by a social welfare lottery. In the meantime, the Malay movement which removed Malayan Union became a political force. Inspired by their independent
compatriots across the Straits of Malacca, the Malays began to yearn for independence. The standard of the movement was red and white similar to the Indonesian flag, distinguished by a kris on a royal yellow background. However, the members of the movement went through a period of soul searching as to the best way to achieve their heart's desire for Merdeka. The movement by that time recognised that the Chinese and Indians had nowhere else to go; this country had to be the only object of their loyalty. The movement however was not ready to accept non-Malays in their midst and Dato' Onn, a leader had to be sacrificed for being too much of a "Leader" in the western sense and not a "Pemimpin" in the native nuance. However, in terms of the struggle for independence through a democractic process, there was a dire need that all who were domiciled here should be brought into the mainstream of the struggle. Without such a move, the struggle would be futile since the colonial powers would certainly exploit the fissures between the races. Already it was known that the Malays would not wish to share their political struggle with those who had hitherto not shown any interest in the local politics although this was designed by the colonial power and through no fault of their own. Any move to create a political party based on non-racial lines would meet with disaster as the first UMNO president Dato' Onn Jaafar had tried with his Independence for Malaya Party (IMP). The races would not feel secure without first being grouped among themselves in the spirit of BERKAMPUNG. The party like the IMP could never manage the frictions between the races. If the membership was predominantly of one race, the others would be regarded as mere tools Or stooges. Political parties can only reflect the real situation on the ground but it would be up to the leadership of the political societies to work towards changing the existing pattern to an ideal. If the objective was a non-racial movement in order to achieve independence the leaders should devise some ways to bring about solidarity through a sense of security. To achieve that, the respective races should first organise themselves as ethnic groups and then the groups could be banded together with their leaderships working towards a common goal. That was how it happened in 1952 at the first elections for the Kuala Lumpur Municipal Council. UMNO leadership offered to work together with a Chinese grouping. However, there was no group among the Chinese which could be regarded as political. The Malayan Chinese Association was no more than a welfare association to look
after the interests of the Chinese who were concentrated by the British in the so-called "New Villages". The UMNO leaders who where the only group to represent the Malays managed to persuade the MCA leaders to turn the association into a political society. Later, the Malayan Indian Congress (MIC) whose nomenclature reflected its political particiality towards the Indian Congress changed its attitude and together with UMNO and MCA became a member of a political party known as the Alliance Party with a sailing boat as its logo, sending strong signals that all the races in Malaya share the same fate and destiny since they were all in one boat. The stability and steadiness of the sailing boat in adverse weather conditions would depend on the deftness of the leadership. Therefore the Alliance Party was a device to defuse the racial contradictions and to work for independence as a single common objective. The Aliance as a Party negotiated for Merdeka and achieved independence despite minor efforts by unfriendly elements to create racial disharmony by sending some fears into the spine of non-Malays. The bogey was that they would be given rough treatments after Merdeka. I well remember an incident on the night of 30th August 1957. I was then working late in my office which later became the foreign ministry in the Sultan Abdul Samad clock tower building. There was a mammoth crowd on the Selangor Club Padang composed of all races to witness the coming down of the Union Jack and the raising of the national flag. A group of Western journalists were together with me looking down on the crowd from the top of the building. When the giant clock chimed the midnight hour, there was a roar of cheering in one voice "Merdeka" several times as the Union Jack came down and the national flag went up. There was singing and dancing; irrespective of race they were holding hands together. To my great disappointment, the Western journalists complained that there was no racial riots and everything had looked like a picnic. They failed to notice that Merdeka was the magic which bound people together irrespective of race when each race felt secure to be within its own grouping. After Merdeka, the Alliance Party decided that the income diferentials between the Malays and the Chinese should be rectified by having some affirmative policies to alleviate the backwardness of the Malays. The Alliance Party had accepted the provision in the Constitutions which recognised the special position of the Malays allowing the Yang di- Pertuan Agong through the government to make policies ensuring the correction of income differentials. The FELDA
scheme was devised and so also was the Red Book to provide for rural developments which would affect the lives of Malays who had been forced by the colonial policies to be mere subsistence farmers or fishermen. They were given the illusory security of Malay Reservations which in fact placed them in the category of indigenous peoples who needed protection just like the Red Indians in the United States or the aborigines of Australia. After ten years of independence, the income of the Malays had improved but it did not correct the income differentials. The income gap between the rural and urban population had indeed grown wider. The improved income of the rural people mainly the Malays enabled them to visit towns. To their horror, they discovered that in the urban areas, the population did not reflect the true picture of the nation. They felt alienated in their own land and became restless. However, before the Alliance Party could take corrective measures the edges of conflict became sharper resulting from the widening income gap. The tension burst into a racial conflagration of the dark day of 13th May 1969 when the Malays felt that they were going to be marginalised in the only home they had. Very quickly the Alliance Party approached the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and a state of national emergency was declared. A National Operations Council (NOC) was formed with the late Tun Razak in the chair. I was made a member of that Council; it was entrusted to administer the country which had to be returned to normalcy. The doors of Parliament were closed, Ministers were given full pay leave and a National Consultative Council (NCC) was formed to assist the NOC which had the full support of the security forces. The NOC was a junta of civilian kind. It made laws and executed them with the sole idea that stability must return in the quickest possible time. This could only be achieved if the Malays would find themselves secure. By then the whole country had realised that UMNO was the political mainstay whilst the Malays were the societal backbone. Any weakening of these two elements would spell instability if not disaster. With the approval of the NOC Chairman and the NCC, the Rukunegara was evolved spelling out the vision of a desirable Malaysian society forming the first part followed by the pledge that the desired society should be built in accordance with the yardstick of the five principles: OUR NATION MALAYSIA, being dedicated to achieving a greater unity of all her peoples;
to creating a just society in which the wealth of the nation shall be equitably shared; to ensuring a liberal approach to her rich and diverse cultural traditions; to building a progressive society which shall be oriented to modern science and technology; WE, her peoples, pledged our united efforts to attain these ends guided by these principles: Belief in God Loyalty to King and Country Upholding the Constituion Rule of Law Good Behaviour and Morality Inspired by the Rukunegara the New Economic Policy (NEP) was devised which recognised that poverty plaguing all irrespective of ethnic origin should be reduced and eventually eradicated. A mutually reinforcing second prong was that the society just could not continue on the basis of ethnic groups being identifiable by their vocations. For example, as inherited from the colonial administration, it was possible to identify the Malays as subsistence farmers, the Chinese as merchants and the Indians as labourers. This state of affairs had to be changed by restructuring the society so that the identification of each ethnic group should not be related to its vocations. It was not a policy to enrich the Malays. The doors of Parliament were opened and the New Economic Policy (NEP) was launced. Certain sensitive issues had to be, for the time being, encapsulated so that they could not serve as causes for interracial or religious conflicts. For the greater good of all, Malaysians ungrudigingly accepted that freedom if allowed without discipline in a multi-racial and multi-religious society like ours would result in disaster. For example, undue criticism of other religions would certainly end up in a public order situation. Perhaps the world had forgotten that the Malaysians were the only people who had a civilian junta which worked for its own demise in less than two years in order to return democracy to the people. Lesser men than the late Tun Abdul Razak would have chosen to prolong the life of the NOC for the sake of political voraciousness. The management of the contradictions and conflicts inclined the Alliance Party to broaden its base by inviting parties including those
in the opposition to join in the procession for sustainable development in accordance with the vision in Rukunegara. The Barisan Nasional Party was formed replacing the Alliance Party and its symbol is the NEEACA or a balanced scale emphasising the objectives of equity and justice for all. It will also be observed that like the Alliance Party the Barisan Nasional is a unique political concept which is a coalition of various political groups before elections as opposed to others with coalition governments after elections. This is a concept to manage contradictins by having policies well and thoroughly debated in the Barisan Nasional Council where each constituent member is equally represented. These debates are held behind closed doors, free from the blare and glare of publicity which often for the sake of sensation renders sensitive subjects into becoming sources of conflicts. Once a policy is arrived at whether it is a policy for implementation by the government or a manifesto for elections, all groups in the Barisan National would defend and promote it. In this way the Malaysian public would not see in Parliament or public their leaders being exposed of all their weaknesses. If a leader was publicly humiliated the incident may be a source of acrimony in a country whose democracy is still fragile. This concept is a leaf from the book of UMNO which was a movement amalgamating all Malay political associations to achieve the destruction of the Malayan Union and to work for Merdeka. It would be wrong for someone to say that the Malaysian Government is racial since the Party which wins the elections is the Barisan Nasional. A Member of Parliament is not representing UMNO or MCA or SUPP but a Member from the Barisan Nasional having been elected on the manifesto of the Barisan Nasional. True, there are communal groups in Barisan Nasional but there are also noncommunal groups but when it emerges as Barisan Nasional it is absolutely non-communal or non-racial. The NEP has been criticised for favouring the Malays. This view of the NEP failed to understand that it was devised as a corrective measure through affirmative policy and actions. There were a few Malays who thought that the NEP should make the Malays wealthy. They are equally wrong. It is to change their vocation and it is up to everyone of them to work hard enough to accumulate wealth if they wanted to be rich. To change their vocation, in the beginning, they would need all sorts of help including capital and technological knowhow. The Barisan Nasional as a party would not tolerate a policy which makes a mockery of their party symbol of balance in
equilibrium. It is this equilibrium which everyone seeks that would guarantee harmony that the NEP has sought since its inception. Its success can be measured by the fact that there had been no racial conflagration for the first twenty years. Of course, there were unhappiness from some quarters. This could be traced to personal failures at achieving that which is selfishly desired or callous implementation which showed imbalance contrary to Rukunegara. The one consequence of NEP which was never articulated as an objective was its success in creating a middle class among the various races who share common values and practices in the commercial field. No longer is it true that understanding and agreement could be concluded by writing on the back of a cigarette box or an envelope. Today it is a pleasure to see the result of the societal engineering when young men and women discuss with each other oblivious of their racial origin. On the negative side we also witness the restructrured society committing commercial offences together irrespective of race. They are in reality the fractured ones. It is the strengthening of the middle class which the National Economic Consultative Council has in its Report as one of the objectives. This is one way to blunt the edges of conflict. The rich in their greed for more riches would claw and scratch for what they desire even if they cause racial frictions. The poor has nothing to lose by running amok. It is the middle class which would stand to gain in an ambience of stability. It is the emergence of this multi-ethnic middle class which will ensure the realisation of the society as envisioned in Rukunegara. From them will emerge managers and entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs may bitterly compete for profit but Malaysian entrepreneurs should band together in the face of foreign competitors or inequitable treatment. It is towards this realisation that the government had step by step moved from the rectification of income differentials to restructuring of society and now towards Vision 2020. What is this Vision 2020? Again it is to serve the same purpose namely to create a society which will be modern, industrialised but at the same time a society that is just, equitable and democratic. Vision 2020 has two extremely important meanings as a mesure of managing the race relations and to blunt any sharp edges of conflicts. One meaning is that the country by 2020 should be a developed industrialised country. It is to create wealth which would contribute towards the maintaining of good relations. Hence the aim of development is the creation of prosperity. When there is adversity
humans tend to group among their own respective groupings to seek solace and security. The second aim was that the policies and programmes for development should be perfectly balanced just as a person who possesses a perfect pair of eyes scoring 2020 marks. If vision 2020 is a balanced vision of development and progress then there would be harmony. Should problems of conflict emerge in the process of creating growth, one could be assured that it would receive the highest consideration and prime attention. This is the Malaysian experience at conflict management. Unbridled growth with inequitable distribution spells disaster. Growth and development should be balanced not only among the people but also territories and states. It pains me to see that there are a few leaders, particularly at local levels who do not see this but would rather pursue the line of the struggle for power as if power is an end in itself, even at the expense of a balanced development. These few people see democracy as practised in the West to be meaningful only if it was confrontational in character. For Malaysia it has been proven time and again that the best form of democracy is consensual and that there is no room for winner taking all or for any exlusivist theories or practices.
8 Leadership, Development, Evolution of Culture: the Malaysian Experience
ome time in 1981 Dr. Mahathir, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, urged his countrymen to LOOK EAST. There was a very good reai son for that. It was clear to him and to many of his colleagues that Japan was becoming an important factor in the economy of the world. She was booming and blossoming economically and technologically. Japanese culture, it would then appear, could maximally drive people towards high achievement. There was then hope that Japan would help to lead Malaysia into modernisation and to learn from her mistakes in the spirit of the Fukuda Doctrine of people to people and heart to heart relations. Japan was taken as the role model of a country whose people had always yearned for modernity. As early as the 6th century the Japanese people had gone into China to borrow knowledge in philosophy and technology. China was taken because she was acknowledged as a nation with modern thoughts and know-how in matters such as Buddhism which came from India, Taoism, Confucianism, the techniques of shipbuilding and navigation. And the characteristic of the Japanese people then and now is that they wanted the latest and the best. After a period of learning and emulating for about three hundred years the Japanese began to integrate those which they brought from outside into their indigenous culture and knowledge. In fact in the process which took several centuries many ideas were" rejected by the powerfully entrenched groups even if their number was small. For instance, the land owners would not accept the Chinese model of administration in land control and taxation. Even the teachings of Buddha and that of Tao were nipponised into Shintoism. The
Text of Speech for Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Memorial Lecture Organised by Indian Council for Cultural Relations, New Delhi, India on 12th January 1995.
Leaderdship, Development, Evolution of Culture / 77
Japanese had by then acquired a new and confident way a life by which they felt they could manage and resolve any of their problems. By that time their official, cultural and religious visits to China and Korea had ceased but Chinese thoughts and philosophy had remained until today as seen in Japanese writings and the use of Chinese classical written characters. The Japanese desire for modernisation, and noticing the new European industiral revolution, decided to transport Japan away from the medieval Chinese influences and to be a part of the Western modernism with its so-called new knowledge in science and technology. This started the process of Westernisation during the Meiji period. Like the period of learning from China, official missions were sent to Europe with special attention to Britain and Germany. These missions brought back ideas of Western governance and military knowledge. Their previous interactive experiences with China and Korea had made the Japanese accept the notion that the outside world had superior knowledge and values. Because of the progress of the West which was enhanced by the industrial revolution the Japanese wanted a short cut to their modernisation. They became obsessed with the idea of emulation or as some would say "aping". Even the dress of their cabinet ministers were changed from the clumsy kimono to the ridiculous striped pants and top hats! This sort of attitude inevitably produced its own internal contradictions. By the late 19th century two schools of thoughts had emerged. One wanted the Japanese society to be completely modernised by advocating a total acceptance of Western values and changing the pattern of behaviour of the Japanese in accordance with the Western culture which they regarded as universal. The other trend of thought opposing the complete change to Western culture advocated the retention of what had become traditional Japanese values without which Japan would be faced with decline and eventual disaster. Western ways should be assimilated only if they suited local conditions and aspirations. In this group of thoughts the influences of landed gentries and militarists were evident and they held sway until her defeat in 1945. Western industrial revolution needed resources and markets. The net result was that colonialism was not only justifiable but regarded as respectable. It was whiteman's burden. Such stories as King Solomon's Mine would be imbued in the minds of the non-Western world that a handful of whites could be superior to the blacks. Tarzan, the child of an English lord, brought up by a monkey could control
nations of balcks and animasl even if it is ridiculous to imagine that all kinds of animals would respond to a single yodelling holler of a whiteman hanging to some jungle vines. Colonialism in China and Japan came in the form of unequal treaties and extra territorialities. The humiliation meted out by Europeans to the various Japanese missions visiting Europe left a bad taste in the mouths of those who experienced it; but that made the Japanese all the more determined to prove that they were not inferior to any European power. It did not take long for the Japanese ruling elite to begin to understand that the Western industrial revolution had espoused colonialism. Self-confidence had created for the Japanese a high degree of nationalism with the jingoistic culture of arrogance. Japan imagined she had reached that level of parity with the West, particularly when she was appointed as trustees of former German colonies in the Pacific after the first World War. The question that came to the mind of the ruling elites was, if Japan had an Emperor, a hierarchical barons and knights, an industrial programme which included weapon manufacture, a navy which had defeated the Tsar's, an island of traders off a great continent like Britain then should not Japan be entitled to have colonies. Japan having decided to join the ranks of the Western industrialised and modern nations felt justified in aping the West in colonialism and imperialism. Because of that Japan went into a colonial adventure in Korea, Manchuria and China including Taiwan just as Western imperialists had gone into South East Asia, South Asia and Africa. However, Western industrial nations would not accept the idea that any other than the Anglo-Saxons or Europeans had rights to appropriate other lands. Japan, being regarded by the Western industrial countries as a little nasty nation of bespectacled upstart shorties devouring parts of China, Manchuria and Korea, had to be treated with contempt and hostility and their activities thwarted. War Plan Orange which was a US strategy to defeat Japan had been devised and revised since 1897. Having felt the heat of the West led by the United States, Japan had to decide whether to expand to the north taking as much of Siberia from the Soviet Union or down south ejecting the British, French, the Dutch, Protuguese and the Americans from the area. To occupy Siberia was to engage in the occupation of a piece of real estate of an independent nation. That would not be colonialism but a conquest with long drawn conflicts to retain it. China was an independent nation but the behaviour of the West in China had
convinced the Japanese that China was not independent and therefore fair game. The United States who had given the appearance of wanting to leave the Philippines to the Philippinos would not be too concerned with South East Asia, the Japanese must have surmised; and since Britain, Holland, France and Portugal would in the reckoning of the Japanese be inevitably under the heels of Nazi Germany, Japan decided to go to the South to replace the French in Indo China even if the Vichy Government was there, the British and the Dutch with Portugal in South East Asia. The Japanese thought she saw the advantages in the southern direction, firstly, it was an area where the natural resources like oil, rubber or tin were in abundance for her industrial and war machines and secondly, if the Japanese could hold out long enough the West would tire of a colonial war and abandon their colonies to the Japanese. It was as part of the colonial war tactic that a certain Fujiwara was sent to South East Asia to organise fifth columns with a false promise that the colonies would be free with the ejection of Western colonialists. The Japanese Military Government had no plan to liberate South East Asia but rather to replace Western colonialists with the Japanese kind as witnessed in Taiwan, Manchuria and Korea. I would like to recall the Potsdam meeting in 1945 which to me was the real starting point of the Cold War which was a conflict between the US and the USSR without a declaration of war, and without direct armed forces involvement, and without even the rupture of diplomatic relations contrary to the normal practice and rules of belligerency. However, what was the Cold War all about? On the side of the US and her closest ally then Britain by virtue of their Anglo-Saxon connexion, which Churchill referred to as the English speaking world, represented the industrialised nations which had experienced an extremely adverse situation during the economic depression of the inter-war years. The long queues of unemployed at welfare food kitchens must not be allowed to revisit the two industrialised world. This catastrophe could only be avoided if the products of the industrialised nations would have access to all markets in the world universally unhindered and unrestricted. This has now become a silent agenda. At that time after the destruction of Germany and devastation in France these two, US and UK, could not imagine that other nations too could be industrialised. For want of a better word, I shall refer to this as the approach of "universalism".
The other ally in the World War II was the Soviet Union. Her capital was Moscow and the definitive nation was Russia. Russia had a history of being attacked by the Mongols, the Turks, the Swedes, the Poles, the French and the Germans. Moscow had to encounter even small Asiatic nations like Japan. To the Russians the world had always been against her. It was this psychological factor which accepted the communist revolution after the first World War creating the USSR in order to make Russia safe. The Soviet Union was no more no less a country with surrounding colonial buffer states. This may explain the Russian attitude over the Japanese northern territories, the stern action in Georgia and the latest in Chechnya. In other words the Russian main obsession had always been and will always be security and her behaviour will always be determined by this factor. Stalin saw in the Truman's "universalism" a threat to the national security of Russia. In pursuance of the policy of ensuring the security of Russia, USSR was able to control the whole of Eastern Europe. I would call it the policy of "spherism" and such a policy certainly would run counter to the policy of "universalism". To Stalin loan aid with conditionalities was a tool of the universalists to destroy the spherists and vice versa universalists saw in the policy of "spherism" as something restricting the freedom of "universalism". Indeed loan and aid became tools used by both sides in the US and USSR Cold War. I have mentioned a little about Japan. Japan's post war programme had been dictated by the victors. Her northern territories were taken by Moscow and retained until today by Russia for reason of security. However, the US while requiring Japan to strictly observe the US-Japan Security Agreement and Article 9 of the Constitution had ecnouraged the economic rehabilitation of Japan. Since her defence posture and therefore its financing were subject to the constitutional control, Japan had a free hand in economic development which in essence was contradicting the US policy of "universalism", Japan's industrial success must be predicated upon the availability of market. However, in terms of the Cold War whose main objective was the demolishing of the iron curtain there was better value in the propaganda war, if through the so-called US free market and democratic programmes, Japan had prospered tremendously compared to the communist controlled countries. Taiwan and South Korea were similarly viewed. The question of market availability could be dealt with later after the defeat of "spherism" of the USSR. After all Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, in the mind of US policy makers, were her clients and could be manipulated.
As the industrial revolution became intense with research and development and dynamic marketing and networking, Japan became a world class economic power. This time, unlike the previous changes that had taken place in her history of modernisation, Japan did not have the burden of choice-making, since her political and economic well-being were dictated by an outside power in a victor-vanquished relationship. Japan became what she is today by using the jujitsu stratagem of taking advantage of the Cold War and Article Nine of the US-imposed Constitution. Since Japan began to enjoy the fruit of the success in the industrial development and marketing there have emerged strong evidences that some of the old values are yielding to new. For instance, the scandal arising out of the practice of ex post facto loss coverage and rigged trading in the securities market reflected the new values of intolerance of a modernised Japan towards such practices. Should we look hard at Japan we would notice that there have been changes in some of those areas where once it was thought would be unchangeable. Let us look at the family system. There is today a very high incidence of the nuclear family. It has become rather rare to see two or three generations living together under one roof. Of course it may be argued that this trend towards the nuclear family had started some time ago yet it was clear that the move happened as Japan began to industrialise and modernise; and particularly more evident after the war when Japan accelerated her industrialisation and modernisation programmes in her pursuit for a status to be acceptable by the West. With the outgoing of the family system particularly in the urban areas there developed such trends as liberalised marriages, pre-marital living together, and new attitudes towards inheritance. As ageing is becoming an acute problem in Japan (Female 79 years; male 73.5 years) the caring of the aged has shifted to government and welfare organisations from their children who no longer consider that their aged parents are their responsibility. After all, they did not choose to come to this world, they might say. The nuclear families in urban areas living in apartments like rabbit-hutches have the problems of relating to each other and, without the guidance of their parents, parents in nuclear families find difficulties in how to raise their children in the traditional Japanese way, particularly so when both parents have to work. The only source of parental education is the television which quite often portray Western ways or the irrelevant revival of very old ways which to the young modern Japanese are only sources of amusement and
entertainment. Industrial revolution and modernisation according to Western style had changed the formalities of marriages and divorces. Divorces today are initiated, not only by men, but, women are also known to sue for divorces because of the rising consciousness of their rights and role. Modernisation of Japan with equal opportunities for qualitative education, work and wages for women has the effect of changing the role of women who no longer feel wedded to traditions. Women in rural areas have values and needs no different from their sisters in the urban areas. There are undeniably, some women in rural or urban areas who still hang on to the old ways because they find security and comfort offered by the traditional role of women. The success of the Japanese industrialisation and Westernisation programme to a large measure was due initially to their traditional value system in work ethics and workplace loyalty, which was a kind of interlocking web of obligations placing communitarian values high in group endeavours. Under that system there was little labour mobility and all problems would be resolved together laterally. Since Japan has been received into the club of G7 and with changing paradigms in labour relations and technology the tradition that brought success to Japan is no longer being talked about a great deal. There are Japanese today whose number is dwindling with age who consider that since changes are inevitable it would be sufficient if they should be well managed, hopefully, without upsetting too much the values of the past. It is an attitude of resignation: shikataga nail I have mentioned about the Look East policy of Malaysia. The purpose was not to copy blindly what Japan was doing which brougth her economic success. It was to observe the various ways and acts which the Japanese have adopted in the context of their own tradition and legacies. Malaysia has been able to absorb a great deal of Japanese finance and technology. Malaysia admires Japan for becoming a creditor nation and at the same time has been able to resist the desire of being a hegemonic power. Yet generally Malaysia loathes Japan's willingness to be cowed for so long as a vanquished nation. Malaysia wants Japan to stand up tall with Asia as her constituency in the face of new challenges. The Japanese Government in deference to the feeling of the United States, has not as yet given support to EAEC. Recently I attended a seminar in Tokyo attended by Uminaries no less than former Prime Minister Nakasone, former US Secretary of State Baker and former Prime Minister of Australia Bob Hawke which aimed to find a role for Asia and Japan in the new world order. I was appalled to find Japan, perhaps in a fit of absentminded-
ness, or is it a freudian slip, to regard herself to be outside Asia. Such a situation to me is one of the consequences of the recent industrial revolution which made Japan Western rather than remaining Asian. Japan is in Asia only in terms of geography. Malaysia also loaths the distortion by Japan of her history during the colonial period. Among other things one important factor should be remembered by developing nations which, like Malaysia, wish to be fully industrialised and modernised from rural and agricultural societies. It is the impact of industrialisation on values and their systems. When the industrial revolution of the West started it was then driven by the values of the pre-industrial period which was basically religious of whatever denominations and therefore communitarian in nature. Communitarianism was also the driving force in Japan. Industrialisation created mass-production which spawned individualism because what was not available before to the masses, mass production had made it possible for most people to satisfy their desires. What was once an object of desire, like a china cup when most people had to drink from an earthen ware, had then become a necessity. Let us look at the air conditioner or a word processing machine. They were once objects of desire now they have become part of necessity. When mass products of industrialisation become available at affordable prices, life becomes a progress from desire to desire; no longer necessity but desire is the mother of invention. The habit of seeking to satisfy wants develop consumerism. With that the value system changes from one of communitarianism to individualism. "I" and "mine" replace "we" and "ours". The society becomes less and less caring. One TV/Cinema advertisement demonstrates this development very clearly where a filmlet showed a child holding a bottle of drink, which is the object of the advertisement, tells his little friend who has asked him for some of the drink that he could have, yes, but just a little. I had always thought childrens should be taught through such commercial advertisements, to be generous and caring by offering the delicious drink to his friend who should not indulge in the begging syndrome. This little filmlet, a simple advertising gimmick, was a commentary on the western society impacted by industrialisation which made the little drama quite acceptable as a norm. What is causing concern is that the logic of industrialisation instinctively is being transferred to become the logic of culture, politics and morals. With electricity songs are being written and sung following the new twanging sounds of the guitar while Michael
Jackson and rap music are being aped by young people of the undeveloped and developing countries who have not as yet gone through the phase of industrialisation, as if the dance movements were the most beautiful although they reflect the ugly grinding movements of the industrial machines. The danger is the transference of those values to the fertile hearts and minds of those who are seeking to achieve modernisation. It is the new valuational system of consumerism and individualism which are becoming the in thing in the developing world even if these values now retard growth in the industrialised world. I mentioned Japan only to show that so many errant activities have become evident; these activities are the diseases of the modern Western world. "Look East" includes looking into such abberrations when measured against the old values of communitarianism. Japan's official development aid programmes contain almost the same conditionalities as imposed by Western industrialised countries on developing peoples. Human rights are to the West values of the individuals whereas in the pre-industrialised Third World rights and their correlative duties belong to the family, to the community indeed to the nation itself. Brought to its logical conclusion the impact of Western industrial revolution will be hedonism, pleasure and leisure loving, uncaring except for their own ego and individualistic desires even if the modes of acquiring their wants are at the expense of the community. Greed replaces need and nothing is enough. Because of the shifting values brought about by industrialisation all arguments between the developed community and the developing one for instance on the subject of Human Rights, would be circular without a common reference and therefore futile. Potsdam as I said just now was where the Cold War began when at first only political personalities exchanged sarcasms in polite euphemisms. It exploded into the open when Churchill, having lost his job, went to Missouri (USA) where he made his "iron curtain" speech in the presence of Truman in March 1946. Stalin openly regarded the speech as dangerous calculated to sow the seed of discord among the allies. The mass media began to play their roles according to their affiliation and commitment. Contentious subjects were high-lighted which made possible in the West the emergence of MacCarthyism. The nuclear arms race started with no side seriously wanting to deploy them but that nuclear arms should serve as deterrence. It was a mutuality of madness with the arms reduction
Leader dship, Development, Evolution of Culture / 85
game played according to each player's own rule. The United Nations Organisation, the Security Council and specialised agencies became tools as well as arenas in the Cold War game. It was the wisdom of the east like that of Panditji which brought some sanity by organising the Non Aligned Movement (NAM). Since the Cold War was propagandistically verbal in parts, semantics were thrown to the wind and words like Democracy and Human Rights in the Charter of the UN were interpreted on the basis of Humpty Dumpty's Principle in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass":"When I use a word, "Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone," it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is, "said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is, "said Humpty Dumpty," which is to be master that's all." And so the Cold War raged on which began with no other reason than to break the "iron curtain" so that the US/UK alliance could freely exercise its "universalism" for the acquisition of natural resources and market. Everything else would be subordinated to winning the Cold War. The Post War industrialisation in Japan, and in South Korea, Taiwan and others who join the ranks of the newly industrialised countries (NIC) would be dealt with at an appropriate time after the iron curtain has been lifted. After all these NIC's were only little Tigers, endangered species whose home should be in the wild or the zoos. If they were dragons then they are only mythical. The terms tigers and dragons were the concoction of the west to flatter and desensitise the developing communities which eventually would succumb to the lure of the dependency syndrome. What began in Potsdam as the Cold War eventually came to an end with the collapse of the USSR and the Berlin Wall. The West again led the chorus that the Cold War was over. Is it? Yes, if it was only a US/USSR confrontational phenomenon. The champions of "universalism" could now turn their attention to those who dared to industrialise without using the odious term "Cold War". The success of industrialisation must be dampenend by any and all means including the mass media so that the products of the newly industrialised or industrialising communities could not be competitive or efficient or even marketable. These are tactics of cold warriors.
The valuational system impacted by the Western industrialisation would be conveniently used to stultify growth of the newly industrialised or industrialising countries. To each a formidable problem is posed for confrontation without regard to the differences in the level of modernisation or in cultural values. Unilateral action is being threatened like the "numerical targets" approach against Japan, a loyal client, even at the expense of the Europeans who would inevitably suffer market denials when the European market shares in Japan would be cut down. A trade war with China is looming large because of trade conditionalities related to Human Rights as defined by the West. Malaysia may have to look at her labour laws and policies or else there would be foreign fanned labour problems. Singapore's attitude towards caning American delinquents would be a festering issue and Indonesia's alleged human rights record in Timor Timur would be an area for political action to slow down her growth. Even post - apartheid South Africa might be queried regarding her nuclear capability and arms production. And so on, and so forth. In this game of market monopoly no one is a friend or an ally not even the European Community. Any community which goes into industrialisation would have to find a market niche and it could be found only with a great deal of difficulty for so long as "universalism" holds the power. The Cold War without calling it as such will continue to rage as the next phase between the universalists which are governed by individualism fashioned by the logic of mindless industrial revolution and others who are considered to be pinching their markets. Let us not be lulled into thinking that the Cold War in its global context is over. Planners for industrial development therefore would have to be wary of the bristling problems that await every move which promises success, and to be prepared with ready responses. One of the ways to obviate problems is to avoid being led up the garden path into blindly accepting that the Cold War is over and accepting cultural semantics of the industrialised universalists and then be subjected to their logic which would stultify growth. The industrialised people's logic in culture already is serving as a brake to their growth what with such selfish attitude towards leisure and pleasure. If communities who are developing towards industrialisation are influenced by such logic they too will suffer slow or minus growth. It was this realisation which motivated Malaysian leaders from the Tunku, ably assisted by his deputy Tun Razak who later became Prime Minister, succeeded by Tun Hussein and now Prime Minister Dr Mahathir to think of
modernisation in terms of communitarianism and national unity and resilience as a contribution towards regional unity and resilience and thereby hopefully towards global unity and resilience. ASEAN which also is projecting the concept of East Asian Economic Caucus (EAEC) is a product of such process of thought. It is timely that we should start thinking of an Asian economic caucus. I have served these four gentlemen in various capacities including the job of a minister responsible for planning and revising economic policies.We inherited a monumental problem of racial separateness from our colonial master when we achieved independence in August 1957. This was compounded by external support for the communist insurgency whose organisation was characterised by and identified with a single racial group which was not indigenous. The Cold War made life very difficult. Yet the leadership from the time of the Tunku until today kept on steadfastly to their sight on the target of modernisation. Each leader, though different in style of action, has been principled, consistent, transparent and forthright in dealing with their own constituencies as well as foreign friends and foes alike. India may recall it was the Tunku who was the first to openly condemn China for her intrusion into the unilaterally claimed area in India; the Tunku also organised a fund raised nationally in support of India. I found in Malaysian leadership a number of points which I shall mention very briefly. They believe in consensual democracy and sharing of power. Hence, it was the Alliance Party composed of the United Malay National Organisation (UMNO) the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) and the Malayan India Congress (MIC) which together shared responsibilities and powers to achieve independence and to run the government. In the context of confrontational democracy of the western kind there was no need for such an alliance or the sharing or power. UMNO alone could have sufficient majority to run the country with the others in opposition. That, however, could never bring about national unity without which there could be no stability which is a sine qua non for development. Confrontational democracy is not conducive to national unity; in our case our people would never understand why their leaders are being publicly insulted and public political demonstrations are sure to invite violence. The other point is that the leadership united in their consensual approach evolved policies which could be maximally effective if they were pragmatic and not wedded to any of the ideological programmes which are often idealised on Western logic and therefore irrelevant.
However, The Tunku as the first Prime Minister quite rightly thought that immediately on attaining independence no drastic change could take place. Priority was given by the Tunku's administration to the establishment of stability and security and the decolonisation of the British Borneo territories. This could be achieved only through a political programme for national unity. The Tunku's cabinet gave their best endeavours to ensuring that the various communities were united and they came out with the programme for the correction of income differentials between the rural and urban people. When this programme had achieved some measure of success the unintended result came to the fore. The rural natives became restless and evidently wanted more, because what they could not see before was now staring in their faces. There was a clash between the urban and rural people. Since the economic division was on racial lines, it had appeared to all intents and purposes as a clash between the rural Malays and urban Chinese. It was like a seizure and the country had a short break from parliamentary democracy when the government was run by a small National Operations Council (NOC) which was both a legislative as well as an executive mechanism. The late Tun Abdul Razak was appointed by the King the chairman and I one of its members. It took the NOC twenty one months to produce new political and economic programmes. Since national unity was paramount the political strategy was the broadening of the Alliance Party to include all the major parties who were then in opposition. Except for one minor party all others accepted the concept and joined to form the Barisan Nasional (National Front). Parliament doors were opened but certain freedoms were curtailed when sensitive issues like race and religions could not at all be critically discussed in public by one race or a religious group against another. It was during the period of NOC when two major ideas were conceptulised. One was that the people must have a common vision openly declared of what they want and its realisation should be measured against nationally accepted norms. That is Rukunegara which is divided into two parts and is still in vogue today. The first envisions the Malaysian society as united, democratic, creating wealth through the free market system and the equitable distribution of wealth, with a liberal approach towards the diverse cultures and their manifestations and it should be a society which would be progressive equipped with modern science and technology. That was the society as envisioned for Malaysia and so declared. However, in
the various plans and programmes for the actualisation of the vision all thoughts and actions should be measured according to following principles namely Belief in God, Loyalty to King and Country, Respect for the Sovereignty of the Constitution and the Rule of Laws of the Land and finally, plans and actions to be taken should be decorous and respectful of traditional beliefs and customs. All these apply equally to government as well as the private sectors of all ethnic and religious communities. The King announced the EUKUNEGARA from the throne. Once the public had begun to have a shared vision, the other major idea, The New Economic Policy (NEP) was launched in Parliament and accepted by the public. It had a simple two pronged concept with a life span of twenty years of eradication of poverty irrespective of race and the restructuring of society so as to obliterate the identification of race with economic function. The whole exercise was to be accomplished in the context of Rukunegara so that it would not become an excuse for robbing Peter to pay Paul. The policy was a success. The incidence of poverty, except in one of the states, had actually decreased. Taking the peninsula as an example the overall incidence of poverty has been reduced from 49.2% in 1970 to about 17% twenty years later for a target of 16%. Inflation has been held down and there has been an intensive management of the economy to ensure a degree of protection and safeguard given to consumers. There had been a phenomenally steady investment and growth and during the period of the NEP and until now there has never been a single incidence of a racial clash or riot. Before the end of the NEP period of twenty years the government in keeping with the traditional spirit of togetherness established a National Economic Consultative Council (NECC) whereby people of different backgrounds, interests including opposition political parties, academics and journalists were given the opportunity to put forth their views with respect to the accomplishment of the NEP and to make recommendations for a new policy after 1990. The members of the Council were not appointed by the government except certain individuals; organisations, political societies, unions and other national bodies were invited to nominate their respective representatives. The Council comprised 150 members and I was elected by them to the chair. It took us just over a year to complete the report and recommendations. In line with the Rukunegara which provides the nation with a shared vision the economic and social development policies post 1990
aim to actualise Malaysia as a modern and industrialised nation by the year 2020. This is the main emphasis of Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir who not only thinks of a target date but also provides in vision 2020 a concept of a perfect balanced vision characterising the need for balanced growth and equity so that success would not be at the expense of national unity. Dr. Mahathir, also believes that in societal engineering both the government and the private sector have a joint role which is now popularly referred to as "Malaysia Incorporated". The Malaysian leadership, I guess, until the accomplishment of 2020 will have to be guided by values of the pre-industrialisation age in Rukunegara. The period of the NEP had produced the kind of human resources which are technically capable and culturally inclined towards communitarianism in a multi-ethnic and multireligions society. The NEP had produced a common middle-class with a shared value system in a corporate world. One can now see in the business and public sectors young men and women discussing their common projects completely oblivious to race, religion and sex - a sight which was extremely rare before 1970. From the human resource development programme more and more of this group of people will emerge and the country is now all agog and sanguine at the prospect of modernisation although it is some twenty five years away. Taken together with Dr. Mahathir's 2020 the process of managed growth with equitable distribution creating the Malaysian man or woman who shares and cares for one another would have to take more than sixty years. In terms of social engineering the Malaysian leadership has recognised the need to make haste slowly and with extreme caution. Dr. Mahathir has always been very concerned with the problem of industrial development and market availability. Hence he travels widely with flocks of businessmen in his entourage and makes his crusade very transparent and candid that the future for developing industrialised nations depend on mutually beneficial cooperation between South and South, the easy transfer of knowledge and technology as well as capital in the genuine spirit of cooperation between the South and North, and above all a mutuality of understanding regarding the various valuational systems without which there would be potential clashes. It was his initiative which brought about the South Commission, the G15 of South Governments, the ASEAN-sponsored East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC). The traditional concept of leadership in Malaysia could be traced to the root word PIMPIN in KEPIMPINAN (leadership). The word "leader" in the western sense is a driver or someone who walks in front or
influentially exhorts others to act in certain way. The native word has an element of walking hand in hand which means the leader and the led are linked together. One of our leaders who broke this tradition by adopting the Western concept of leadership found himself alone without a constituency. The traditional leader in a long house or a small vilage is known as "tuai rumah" or "Ketua". The root word is "tua" which relates to old age and therefore experience. But the traditional leader elected from among these members of "tuai rumah" or "Ketua" who need not be old but experienced is a Penghulu whose root word is "hulu" meaning head. So the head is not only experienced but must also possess cerebral capacity. The Philippinos who in fact belong to the Malay stock ethnically refer to their President as "Pangulo" which is the same word as Penghulu. The question before Malaysians is that whether this concept of leadership who is always together holding hands with the people would change with shifting values. And if the shift took place before its time the question arises whether the nation could achieve its main objective of industrialisation and modernisation by 2020. Realising this and other factors such as the Western industrialised value system discussed just now Dr Mahathir and his colleague forming the Malaysian leadership is tirelessly reminding the people to retain their present values even if they were progressing towards industrialised modernism. Seeing the various governmental and party programmes I detect a real sense of apprehension. There are plenty of debates at the moment but arguments tend to be circular. For instance, the suggestion which emphasises the singular use of English for acquiring knowledge in science and technology in order to achieve early result in modernisation is hotly being opposed by those who believe that the national language has been so developed that for example those who study physics in the national language are at par with those who study it abroad purely in English. Such groups are concerned with the purposiveness of education, the need to study the history and philosophy of mathematics, science and technology so that students would imbibe a sense of pride in knowing that a great deal of knowledge had come from the East. Eastern sciences, and knowledge in logic and technology have been Westernised so much so that we have failed to recognise that here in Delhi we have the "Jantar Mantar" where it has become a place for some people to relax and chew betel leaves or "pan". The main worry these groups have is that books in English are all published by powerful publishing houses of the western industrialised world. They know that many books are published in India but how
many of these publishers have their network of market in the rest of the world. What it amounts to is that the powerful people of the world control our mind if the reliance is solely on western published books. It is true that knowledge is power and I may add that it is equally true that power determines what knowledge should the world have. Hence we get into a situation where intellectual property has become a commodity. Nobody before the age of so-called "universalism" ever thought of such knowledge as mathematics or medicine or astronomy or philosophy when transferred to the west should be subject to intellectual property rights. The process towards modernisation through industrialisation would expose all Malaysians to the problem of changing values. Some Malaysians may decide to completely emulate the Western industrial revolution mindlessly and to accept the logic of the revolution to be part of the universal human ethos and norms rendering it as acceptable, for instance, unwed motherhood. Other groups may wish to critically absorb those values and reject which are regarded as too obnoxious or bizarre to the senses. And there would be others who believe that there is the option of security in proven practices, which means that modernisation and industrialisation should take place and yet are retained the pre-industrial values. This is considered to be the true path by adherents of orthodoxies or fundamentalisms. To this group the news of the Cold War using Indian beauties is not only ludicrous but hideously obnoxious. Nevertheless, the maintenance of pre-industrial values in the process of industrialisation would require a real plan of action and not merely placebos. The main question before the developing world which is aware of the problem of shifting and conflicting values, is that whether the developing and industrialising countries whish to drift along with the Western industrialised nations with their post-industrial values, or should there be measures to deny the impact of industrialisation and modernisation on traditional values. Or should the superficial values be adopted like dressing and eating habits yet retain fundamental values in communitarianism where everyone feels he or she shares a common fate and destiny. I cannot see the West going back to their valuational system of the pre-industrial period. And equally, I cannot envision that the whole world would be industrialised or even modernised. Black Africa is now being neglected and marginalised. The pre-industrial values will subsist for a long time. Then, I wonder, would there be a dichotomy which makes nonsense the concept of a global village which
presupposes shared values? The biggest challenge before us as I see it is how to make the variegation of valuational systems, norms and beliefs co-exist in peace denying the oracle that future clashes would be between differing civilisations.
9 Creating a Malaysian Nation
am asked to share my thoughts at this Persidangan in the English language on a subject which could be a double entendre. I am not at all sure as to the intention of the organisers by choosing the English language to refer to the subject of "Malaysian Nation". It would seem to me that the intention is to discuss as to how an independent state was created and sustained out of so many different races and creeds. In the English language the study of the creation of a band of people to be characterised as a "nation" would be anthropological and sociological which are the sciences of man (embracing woman) in their widest sense including such topics as determinants of human conduct and behaviour. Nonetheless, I shall endeavour to delve a little on the "Pembentukan Bangsa Malaysia" after I have been through with the nation building of Malaysia as a member of the global community. I believe "Pembentukan Bangsa" or the creation of a nation is part of a continuing process in the economic, political and social development of a state. Refering to the creation of Malaysia as an independent state in the world community perhaps it would be useful to peek a little into history. No events of history in detail would be mentioned but suffice to say that there was once a region known to Western scholars and adventurers as the Malay archipelago (Gugusan Pulau-Pulau Melayu). The key word was "Malay" which became the characteristic feature of the people of the region. As a result of colonialism of the West, after the discovery of the spice islands the archipelago was divided by Portugal, Holland, Britain, Spain and the United States. Before Pearl Harbour, Holland was in control of the present day Indonesia less Timur-Timor (Timtim) which was occupied by the Portuguese, the Malay Peninsular, Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei,
* Persidangan Pemerintahan Dalam Masyarakat Majmuk Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia, 17 -18 August 1995.
Creating a Malaysian Nation / 95
North Borneo were under the hegemonic dominion of Britain while the Philippines was under the US. After Pearl Harbour Japan was the sole master over the area and it was reverted to the pre-Pearl Harbour situation after Hiroshima and Nagasaki exactly fifty years ago. When independence came to these countries they found themselves separated. Maphilindo was an attempt by President Macapagal to reunite them but met with no success. ASEAN in a limited and loose way put them together again. Until 1941 Malaya connoted the Peninsula and Singapore. These two territories were then known as Tanah Melayu or the land of the Malays and the British colonial office had three sets of administration namely the colonies, Federated Malay States and Unfederated Malay States over the whole area. Similar colonial administration was practised in North Borneo although it was owned by a chartered company while Sarawak was governed by the British family of Brooke as Rajah on the pattern of the British colonial administration. Sarawak and Brunei were protectorates similar to the sultanates of the Peninsula. The time of the British domination of the Peninsula and British Borneo was also the height of the industrial revolution in Europe. The industrial machines needed a great deal of raw material such as tin and rubber. Since the native labour for the production of tin was slow and limited to the primitive methods, "Sin-Kheh" (new immigrants) from China, were encouraged to enter the Peninsula to work the modern mines with European and "Lau-Kheh" (old immigrants) Chinese capital. From India, labour was brought in to work in rubber and tea plantations, roads and railways. The stories of emigration and the methods of recruiting immigrants from China and India were horrifying anecdotes of human cargo in their floating hells which under present standards would savour a kind of slavery. While encouraging them to enter the territories they were also particularly made to understand by the British authorities that their stay was temporary and would have to return when they could no longer serve the need of the industrial revolution. There were Departments relating to Chinese affairs and protectorates or PEK-KI-LIN (as the Chinese community would call them after the first head ofthe Chinese Protectorate, W.A. Pickering), and those relating to Indian labour with schemes for their return to their original fatherlands should they become incapacitated or no longer productive. Because of the consistent and insistent requirement that those immigrants should
not lose sight of their fatherlands they were prevented from participating in the political life of the country other than being "kapitan China" and members of the British nominated councils to give advice on labour and economic matters. Teachers and even priests were brought from their respective homelands. That was the British policy of non-interference by immigrants in the Malay affairs. China then had the problems of ejecting the Manchus (tuoli manqing) and later of the split between Kuomintang (KMT) and the Communist Party of China (CPC) while India was concerned with the independent movement in India. All these developments had a bearing on the Chinese and Indian communities living in Malaysia. The Malays remained in their traditional subsistence economy in agriculture many of whom were in Malay Reservations without any system of education other than to make the children better farmers or fishermen than their fathers. They remained in their splendid isolation concerned with the pomp and splendour of their rulers and chiefs often flattered by the colonial officials as "nature's gentries." The British policy of non-interference in the Malay affairs and politics by new immigrants left some thinking Malays to ponder about their own fate and future, not inclusive of the roles of Sin Khehs or Lau Khehs. Whether it was by design or otherwise the cliche "divide et impera" was seen at its best. Nationalists among the Malays began to sprout in the form of religious leaders and pamphleteers and they had glued themselves with their Malay archipelago compatriots in what is now Indonesia. They exchanged meetings and writings and since the Malay language was the lingua franca of the archipelago there was a great deal of interactions. This extended to the Philippines where the people of Indonesia and Malays of Malaysia would extol Rizal as the greatest Malay patriot. The Declaration of the Republic in Mololos was equally rejoiced as a momentous occasion by Malay nationalists of the Peninsula and Indonesians. Equally there were nationalist pressures in the British North Borneo and Sarawak. Because of the policy of non-interference the Chinese were divided as in China between supporters of the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Kyong San Tong (the CPC). The extended arm of the mother organisation in China, the CPC, became the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) covering Singapore as its sphere of activities. Taking a page from the Japanese military administration, which was able to place the Federated States, the Unfederated States, and
the colonies of Singapore, Penang, Malacca under a single administrative control, after the defeat of the Japanese in 1945, Britain using the British military administration introduced the Malayan Union Concept. Malays led by their nationalist leaders of different hues, the most important of which was a political movement, the United Malay National Organisation (UMNO), opposed the constitutional change and the Malayan Union was defeated. By 1948 the Federation of Malaya was born separating Singapore from the administration in Kuala Lumpur and the British managed to federate the states and colonies in the peninsula as a single Federation which was one of the important items in the agenda of the introduction of the Malayan Union concept. It is now a matter for speculation that if there had been no British policy of non-interference by the Chinese and Indian immigrants in the Malayan political life in the inter-war years which became a habit of mind, the objection to the Malayan Union by the Malays would have been negated by the immigrants. Malayan Union was intended to give everyone an equal colonial citizenship as subjects of the British Crown which would equally benefit the immigrants. Before that only those born in the British colonies of Singapore, Malacca and Penang were British subjects while others in the sultanates were British Protected Persons. Since the immigrants were locally apolitical or even apathetic they realised the advantages offered under the Malayan Union concept but a little too late when Malayan Union was about to be banished into oblivion. World War II had brought about many changes, notably the British policy of treating the immigrants as temporary sojourners, had become no longer practical. Neither Communist China nor Independent India would want them back for their own respective reasons. During the inter-war years, the population growth had been rapid and the question of immigrants should have been addressed then and consideration given if there was a need for policy changes. But the British colonial government appeared to be unconcerned; indeed, the British colonial government had even encouraged the growth of small colonies of these immigrants including one Christian community of Chinese in Sitiawan, Perak. Colonies of squatters were tolerated for their agricultural products and petty commercial activities. While there was a secret admiration for the commercial enterprises of the "Chinaman" entertained by colonial expatriates the policy of separating the Malays from the immigrants persisted. Therefore as a backdrop, Peninsula Malaya in 1957 on independence day was a territory with a compartmentalised society
each community identifiable with its vocations. This could not be conducive towards a sustainable state and indeed the situation could explode anytime. Because of the racial compartments according to vocations there were consequentially income differences between the urban Chinese commercial community and the rural Malays and natives seeking out a living in subsistence, primitive rural economy. With such differences in income, the compartmentalisation of society even if it was a single ethnic group or homogenous would find the edges of conflict sharpened caused by income differentials and economic contradictions between urban and rural economies. For the purpose of achieving INDEPENDENCE and NATION BUILDING the leadership of UMNO at that time, which was the strongest political society, decided on a number of policies and action plans in order to achieve NATIONAL UNITY, economic and social progress without which MERDEKA would be an empty word. These policies and action plans were based on many principles some of which may be discerned as follows:The United Malay National Organisation (UMNO), was prepared to share power with other political societies and unselfishly took the lead towards independence and nation building; the action plan for stability was based on the economics of prosperity with grassroot and all races' support; and with the agreement of all concerned there should be enabling clauses in the Constitution or laws promulgated for affirmative policies and actions in order to correct anomalies and level the uneven playing field, ensuring national resilience and NATIONAL UNITY. True to the political belief of the UMNO leadership the first powersharing exercise took place when the people of Kuala Lumpur was going to experience the first elections of the Kuala Lumpur Municipal Council in 1953. A coalition before elections was created between the UMNO and the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) which was converted to a political society from a welfare and friendly society. In a national elections held later just before Merdeka, the Malayan Indian Congress (MIC) joined the pre-elections coalition of UMNO-MCA to become an Alliance Party composed of the three major communal parties losing only one seat. It was this coalition before elections together with the Malay Rulers who achieved independence and democracy for Malayan citizens of all ethnic and religious groups.
The three cornered dialogue partners (the British, Alliance Party and the Sultans) successfully interacted in the spirit of power-sharing which left the colonial power with no reasons not to return powers to the Sultans who in turn gave the powers to the citizens through the Alliance Party. During the MERDEKA negotiation there was no rancour nor ill-feeling among the parties and people at large. There was only joy of achieving MERDEKA and liberty and it may be recalled that there were stories circulated by the prophets of doom that the 31st August 1957 would be day of baptism of fire and blood. The absence of a gory affair caused disappointment among foreign journalists who did not expect a picnic on the midnight of 30 August 1957 at the Selangor Club padang! Again it was this spirit of power-sharing which prompted the formation of Malaysia in 1963. When t h a t spirit was no longer flickering in the hearts of leaders and people of Singapore there was no convulsion nor violence and a peaceful separation took place, when power was split with all its consequences. A hiccup occurred in the history of Malaysia when a racial riot took place on the dark day of 13th May 1969 and the nation paused to take stock of itself like a person who had been afflicted by a minor heart seizure. A state of emergency was declared and Parliament was suspended causing some to moan t h a t democracy had died in Malaysia. A National Operations Council (NOC) headed by the late Tun Abdul Razak was established, with the view to bringing back democracy soonest, which was in the heart of every Malaysian. Again the spirit of power-sharing with the sole objective of nurturing and strengthening NATIONAL UNITY among all Malaysians of all ethnic and religious groups moved for the formationg of a National Consultative Council (NCC) comprising Malaysian citizens from all walks of life. In the spirit of power-sharing with NATIONAL UNITY as its beacon, the NCC evolved a common vision and dedication for the people known as Rukunegara. "Our NATION Malaysia is dedicated To achieving a greater UNITY for all her people; To maintaining a DEMOCRATIC way of life; To creating a JUST SOCIETY in which the wealth of the Nation shall be equitably distributed; To ensuring a liberal approach to her rich and diverse CULTURAL traditions; To building a progressive soceity which shall be oriented to modern
scienc and technology." That was and is the vision, hope and dream of every Malaysian. However, in order to actualise it there must be a yardstick to serve as the measure for thoughts and actions to ensure their consequences would always conduce towards NATIONAL UNITY. To that end Malaysians continuously will pledge their united efforts guided by the following five principles:Belief in God; Loyalty to King and Country; Upholding the Constitution; Rule of Law; Decorum and Morality. These guiding principles would be applicable to the government, private sector, employers, employees and indeed to all Malaysian citizens alike. The National Consultative Council inspired by Rukunegara formulated the New Economic Policy (NEP) which would serve as the insurance for the nurturing and preservation of NATIONAL UNITY. The NEP had a two pronged objectives; one, to eradicate poverty irrespective of race and community; two, to restructure society so that communities would no longer be identified with their vocations. With the Rukunegara and the NEP in place, Malaysian leadership being wedded to democracy, after about twenty-one months decided to reconvene Parliament where the Yang di-Pertuan Agung presented Rukunegara to the country. Parliament then began to debate the NEP which was accepted by both Houses. With the Rukunegara in place and the resumption of Parliament, democracy in Malaysia after all did not die. However, in terms of nation building, Malaysians decided that it was in their interest to limit some of their liberties, like freedom of insulting other races or religions, or such actions which would lead to the breakdown in NATIONAL UNITY. These subjects were classified as "sensitive issues" and accepted by the people as necessary for the strengthening of NATIONAL UNITY and stability, prerequisites for sustainable economic and social development. Let us return to the time before Malaysia achieved independence. At first, the most sensitive issue was "citizenship". Malayan Union would have made natives and immigrants alike, under certain condition, to be equal in citizenship with equal privileges and
obligations. The Federation of Malaya Constitution resolved the question of "citizenship". And when Malaysia was formed (1963) "citizenship" was no longer an issue. The most important issue in August 1957 was the future of the country so populated by diverse communities and religious groups whether the nation-state could sustain its integrity or independence. Alliance political leaders recognised that there must be some rearrangement of the society so that the colonial legacy of compartmentalised society would be obliterated. However, they recognised that this could not be achieved overnight. The late Tun Abdul Razak, then the Deputy Prime Minister, was entrusted by the Alliance Government to resolve the problem of income differentials as between the urban people who were mainly of Chinese descent and the tural populace who were Malays and natives. The late Tun launched the Rural Development Programme which became a world-model in that sphere of economic activities. The objective of the scheme was to help in the improvement of income of the rural people by providing basic economic infrastructures and amenities to reduce cost thereby increasing their earnings and savings. While the population in rural areas remained in status quo, meaning they were mainly Malays, no affirmative action could be done for them or their children to be involved in urban commercial activities due to their state of unpreparedness. Even the education of their youths could only obtain for them jobs as soldiers or policeman or petty clerks and peons. These young men, the children of the subsistence agricultural Malays and other natives were selected and resettled in the Federal Land Development Schemes where they would earn more than had they remained in their original villages with their parents. It was the children of these people and those who joined the security forces and other lowly graded government departments who were netted into better education. Affirmative policies and actions were fully applied for them in this regard. The NEP had a time-frame of 20 years from 1970. No one could deny its success as figures of eradication of poverty and restructuring of society would show. In the early days of the NEP there was a lot of misunderstanding that the NEP was intended to make Malays rich, or that the Malays and natives would own 30% of all commercial interests to be measured in terms of capital and equity holding. What the NEP did in the restructing programme was to create a commercial community among the natives changing their age-old vocations as identified in subsistence agriculture. The measure of success would
not be in the amount of capitalisation but in the number of Malays and natives involved in one or other of commercial activities. Surely no one would imagine that a native Muslim would be involved in the business of rearing pigs to make up a 30% count in that industry. Often now when a bank officer is asked about his parents or his place of origin he would not hesitate to say that he came from such a village or from such a FELDA scheme and that he enjoyed scholarships at foreign or local universities or studied at MARA Institute of Technology. What the NEP has succeeded was the creation of a middle class composed of all races which was part of the unwritten agenda in the restructuring of society. There have been no racial conflagrations since 13 May 1969. It may be recalled that one of the two objectives of the NEP was the eradication of poverty irrespective of race or community. The NEP targetted the poverty incidence to be reduced to 16.7% by 1990. It is now on record that the incidence of poverty has been reduced from 52.4% in 1970 to 17.1% in 1990, not quite hitting the target but almost. In the spirit of togetherness in nation building the Barisan Nasional (BN) Government, at the end of 20-year period of NEP, invited various organisations and associations including all political societies in addition to a few individuals to form a National Economic Consultative Council (NECC). The nation responded and a council of 150 was constituted with the task of evaluating the NEP and to make recommendations for the future. I was privileged to have been elected as its Chairman. Nowhere in the world has such an arrangement been established where the opposition parties together with that of the Government, the NGOs, teachers, priests, community leaders sat together without the glare and blare of publicity to ponder about the past, present and future of their country. This is the best testimony of the national spirit of togetherness and power-sharing in the creation and the nurturing of a Malaysian Nation. The NECC took more than a year to prepare its report and recommendations after taking into account the representations from the public including those of the opposition parties. Unfortunately some individuals and those representatives of opposition political societies having realised that their proposals had been well considered and some accepted as reflected in the report, found that in the context of confrontational democracy of the Western kind they would have been left with no issues to oppose. Nineteen (19) of the one hundred fifty (150), decided not to sign the final report. The rest of the NECC unanimously agreed
and sent the 444 page report and recommendations to the Government. Since then the Government with the support of Parliament has launched the National Development Policy (NDP) with the aim of making Malaysia a fully developed nation by the year 2020. The Vision does not focus only on economic development but also social with high moral and ethical values assuring a high standard of political and administrative sophistication and efficiency. The time has arrived when, after five successive five-year plans and NEP, there are now available human resources to actualise fully the vision of Rukunegara. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during 1971-1990 grew at an average rate of 6.7% despite the severe recession in the 80s and it has increased from RM21.5b to RM79b. A restructured human resources were now available though the number was small but adequate to make a start. The NDP would strike an optimum balance between the objectives of economic growth and an equitable sharing among Malaysians the benefits of growth. In the NDP two aspects stand out namely the programmes for growth and equitable distribution. The NDP having targetted 2020 as the date for accomplishment has now been widely known as Vision 2020. Symbolically 2020 also represents a perfect balanced vision. Right through the various endeavours from the time of Malayan and Malaysian Merdeka NATIONAL UNITY has been the beacon as the guiding light in the process of nation building. Central to the various activities taken has always been the spirit of togetherness and communitarianism. Individualism and materialism are matters under constant attention since they could contribute towards destabilising the country. The Constitution containing the spirit of the Medina Constitution guarantees the rights of all citizens and their fundamental liberties but the freedom of speech would not tolerate the shouting of "fire"! in a crowded theatre where there was none. The national anthem is a prayer so that people would always be UNITED and progressive. In our national flag the canton of dark blue stands for the UNITY of the people while the 14 pointed star on it is symbolic of the UNITY of the 13 states and the Federal Territory. The Malaysian Crest says BERSEKUTU BERTAMBAH MUTU and they have been inaccurately translated by some as "unity is strength". But it is an adage which bares the sense that the value of a person is enhanced if he was UNITED with another. A person has value as an individual but will have more if UNITED with another. All these make up the various elements in the process of creating a
Malaysian Nation. The Malaysian Nation as a member of the global community has citizens with equality in fundamental liberties before the law. Yet one still hears some murmurings particularly from outside the country that the citizenship is not equal because of the enabling clauses in the Constitution of affirmative action in respect of the special position of the Malays and bumiputras, giving the imagery of the existence of first-class and second-class citizenship. It was much highlighted at one time in the 60s in the slogan "Malaysian Malaysia" which demanded the abolition of the recognition of the special position of the Malays and other indigenous people. Luckily the Malaysian leadership was sensible enough to ignore it. If the enabling clauses for affirmative action had been removed then there was sure to be chaos, since that would be ignoring the uneven playing field and the need for a handicap system to remedy past inequities. In the 60s our society was very compartmentalised and therefore unready. Time had to be taken for the NEP to do the job of decompartmentalising society and the levelling of the playing field. The Government has been careful not to provide the opportunity for the goal posts to be shifted after the field has been levelled. Hence Vision 2020. For Vision 2020 to emerge it has taken more than twenty years and the time taken was essential if the Malaysian Nation was to endure. Germane to the process of nation building there is a new element which could easily queer up all past successes. This refers to the question of foreign workers. At the moment they are viewed as essential. So did the British colonial government view the Sin Khehs who later caused politial and social problems which unendingly the colonial power had to bear the blame. Our grandchildren would be justified in calling us as mindless or suffering from a fit of absentmindedness if we did not have contingency plans and a longterm policy regarding these foreign workers and illegal immigrants. The future cannot be projected on the basis of the dominant pattern of today. Who could say, because of new circumstances, that their countries of origin would not have them back. Neither should matters be allowed to drift. While Vision 2020 would need sufficient number of workers, the societal vision of future problems just cannot be ignored. Humans including immigrant workers wed and multiply and multiplication becomes social and political problems, not just arithmetical! Let us now turn to consider "Creating a Malaysian Nation" as PEMBENTUKAN BANGSA MALAYSIA. It is in reality a continuation of the past policies and actions in the nurturing of a cartographic area left by the British to be a member of the global community. "Citizenship"
or "Warga", according to a few, stinks of discrimination because it is being subjected to the special position of the Malays and bumiputras. "Warga" should be "Bangsa" as a word so that there would be a new look and a Malaysian citizen would proudly call himself "Bangsa Malaysia" or one belonging to the Malaysian Nation, thus hopefully the explosive stigma of the so-called discriminatory citizenship or "Warga Malaysia" is defused. "Bangsa Malaysia" has often been used recently without explanation or interpretation as if they were commonly understood by all. When asked what the words mean the reply has always been unclear. Some Malays reacted that there was no such thing as "Bangsa Malaysia". Non-Malays or non-bumiputras notably those Malaysian citizens of Chinese descent welcome the idea of a publicly acknowledged "Bangsa Malaysia", generally because they want to belong to a definite "Bangsa" rejecting China's Nationality Law which provides under jus senguinis for all HAN Chinese anywhere in the world the status of "Bangsa China" (Huaqio) irrespective of citizenship. Likewise Indonesians who have acquired Malaysian citizenships do not wish to be referred to as belonging to Bangsa Indonesia. A Malaysian citizen of Chinese origin visiting the Forbidden City in Peking is sure to be shown a different gate with smaller entrance fees reserved for HAN Chinese. The treatment, though intended to be well-meaning and pedantic, is surely very much to the discomfort of a Malaysian citizen of Chinese descent. He would be more comfortable if he could claim in China that he was not a Huaqio but a "Bangsa Malaysia". Should the idea of creating a Malaysian Nation is to have a "Bangsa Malaysia" in order to remove the odium, if it was really odious, that the "Kerakyatan" or "Citizenship" is stratified and not equal, the question arises as to its impact on the programme for actualising Vision 2020. It is not envisaged that there would be difficulty in everyday usage substituting "Warga" by "Bangsa" while the programme for actualising Vision would continue as in the Second Outline Perspective Plan (OPP2). However, if it was an earnest desire to create a new ethnic band or group to be characterised as Malaysian by the year 2020 the planned process should be started now. If the first idea was the dominant desire, all that is needed is to popularise the word "Bangsa Malaysia" with an intensive campaign. "Warga" does not involve religion or culture. A campaign could be started to link "Bangsa" with "Warga". The creation of "Bangsa
Malaysia" in that manner could be possible as a lay exercise but "Bangsa" would not have the force of law. For the law to take effect the Constitution would have to be amended to refer to "Kerakyatan" or "Warga" as "Bangsa" or to create a legal definition of "Bangsa Malaysia" as distinct from "Warganegara" with its rights and obligations. Since the implications for such a constitutional amendment would be far-reaching, a very serious study and consultation or "muafakat" will have to be made to ensure that such a move would not be destabilising and negatively impacting on
NATIONAL UNITY.
On the other hand the creation of a band of people to be known as Malaysian Nation as a natural process out of the various races in anthropological terms would require a time-frame and societal engineering. This will certainly be greatly welcomed by those Malaysian citizens, the product of mixed marriages. Such an exercise will be thought to be at the expense of those who thought they already have a "Bangsa". In this regard I am sure many Malays will ask what the old saying "MELAYU TIDAK AKAN HILANG DI DUNIA" means. Is it MELAYU as a BANGSA or MELAYU as a BAHASA? Duality in "Bangsa" will create confusing issues. In this regard consultations (muafakat) are indicated. Who knows what is in store for the future? While now there may be objection to the popularisation of "Bangsa Malaysia" for sentimental, emotional or other reasons, during the journey towards 2020, dictated by new imperatives and new determinants, objection may turn to acceptance. Change should not take place for the sake of change but change should be welcomed and encouraged and engineered if such a change would conduce to the transparent benefits for all. There is today a shifting of paradigm in the world order. It will not be a matter of surprise if the pattern of hard-held beliefs and heartfelt sentiments too would soften to form new patterns. The challenge for all Malaysians who walk the path of Vision 2020 is whether they would choose to change with the engineered changes brought about by the Vision which would preserve core values and cultural roots or to remain ossified without roots and any sense of direction.
70
The Making of a New South East Asia: Our Regional Vision
t is with a great deal of trepidations that I am addressing this gathering of luminaries from South East Asia. How can I pretend to speak to you on OUR vision? At best I could only say something regarding my own vision for what it is worth. And I shall begin with a definition of South East Asia. I would include ASEAN countries, Indo-China countries and Myanmar as South East Asia. Nearly all of those countries mentioned are represented here. Next, I shall also endeavour to provide glints of the foresight, discernments and the futuristic imagination of ASEAN leaders and their mode of conception and actualisation of what they considered as responses to the challenges of the time. Because of their faith in the concept of togetherness, some leaders in the region began consultations with the aim of organising themselves in a cooperative grouping for mutual benefits of its members. Approaches were made even to Sri Lanka. However, only Thailand, the Philippines and Malaya positively agreed and in 1961 ASA was formed. Unfortunately in the context of cold war East-West rivalries without Indonesia, the home of the Bandung spirit, the grouping was suspect. After all, Thailand and the Philippines were allies of the US while Malaya had a defence treaty with Britain. It was even interpreted by some as an anti-Sukarno stance. A year or so later having persuaded the late President Sukarno to get the much needed Indonesian participation, Maphilindo was born with Malaya, the Philippines and Indonesia participating without Thailand from the original group of ASA which went into cold storage. Malaya, having the vision of togetherness in a Malaysian concept with British Singapore and the Borneo states agreed to Maphilindo in the hope
Paper Presented at the Third South East Asia Forum (SEAF) in Kuala Lumpur, 7-9 January 1991.
that President Sukarno would not eventually object to the formation of Malaysia. However, President Sukarno had his own vision of togetherness for the Peninsula and other island states in South East Asia. As the Permanent Secretary for External Affairs, I remember discussing with the late Tunku who was then both the Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs expressing my reservation at the latest development because I felt Maphilindo smacked too much of a racialist gathering - a grouping of the Malay race. And more important still was the fact that in the middle of the formation of Malaysia the Philipines insisted that Malaya and not Malaysia would be one of the three components of Maphilindo thus aborting the Malaysia Plan. With the formation of Malaysia in September 1963, Indonesia together with the Philippines the two members, collided with the third and Maphilindo also was kept in abeyence. ASA and Maphilindo never really took off but together they were destined for the future to play an effective role in South East Asia. During the period of the non-relation between Malaysia and Indonesia, as part of the effort to resolve the unhappy episode, I was entrusted to make contacts with or to respond to contacts from Indonesia. After a credible communication was firmly established and the process of reconciliation was in place and my counterpart, the late General Tan Sri Ali Moertopo together with our respective teams including General Tan Sri Moerdani and Tan Sri Ahmad Yusuf and Datuk Jabid met secretly a number of times in third countries and focused our vision of the future. Our respective masters were of one mind that Konfrontasi must not be allowed to recur. To this end we concluded with the promotion of the idea of the closest cooperation possible between all countries of South East Asia. We returned to our respective capitals with a formula and the rough modalities of the mode of cooperation which later, after the normalisation of relations between Malaysia and Indonesia as well as with the Philippines, and after intensive consultations, matured into the ASEAN Declaration made in Bangkok in 1967. It will be observed that ASEAN was a combination of ASA, Maphilindo with Singapore and Malaysia. Let it be noted that ASEAN was formed by a mere Declaration and ostensibly as an organisation for trade and economic cooperation among its members. Yet few seriously question the fact that the mechanism is headed by meetings of Foreign Ministers. There is something hidden here. The framers of the Declaration did throw in elements of politics and diplomacy yet they were couched in such a
The Making of a New South East Asia / 109
way as en passant with economic and trade cooperation as the primary objective. The vision of the drafters of the Declaration was that for political problems to be managed the relevant actors should continously be exposed to each other. So also should civil servants, security officers and the private sector. ASEAN became such a forum. When the Foreign Ministers met they did so in camera and discussed almost anything that mutually concerned them without the blare and glare of publicity be they political, social or economic. When questioned by pressmen outside the conference room whether they discussed any specific political issues, they were quick to reply that they did not touch on any diplomatic or political issues since ASEAN delved only on trade and economic matters. Yet, these Ministers were from the respective foreign ministries. That gave them a free hand to work out programmes to resolve problems, to blunt the edges of conflict and to get the people in ASEAN close to each other. There developed a habit of mind, of thinking in terms of ASEAN. Meetings, seminars, games and Chambers of Commerce in the name of ASEAN sprouted all over. There was even an ASEAN Dental Conference I encountered once in Pattaya, Thailand. ASEAN consciousness gradually blossomed and became a regional and a world factor. ASEAN also developed the concept of dialogue partnerships which became institutionalised. In the meantime, the Cold War and the East/West tension seemed to reach a new height in 1971. The British East of Suez policy (1968) was being implemented when Britain pulled out from Malaysia and Singapore in 1971. China, with her cultural revolution in full frenzy, continued to pose a real threat when Peking increased its inspired insurgency activities and subversions in the region for which Vietnam was used as training centres by China. ASEAN recognised that the member countries were too weak to face external threats and challenges. ASEAN leaders met and devised the idea of the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN). It was their common vision that South East Asia should be such a region and not a theatre of EastWest rivalries. Again it will be observed ZOPFAN came into being by way of a DECLARATION in 1971. It should be remembered that the Vietnam War was not going too well for the US and her allies, and there were enough prophets of doom and gloom who talked a great deal of the domino theory. Malaysia was not one of those who subscribed to that theory of the
inevitable victory of communism in Asia. President Suharto called for national and regional resilience emphasising the need for national and regional economic development and increased inter - ASEAN economic and political cooperation. Some would interpret self-reliance and national resilience in military terms. ZOPFAN nevertheless, albeit a Declaration, became an inspiration for enhancing vigilance through bilateral and regional cooperation and coordination under the umbrella of ASEAN ZOPFAN came under heavy fire from quarters that did not subscribe to Neutrality but rather on the principle, "if you are not with me you are against me." Differing interpretations of motives were made ignoring that it was a concept and not a project but rather an expression of a desire and a process. The idea of equidistance and neutrality upset some Western powers and their supporters. The Soviets turned it into a cold war subject giving it a kiss of death by associating it with their own concept of the Asian security arrangement which was designed to isolate and encircle China which was the only big power that saw merits in ZOPFAN. Rhetorics and hairsplitting arguments emerged in various publications. The main target was the guarantee for neutrality. Since power is not permanent I spoke unequivocably in 1974 that foreign or big power guarantees should no longer be a matter for consideration. Where are the guarantors of Switzerland today? The talk of "guarantees of neutrality" among ASEAN was symptomatic of the big power dependency syndrome then. In any case there has been no precedent of the neutrality of a group of countries. When the US left South Vietnam in haste and its unpopular propped-up regime with it in 1975 the sense of insecurity deepened among ASEAN and the first formal agreement entitled "The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in South East Asia" was entered into in Bali 1976 inviting other South East Asia countries, obviously the IndoChina states of Vietnam, Kampuchea and Laos to cooperate on the basis of non-aggression and non-interference principles mutually denying themselves to be used as a theatre of conflicts. China had since been disenchanted with Moscow and Vietnam. Moscow and Vietnam saw this Treaty as part of an American ploy to continue its presence in South East Asia following the Nixon Doctrine. Yet the Treaty was designed by ASEAN leaders to meet the reservations about dependency on the US under the Nixon Doctrine which permitted US involvement only in the least probable scenario, a direct aggression by a major power. In the case of external
interferences through subversion even for a major power the US was committed only to be onlookers. In any case the challenges of subversion have always been an internal matter. Pham Van Dong, as Vietnamese Prime Minister, visited all ASEAN capitals assuring them of peace and non-interference and revealing that the subversives sent to South East Asia trained in Vietnam were organised by China. ASEAN capitals responded positively by assuring cooperation in the reconstruction of Vietnam. However, soon after Dong's visit to ASEAN capitals, Kampuchea was occupied by Vietnam. ASEAN had the greatest aversion against Pol Pot and his homicidal maniacs but Vietnamese aggression could not be rewarded or condoned. The first open political move after the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in South East Asia was the ASEAN condemnation of Vietnam's aggression. This was followed by the various diplomatic manouvres in all the world fora. The establishment of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) was to diffuse the role of Pol Pot by bringing in all other nationalist factions thus providing the world with Sihanouk as the contact point for seeking a peaceful solution for the suffering people of Kampuchea. The ASEAN initiatives worked and the warring parties eventually were brought to Jakarta and Paris at the initiatives of ASEAN as represented by Foreign Minister Alatas of Indonesia and its dialogue partner, France, following a unanimous Security Council Resolution. lt is now up to the Kampuchean factions to save their own people from further disasters. China had in her own words taught Vietnam a lesson and Vietnam, unimpressed, became a member of COMICON and even allowed USSR the use of Cam Rahn Bay. All what I was describing were some of the events that happened since 1967 when ASEAN was born followed by ZOPFAN and the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. Based on the dominant pattern of that time with the Cold War sending down shivers in every capital, ASEAN leaders created those devices for the maintenance of peace and freedom of their respective countries as their common vision. Things have changed in the late 80s as we entered the 90s. Perestroika started a process which no one could predict in the 70s. What are some of the characteristics of the new changes? 1. Perestroika claims for Gorbachev a "European Home" which means the return of Moscow as a European capital, as in the days of the
Romanovs. The other republics being former colonies or protectorates of the Tsar and being annexed by Stalin now will feel that they have the right to reassert their independence particularly those Asiatics which by definition are disqualified from the "European Home". The Baltic States want to return to Europe under their own respective banners. Since the Soviet industries particularly of armaments are so dispersed among the Republics any immediate independence, before relocation of the industries or some arrangement of a relationship as the old British Commonwealth, would be disastrous for Moscow and her new friends. The Gulf crisis could be relevant to the Soviet Islamic and Asiatic Republics. One can envision the use of force without any disapprobation from the West at least for the time being to keep the Republics together under Moscow. Force unfortunately will beget force. Perhaps this is what made Mr. Shevardnadze leave his job as Foreign Minister of USSR in a huff. 2. Following Perestroika to its logical conclusion all East Europe satellite states and East Germany had to be liberated. This makes the unwise majority among the West gleeful regarding the development as a victory for capitalism. Following the victory of the Allies in the World War II, there came a Marshall Plan for Europe. The same kind of thinking has emerged in the West. All resources should be directed from the West to rebuild those countries from the political, economic and social devastations brought about by communism thus marginalising other parts of the world. This creates a very transparent North-South divide. 3. The collusion between US, the West and USSR leaves the world without an equilibrium as understood during the Cold War and the East-West conflicts which lasted about five decades. European and American vestigial racism will reassert itself and so will religious prejudices all over the globe. Problems other than those relating to European, Russian and Anglo-Saxon in nature would be neglected. Only the kidnapped Westerners in Lebanon will receive attention. The fear syndrome becomes intensified everywhere. What are the implications of this lack of balance and diminishing ideological divides which bring about the fear syndrome? (a) The sense of nervousness and paranoia would be felt most in areas of conflict where all hopes for settlement have slipped away. Hence,
one sees Israel reacting to Intifada the way she does heavy handedly in panic. Without the Soviet Union's restraining hands as an ally of some of the Arab countries notably Iraq, Israel could face a real danger. The US whose shield Israel is dependent upon ultimately is too far away to meet a blitzkrieg. The Israelis too as seen in the international news when they deal with the Intifada are no longer the same kind of pioneering people who came into that part before and immediately after 1948. These children and grandchildren of the pioneers are soft and weepy and under pressure even by stone-throwing Arab youths have shown overpowering fright with irrational and excessive reactions. Israel and US prevailed upon their new friend Gorbachev to let Jews from the USSE migrate to Israel. By now there must be more than two hundred thousand Jews from the USSE. These ex-Soviet citizens, well trained in the Soviet Union no doubt some are reservists, will value every inch of the earth they get in Israel. They wll equally value their freedom which they never had in USSE like going out to coffee shops, buying things they like in supermarkets or listening to radio and watching television unhindered. They will be determined, like the original settlers, to fight any attempt at depriving them of their new life in freedom. And they are Europeans as the majority of Israelis are. What is the reaction of the Arabs to the new developments? Now that the Soviets can no longer be regarded as true friends because of Gorbachev's Perestroika, and the concept of "European Home" and witnessing helplessly the Jews from the USSE migrating in droves to Israel the more sensitive of the Arab peoples like Iraq which has some capability to act took the measures they thought best even if the occupation of Kuwait is maddeningly an act of aggression. What of it? Israel, according to them, had occupied Arab lands hitherto with equal madness. The occupation of Kuwait would create a checkmate. "If you want me to get out of Kuwait remove our fears by getting the land-grabbing Israel out of Golan Heights, Lebanon and Palestine according to the UN Security Council Resolutions". The occupation of Kuwait by Iraq provided the Israelis and the US with the reason for bringing in the US forces into the region where they will stay for a long time irrespective of the outcome of the Kuwait crisis to allay the fears of Israelis. Indeed colonialism in all forms have returned to West Asia. The Israelis knew that Iraq was enmassing at the border of Kuwait in late July last year; so must also the US. The US did not come to
Saudi Arabia until four days after Iraq had entered Kuwait. If Iraq had wanted Saudi Arabia there was nothing to stop Saddam Hussein; but he stopped short. This explains the checkmate move which gave Israel now the comfort of having US direct shield in the region and Iraq the linkage of Kuwait with the Palestine and other West Asian issues. FEAR is the supreme spirit of evil at work and no one today is inclined to play the role of how to remove this diabolic syndrome in West Asia. The solution of the US and the West seems limited only to the removal of Saddam Hussein from the scene. Earnest diplomacy is absent and peaceful solution only a lip service. There is a lot of sabre-rattling and propaganda from all quarters. In the process of removing Iraq from Kuwait Israel might be embroiled willy nilly. Should that occur no one can be sure whether the troops of Syria, Egypt and Morocco would not find common cause with Iraqi troops. Jordan and Iran would surely join the fray against Israel. One should not be surprised if volunteers would come from wherever there are Muslims as far as the Islamic provinces of China and the Soviet Asiatic Republics, to join ranks in a show of solidarity with their Muslim compatriots. Even if the US with Israel and their allies were to destroy Jordan, Iraq and Iran, poor is the triumph that would take generations to mend fractured human relationships and years of technical rehabilitation. The ill-effect on world environment would likely to be massive. The industrialised world would be the worse for it as the rest would likewise suffer. (US dollar would not suffice to recompense the injured Arab pride and loss of Palestine while the rest of the Muslims would spurn it. Someone pointed out to me that the US one dollar note is the one-eyed Dadjal who stares from the tip of Pharoah's tomb!) (b)In Asia where the Cold War had not really thawed as yet the situation may change drastically if in a state of fear the Vietnam syndrome would again rear its ugly head. The East Asian cultures have a common command trait of the social responsibility to the family and the society. This converges somewhat with Marxian and Maoist thoughts. Therefore, I see Marxism and Maoism being more difficult to dislodge in China, North Korea and Vietnam in spite of what Western commentators say. This situation can create a number of scenarios. The one scenario that we should envision is to actualise for the world a political and economic power equilibrium so that the fear syndrome could be managed. I have a vision of Asia playing that role.
I have touched somewhat on the security and political disequilibrium in the world. There is the economic balance that is beginning to get more lopsided. Already the developing world of Africa, south of the Sahara, is being marginalised and regarded as hopeless cases. For the West it would be better to concentrate on the East Europeans who ideologically must be saved from the return of Communism and from the economic dominance of Japan and the other fast industrialising countries of East and South East Asia. The development aid in the past from the West was after all no more than to prevent those poor developing states from turning "bolshie" while that from-Moscow during the cold war was aimed at keeping the struggling poor countries from turning "bourgeousie". Even Japan was persuaded to think in these terms and sided with the West. The new Western strategy for foreign aid is that the receipient countries concerned would have to make democratic progress. Western Europe is concentrating on uplifting the East European economy with the possibility of turning Western Europe into one mighty trading bloc by 1992. It may be recalled that the bloc began in 1957 (Treaty of Rome) as a means of avoiding another European acrimony and more. It developed into a process for the free flow of services and goods and labour and capital eliminating internal tariffs eventually to form a customs union with a common external tariff. By 1992 a "Fortress Europe" may emerge. The trends towards protectionism are evidenced by rising levels of non-tariff protection of its food, footwear and clothing. Likewise, the US trade policy too has been showing signs of protectionism despite the anti-protectionist rhetorics of the Administration. The US practised protectionism in the 30s which was aimed at protecting jobs and industries. Protectionist sentiment is therefore not new. What is new is the present rationale which is retaliation against what the US Administration regards subjectively as "unfair" trade practices by a foreign country. The diminution in the global trade and economy of the US brought about this new rationale particularly against Japan and other East and South East Asian countries. Britain too went through the same protectionist pressures once before when she went into decline against US and Germany. In both cases they (the US and Britain) reflect the sentiment of peoples who feel their trade was diminishing or losing hegemony in the global scene alleging foreign successes in penetrating their markets on the ground that, "ours open and theirs close" or such kind of attitude. Resulting from more military spending in the US there would be further dissaving unless adequate financial succour comes from the
Gulf princes and potentates. In the absence of such financial contributions one could expect a more vigorous scapegoating as "unfair traders" of the more efficient and competitive producers of the East and South East Asian region. Bilateral trade surplusses with the US ipso facto will provide the administration with reasons to look for the so-called unfair trading practices. Some ASEAN countries have on occasions been subject to threats of sanctions even if the sources of information were suspect. The Super 301 and the special 301 provisions are many steps further than what GATT provided for as unfair practices. In 1985 US entered into a trading pact with Israel with each country committed to remove all tariffs and most non-tariff barriers on mutual trade in goods including trade in services by 1995. In 1989 the Canadian-United States Free Trade Agreement (CANUSTA) came into being and Mexico is likely to be a full partner. Such pacts can only encourage trade with "partners" and bilateral agreements with selected third countries thus denying the claim for multilateral liberalisation. Their impact to our region would be more significant if CANUSTA moves south beyond Mexico. The selected countries beyond the Americas as partners of CANUSTA may also be used to break up ASEAN (if ASEAN is considered dangerous) by inviting one or two of its members who are gullible enough to join it. It can also be used to prevent the emergence and strengthening of non-favoured group cooperations. It is sincerely hoped that the US-ASEAN Memorandum of Understanding signed in Washington on December 21, 1990 was a bona fide desire of a dialogue partner "to address important policy issues concerning ASEAN-US trade and investment cooperation", and not a device to abort the Asian bloc initiative. If the US is unable to restore balance in its external accounts through macroeconomic adjustments and losing its competitiveness and hegemony in world trade against Japan and newly industrialised and industrialising countries like ours, the US trade policy is expected to become more aggressive and protectionist. Unfortunately for the US and the world the thawing of the Cold War does not result in savings but increased spending in the Gulf crisis. EC and CANUSTA acting more or less as trading blocs would easily be the most powerful in the world. There are some others of minor strengths like the Caribbean Common Market, Central American Common Market which could easily be brought into CANUSTA while the Economic Community of West African States as associates of EC, if they are not already there in practice.
What is our vision when ASEAN is neither fish nor fowl and not even a red herring? And in view of the lack of equilibrium of power in the world what is Asia doing to ensure a global peace and economic equity? As pointed out, two problems are glaringly facing the world today: one is political, the other economic and both are mutually affecting and reinforcing and therefore could and should be tackled together. To remove the fear syndrome as manifested everywhere in the world a balance of power has to be returned to the UN in the global scene. With Russia in a "European Home", East Europe osmotically looking up to EC, US and Canada there is a clear sign of a gathering together emerging into a new mode of arrangement. The old order has changed but the new is still nebulous. There are new dynamics in the political and economic evolutions and shifting alliances. This is a period of transitions and history is full of tragic stories when such an event occurred. Until a new equilibrium is firmly apparent there would be instability. This volatile period is a period of fear which should be quickly removed. This is therefore also a period of opportunity for Asia by entering the arena as the new factor in the matrices of power in order to play a constructive role in the maintenance of world peace and to create an equitable and stable renewed world economic order. The Asia which I envision while varied in political systems and history will include those in the Pacific rim of Asia excluding the Far East USSR since the thinking and culture there are moulded in Moscow and therefore hardly Asian. ASEAN and Indo China states are certainly Asian while to the West I shall include Myanmar and the SARC nations led by India and to the North the divided Korea. With regard to West Asia geographically they are Asians but the people there think of themselves as a world of their own claiming a political and cultural cohesion. Hence, the oft repeated claims, which may be moot, that the Iraqi-Kuwait problem should be resolved by the peoples of that region alone without outside interference. As I mentioned earlier the least developed countries and some developing countries in Africa, Asia and South America feel themselves marginalised by the West in view of the latest political and economic development in the world. They have begun to try to look after their own affairs and welfare, shedding off the big power dependency syndrome and replacing it by greater faith in themsellves and their self-reliance. The South Commission Report submitted last year has that as its theme. The G15 Meeting held in Kuala Lumpur recently was aimed towards the same end.
Asia's role as I see it is to meet the challenges of the lack of political security balance as well as the divide between the North and the South. Asia is well qualified to play that role. Asia has a large number of non-Arabic Muslims as well as non-European Christians of all denominations. Asia contains developing as well as newly industrialised countries with Japan representing the fully industrialised and economic power. Therefore Asia which coheres can be the pacifier for the more troubled emotions and fears. The machinery through which Asia could play her various roles would be the United Nations Organisation, the Security Council, the various international agencies. On political and security matters Asia can be a truly powerful force if Asia fully stands behind China. A Security Council with China as a permanent member could be an effective initiator in the pacific settlement of disputes. She could even prevent the UN from endorsing a war whatever may be the provocation. And China today in the present crisis in the Gulf together with India and Japan supported by ASEAN and others could be a great influence to bring back into perspective the problems of the Gulf and West Asia which are centred around a sense of debilitating fear and unfulfilled hopes as a result of the impotence of the Security Council and the apathy of the international community. Israelis, Arabs and Iranians there equally suffer from this fear syndrome. Similarly with regard to the North-South divide Asia could very effectively play positive roles through UN and other agencies not excluding national agencies for international cooperation providing for bilateral and multilateral economic development programmes. In this regard Japan together with other capable Asian countries, in an organised Asian compact, can serve as the engine of growth and of South-South and South-North cooperations and collaborations. Japan is in the G-7 where she could confidently play her role, fully representing Asian sensitivities and not just Japanese, conscious of the Asian backing she will always have. Likewise in GATT and other places, Asian voice could be the power to break down any protectionist tendencies. On the subject of protectionism Asia within itself must submerge any protectionist sentiment. In both political and economic terms Asia could serve mankind as a balance and the sobering factor in an ever evolving volatile configuration. It is in their enlightened self-interest that the countries of Asia should hang together like a cluster of bamboos in the turbulent winds.
Asia is the land of bamboos from which Asians should learn their lessons. Bamboos are always in cluster, the taller of which stoops. There should be no room for political or economic hegemony. No Asian co-prosperity sphere but an Asia where fate and destiny are commonly and equally shared. In order to bring this about there should be greater awareness with regard to the usefulness of the Asian cooperation in the face of new challenges. This could be brought about by direct interactions between leaders. The initiative can be started by ASEAN. As I see it the first step is for all ASEAN to cohere in this regard. There should be greater consultations collectively and bilaterally. The hopes and fears of small states should be reckoned with. The ASEAN secretariat should be strengthened and made to play an effective role by providing it with financial and human resources and all the wherewithal commensurate with the needs of time and the revitalised
ASEAN.
ASEAN also can revive Asian interests in the concept of ZOPFAN and renew their endeavours to secure its actualisation. Europe has reached a milestone in the creation of a ZOPFAN at the Kleber International Conference Centre in Paris, France on November 19, 1990 when ten NATO members, six Warsaw powers and twelve others attended the historic opening ceremony of a three-day Summit Conference in European Security. They did so after witnessing the signing of the historic Arms Treaty at the French Presidential Palace where the US President and USSE President in the company of the French President and other Western leaders put their signatures on the celebrated document. That Treaty limited each side (NATO: Warsaw) to 20,000 artillery pieces, 30,000 armed combat vehicles, 20,000 main battle tanks, 3,000 combat helicopters and 6,000 fighter planes. The Treaty covered an area stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Urals which is a zone of approximately four million sq. km. The military balance in Europe by a stroke of the pen was altered eliminating the Soviet conventional armed superiority. The event was relevant only to Europe but not to Asia. Following the Rome-Moscow pact of November 20, 1990 other bilateral European and East European treaties would be entered into giving beef to the European Security System. Such pacts would include items of common struggle, like drugs, terrorism, environment and organised crimes which transcend national borders. Indeed a
Zone of Peace, Freedom, Independence and Neutrality has been created from the Atlantic European shores to the Urals. If Europe has accepted the need for a Zone of Peace, then ZOPFAN as declared in 1971 for "promoting world peace and security by reducing the areas of international conflicts and tensions" should be in place in Asia as well. ASEAN would do well to promote it now while the time is so propitious. (Vide paper,"Prospects for a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) in Southeast Asia" dated December 19,1990 in Kuala Lumpur, attached). The idea of the Asian cooperation and its modalities could be initialy thrashed out thoroughly by ASEAN with an ASEANCENTRIC approach. The idea should be articulated as a gathering of Asia which aims to eradicate all debilitating fear syndrome in the world, which abhors protectionism, which encourages inter Asian trade and investment flows in the most comprehensive collaborative activities with the removing of economic inequalities as a primary objective. The Asian togetherness in its economic sphere should be able to produce from among itself a group to serve as a core in laterally integrated investment, production and marketting structures making the North as well as the South the targets for cooperations and collaborations. Once ASEAN has a clear picture of what needs to be done the IndoChina states may be invited to a South East Asia Council. From there an Asia Forum should be proposed. China, Indonesia, India and Japan should be persuaded to jointly initiate the idea of an Asia Forum or whatever its nomenclature or modalities with China, Indonesia, India, Japan SARC and the SEA Council as co-sponsors. This is my vision of the new South East Asia and its role in bringing about an Asian togetherness as a positive contribution for peace in a new World.
11
A Response to the Changing Security Environment in South East Asia
here was a time not too long ago soon after "Fatman" and "Little Boy" descended on Japan, central to the question of the Security Environment in South East Asia, was the relationship between the communist world led by USSR and China and the non-communist world led by the US and the West. China in cohort with the USSR, using Vietnam was exporting her fraternal relation policy to stir up revolutions in various countries of South East Asia conforming to her Marxian ideological commitment of liberating colonial peoples. Prophets of gloom and doom perdicted the falling of South East Asia to communism like dominoes. However, with liberation from colonialism and denial of neo-colonialism only the Indo-China states succumbed to communism. In place then was SEATO with US bases in the Philippines and Thailand. The security environment began to change with the ideological split between China and the USSR. The United States crept into the wedge. She normalised her relations with China and later China with Japan. The US needed China to counter USSR's Far East presence as much as China needing the US to ease her concern regarding the USSR containment strategy of China. The USSR had positioned her military capability on the Sino-Soviet border of some 4,000 miles plus increased armaments including nuclear strategic and tactical weapons in the East of Urals and Siberia together with alliances with Mongolia and Afghanistan. The US and Allies were quagmired in Vietnam and a gradual transformation took place when realpolitik began to replace ideological rivalries. The question of security in South East Asia had become centralised on the relationship between nations, no longer ideological.
* Paper Presented at the Security Seminar on "ASEAN" and the Asia-Pacific Region: Prospects for Security Cooperation in the 1990s" in Manila, 7-7 June 1991.
The either "red or blue" belief had to reckon with grey areas of the non-aligned movement and anti-war sentiments. For the USSR which ideologically regard South East Asia as a revolutionary environment discovered that power politics and consideration of survival had taken priority. Except in Indo-China the USSR had miserably failed to translate ideological championship with the concerns of the peoples of South East Asia and thereby conduced little towards achieving the ideological objectives and self-image. It was then pure and simple national rivalries, building alliances and gaining sympathisers. The endeavours of both sides, the US and the USSR, were influenced in their objectives calculated to increase one's own or erode the other's position in South East Asia. Both the US and USSR were pursuing strategies of seeking opportunities to establish political gains or retaining them with the objective of greater future rewards. China in the aftermath of the cultural revolution had begun to look inwards. Although the US had to leave Indio-China with little dignity the USSR even with her foothold in Indo-China did not bring with it the desired political influence. Vietnam despite her acute economic adversity would not be a total tool of the USSR, and ironically, the Vietnam - USSR alliance made Vietnam distrusted among neighbours, unfulfilling the Soviet hope of making Vietnam the leader of South East Asia. In global military terms both the US and the USSR through their respective tools (NATO and Warsaw Pact) were concentrating more in Europe. SEATO soon became irrelevant. For South East Asia then the concerns were in terms of potential threats of aggression and future possibilities at subversion when China would become modernised, when Japan once again be militarised, when the non-aligned ASEAN countries would shed their neutrality stance, when USSR would begin to feel that she was completely encircled militarily in Europe and Asia and had to do something drastic in which case Asia would be the choice theatre. South East Asia then with foreboding saw the Soviet SS 20s and backfire bombers with tactical armies and more than 50 divisions along the Chinese border and the Soviet Pacific fleet in Cam Rahn Bay being matched by the presence of US bases in the Philippines and the Seventh Fleet. The region was seen to be exposed to military actions that would hurt more the people where the threat of war might be than the adversaries themselves.
A Response to the Changing Security Environment / 123
China, recognising her own internal weaknesses and the misgivings of the former victims of subversion in South East Asia, began to mend fences by collaborating diplomatically with ASEAN by enhancing trade and diplomatic offensives which eventually brought her back to Jakarta. China had provided some comfort to South East Asian countries when she adopted an accommodating attitude towards Britain over Hong Kong signalling to Macao, Taiwan and also to the two Koreas that China was espousing the "one country, two systems" principle. The security environment in South East Asia had then shown further signs of change when China increased her trade with Japan while Japan's economy flourished. Japan with her new-found economic status began to see her role towards South East Asia in the context of the Fukuda doctrine supportive of the ASEAN concept of national and regional resilience in terms of "comprehensive security". And by this time, true to her tradition of admiration by way of immitation, she had found new paragons in the high finance and modern industries as practised by the US. Certain problems in South East Asia remained if not degraded. Kampuchea continued to defy solution. Great strides had been achieved to narrow the differences with the help of the Security Council and individual countries. Yet some thorns are still stuck in the throats of those who hold the guns to the detriment of those poor Kampucheans in the killing fields and the refugee camps. The solution, if it is to be meaningful, certainly does not lie in military actions, nor in hand-wringing and dithering in disgusting despair. It has to be found in patiently negotiated settlement that would lead to the victimised Kampuchean people to regain their rights to exercise self-determination through the ballot boxes and not gun barrels. Hopefully, the procrastination may not tire Indonesia who has the support of all ASEAN, the Security Council, France and Japan. With the Kampuchean problem unresolved the security environment of the region will continue to be shrouded by clouds of fear and suspicions slowing any real movement in political and economic interaction. The other problem of security environment is the increasingly rampant trafficking and drug abuse of the deleterious kind in South East Asia. ASEAN has for sometime regarded the problem in security terms. Since the population of ASEAN comprising largely of youths the sapping of their vitality is a matter of grave concern in terms of national and regional resilience. There is a Nacrotic Desk in the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta. But the Secretariat itself requires
revamping and until this is done no systematic and novel approaches could be attempted; the security environment will continue to be threatened by this scourge. The safety of navigation in the region is contributive to the security environment of South East Asia. The shallowing of the Straits and congestion of sea traffic risking collision and pollution affecting the ecology, piracies and sea robberies affecting international shippers and navies are some of the common security concerns to all South East Asia. In this regard it may be worth considering the formulation of an international joint authority consisting of all littoral states and other main users to manage the security and safety of the sea lanes traversing the waters and straits of South East Asia, perhaps, to the extent of providing a pilotage service and escorts in respect of certain ship weightage or draught. The security environment of South East Asia should be examined in the light of what is understood by the term "security". I have taken for granted that South East Asia consists of ASEAN, Indo-China and Myanmar. Yet each of these components of South East Asia and indeed each country's perception of "security" may differ in degree with some, while others because of experiences, in greater substance. Let us take ASEAN states first. The one general security concern is that of "subversion" deploying curse and purse to win the hearts and minds of people. There were bitter experiences brought about by the Cominform (Calcutta) decision of 1948 and the communist ideological fixation that because of vestigial colonialism and neo-colonialism the region would be a revolutionary environment. When USSR and China were honeymooners the subversive work was done by the Communist Party of China (CCP) exploiting the Hoachio with the help of the Soviets and the Communist party of Indo-China. As China's enchantment with USSE waned USSR ideological activities were excluded from the region. North Vietnam continued for sometime to be greatly used by CCP as the training ground and jumping off board for subversive activities in South East Asia. Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines were the objects of serious subversive activities. The USSR in terms of her rivalries with the US and China was making claims of being an Asiatic power hawking the Asian Security System with scant success. For some time China used what I once termed the policy of "sweet and sour sauce on a rotten fish" dichotomising the government to government relationship as friendly but leaving the Party free to be hostile. China, despite her
Governmental overtures, continued to be distrusted until that "sweet and sour sauce on a rotten fish" policy had ceased to be apparent. Vietnam having succeeded in the ouster of USA in South Vietnam also gained self-confidence in Indo-China and asserted her hegemonic ideological leadership. This led to a split with China. Both abandoned their subversive activities in South East Asia. Eventually the China inspired Communist insurgents in Thailand and Malaysia gave up their armed struggle. The counteractions to subversion is the responsibility of each country. It depends on its own political health and resilience based largely on self-reliance. Subversion succeeds when it is infected by political "aids" in a given country. Subversion cannot be defeated by arms alone. It is a battle for the hearts and minds fought through the bellies of the poor and the greed of the rich. For any period that USSR or China was inactive in their respective ideological subversive activities that period had been fully utilised by ASEAN to strengthen their resolve and self-reliance in order to deny any revival of such pernicious activities. ASEAN security vigilance would require it to continously watch that the words of peace were matched by deeds of those who once indulged in subversion. A new kind of subversive activities emerged in Singapore and rather effectively in the Philippines through Christian religious and human rights groups exploiting the various perceptions of real or imagined social and political inequities. However,they did not emanate from the old traditional Marxian or the Maoist type of subversion but rather from espousers of fundamentalist Christian values or fabianistic armchair activists but nevertheless sufficiently destabilising. It has been interpreted by some as inspired by so-called friends of Asians in Europe, America and Australia but with neocolonialist designs. Islamic extremist groups too appeared to be used as vehicles to create instability to facilitate the nefarious activities of neo-colonialism. In this regard ASEAN has been quite successful in rejecting such developments as exemplified in Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia although in the Philippines the problems seem to persist seemingly enmeshing themselves into the dynamics of local politics. ASEAN had bitter experiences of the security of each country being debauched by aggression across the border. Western colonial powers and lastly Japan were the aggressors. ASEAN vigilance had devised the idea of Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (1971) followed by the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in South East Asia and the
Declaration of ASEAN Concord (1976). For a better management of their respective borders with each other, some had entered into bilateral border arrangements even if in some cases there were no formal agreements. Some ASEAN members before ASEAN came into being had entered into defence arrangements with external powers or provide big power base facilities. ASEAN had declared in Bangkok (1967) that these bases were temporary in nature and in no way should constrict the independent action and policy of the countries in which the bases were situated. Myanmar suffers gravely from colonial and Japanese aggressions, from subversive and insurgent elements of the Red Flag, the White Flag, lawlessness of the drug kings, raids by bedraggled homeless armies of the Kuomintang war lords, ethnic uprisings, some inspired from outside. All these were contributive to the instability of the country which had inherited a colonial economy, devastated by the World War II. Myanmar is in a monumental state of repair and despair. Myanmar has now begun to open her windows even slightly and this should be encouraged and not to be exploited by others using the cracks as entries to swarm the country with foreign political and economic pestilence. Indo-China is a group by itself. They went through the experiences of being both the subjects and objects of aggression and subversion. The Communist Party of Indo-China led by Vietnam (later split into three national communist parties) was also the leading revolutionary activists on behalf of the USSR and China. After Vietnam-China split Kampuchea became the object of hegemonic quest and Pol Pot sided with China and lost his country to Vietnam. Since then Vietnam had ceased to allow herself to be the training bases and jumping off point for Chinese communist subversion in South East Asia. The China support for Pol Pot in Kampuchea led Vietnam to lean heavily towards USSR despite the aggressive "Chinese lesson". By that time the USSR policy in South East Asia had changed somewhat following her global strategic consideration. A US base in the Philippines continued to be a military factor but the Soviet policy was then more associated with political gains in the rivalry with China and USA. The occupation of Kampuchea by Vietnam and the "Chinese lesson" were exploited by the USSR and Vietnam as a reminder to ASEAN of China's subversive intransigencies and unscrupulous exploitations in South East Asia. However, much to the dismay of Vietnam and the USSR the view of ASEAN was that aggression whatever may be the excuse, just could not be condoned or rewarded.
Phan Van Dong had, a few days before the Kampuchean adventure, personally assured ASEAN leaders of Vietnam's peaceable attitude. China by that time had already made the oral commitment not to subvert other countries, an abandonment of previous subversive policies. Because of the Vietnamese misleading assurances, ASEAN was more fearful of the aggression of the Vietnamese kind. In that atmosphere the combined response of ASEAN was solid. On the question of "aggression" based on the perception of military intrusions across borders not by a major power, there may be a number of responses. As a staunch supporter of ASEAN and its habit of mind, I am inclined to pursue the ASEAN commitment to the Bandung Declaration, of cooperation with other nations within and outside the region in furtherance of peace, stability and harmony, and the reduction of areas of international conflicts and tensions. Germane to the question of security environment is the concept to provide an area that would be free from tensions and conflict. That is ZOPFAN (Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality) and it is a similar concept that has received such acclaim in Paris (November 1990) when the now disbanded Warsaw Pact and NATO agreed to limit their respective armaments covering an area stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Urals which is a zone of approxiamtely four million square kilometres. As it will be observed this was confined only to Europe prompting Mr. Bush to comment that, "This reduces to practically nil the tensions that have existed," no doubt referring to the Soviet armed superiority in Europe. The ASEAN idea of Zone of Peace was precisely that and to be complementary to the big power efforts at reducing the quality and quantity of arms of mass destruction. When Asia becomes a Zone of Peace from the Sino-Soviet border to the Pacific then Europe and Asia where the last World War had been fought may be joined to become a single Zone of Peace. However, let us return to our region to see the kind of security concerns from the view point of "aggression". For our purpose, the countries concerned in South East Asia (a) ASEAN, (b) Indo-China, (c) Myanmar, and the concerns are: 1. aggression by a country or countries against another of the same group; 2. aggression by a country or countries of one group against a country or countries of another group; 3. aggression by a country or countries outside South East Asia against any or some or all of the countries of South East Asia;
4. aggression against Myanmar by any country or countries from South East Asia or without. Aggression for this purpose excludes that which is committed by a big power. I am inclined to the view that for our purpose in line with ASEAN aspirations the response should best be actualised by an arrangement of a multilateral treaty followed immediately by a web of interlocking bilateral agreements with similar or identical content and substance suitably modified where necessary to provide for flexibility. It may be recalled that the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in South East Asia and the Declaration of ASEAN Concord (1976) were responses to the US withdrawal from Vietnam and the arrogance of the latter in the euphoria of victory. "Use of force" and "subversion" were the security concerns of ASEAN. The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in South East Asia is open for accession by other states in South East Asia. Except perhaps for the time being the Government of Kampuchea, all other South East Asian states should be invited by ASEAN to accede to the Treaty and ASEAN must really make it work. It may be necessary to update the Treaty with suitable modifications and this could be a matter for consultations. I have, for instance, a subject which I think should find a niche in the Treaty and should form a subject in any bilateral agreement between the contracting parties to the Treaty. This is a provision that would allow a contracting party to enter into a defence alliance with a party from within or outside the perimeter of South East Asia as defined, except that its obligation should not contradict the principle than in a situation when or if one of the two parties were attacked by a third party the second party would not lend the aggressor any assistance or facilities whatsoever might be its obligation to the third party (aggressor). In this regard "aggression" should include "subversion" in which case the third party should be denied freedom to use the country of the party as a base for hostile propaganda and subversive purposes against the other party. Of course, an unequal treaty alliance is counter-productive and so are the "paper tigers" or the meretricious kind which should always be discouraged. A habit of consultations with other contracting parties to the Treaty before deciding to enter into a defence alliance with a third party may be helpful. Related to the provision enabling contracting parties entering into defence alliances is the question of the foreign bases. In so far as ASEAN attitude is concerned this issue should be strictly guided by the
Bangkok Declaration of 1967. "All foreign bases are temporary and remain only with the expressed concurrence of the countries concerned and are not intended to be used directly or indirectly to subvert the national independence and freedom of states in the area or prejudice the orderly process of their national development". The modified Treaty should not only provide for bilateral agreements between contracting parties but should indeed encourage them to do so. The regime governing bilateral relations should take into account the special relationship between the two but whithin the parameter of the principles enunciated by the multilateral treaty. For example a special border cooperation is a matter exclusively for a bilateral arrangement. The Treaty may also consider and agree perhaps by way of protocol to the levels of military strength for each party adequate for the purpose of maintenance of public order situation as well as an effective contribution towards the implementation of mutual defence alliance if such an alliance was subsisting. The multilateral Treaty should, besides arms control, crisis or despute management mechanisms, address itself on other matters or subjects for international collaborations. These include drug trafficking, consumer protection, robberies and highjacking of planes and ships in the region, piracies in the high seas, international terrorism, control of pollution and management of environment, safety of sea lanes, weather reports, aerial and navigational communications. The bilateral agreement, among the contracting parties of the Treaty should provide for a regime governing bilateral relations taking into account the special relationship between the two within the framework of the multilateral Treaty. The bilateral agreements are indicated because experiences between Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand, have proven that their respective General Border Agreements had much to be commended. They have been able to manage the many border problems without allowing them to fester or grow out of proportion if these problems were referred to the capitals with the attendant publicity. The mechanisms provided for solving problems in situ have obviated many a tricky situation. Officials on the ground with local knowledge have a better chance of solving local problems. After all the borders of states of South East Asia were the cartographic manufacture of colonial powers and who can solve the problems better than the local people themselves who are factitiously separated from
each other in defined citizenaries while they may be close kinsmen. Border agreements will certainly create opportunities for a better border understanding. Parties to such agreements may find it easier to resolve any overlapping border claims without resorting to international arbitration or excision but rather following the spirit and the principle of sharing a common destiny and drinking from the same well. Joint border cooperation programme proposals in all aspects for the mutual benefit may be provided for in the bilateral agreement. The multilateral Treaty as well as bilateral agreements should reaffirm their adherence to the principle of peaceful coexistence and pacific settlement of disputes. The parties should be free from threats of hegemonic policies and to avoid being menaced by such policies a suitable anti-hegemony clause should be an integral part of the Treaty. They should be dedicated to the fundamental right of every state to be free from outside interference in its internal affairs. Freedom for a country means that it is free from domination and therefore independent. All should be dedicated to build their own resilience and self-reliance and to assist each other through active cooperation towards regional resilience. The region should not be allowed to be used as a theatre of conflict. Through the web of interlocking bilateral agreements the contracting parties to the Treaty could emerge as one collective unit strong economically, diplomatically and security wise. The Treaty should provide a mechanism for consultation in all matters affecting the wellbeing of the region. These Treaty and bilateral agreements may be adequate to meet the security concerns of states of South East Asia if it was of minor aggression or merely subversion. The question that comes to mind among ASEAN is the present politiical and diplomatic personality of Kampuchea. For the time being it would be in order to keep Kampuchea on hold and she should be invited to participate in the multilateral and bilateral collaboration in South East Asia as soon as her problem is resolved. Until such time the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) and the Phnom Penh regime may be invited to sit together as observers in any meeting. The biggest impact of Perestroika on the security environment of South East Asia was the provision for Moscow a European Home. "We are Europeans. Old Russia was united with Europe by Christianity," said Gorbachev in presenting Perestroika. Thus the Tsarist concept returned and forfeited for the USSE a swaying influence in world
affairs as witnessed in the recent Gulf crisis. The Warsaw Pact has been disbanded and Moscow has indeed come closer to Europe and the US, erasing what had been regarded as traditional ideological divisions in Europe. A bipolar world had become monopolar, thanks to Perestroika. Here lies the danger to South East Asia in a world without balance as recently tested against a Third World power in the Gulf. When the monopolar power is yielding to paroxyms of victorious euphoria all hopes of settlement of old problems would vanish. Will the Palestinian issue be now resolved? New problems would emerge where rebellions could be instigated causing instability and untold sufferings, making humans as refugees in their own countries to lose their dignity foraging for food like wild beasts. The same could be repeated anywhere in the world for so long as it is considered necessary by the monopolar power and its allies and surrogates in the promotion or defence of their interests. Equity, justice and right reside with the power who is the master. "Obey or a prey be," looms large in South East Asia. A world without balance is a worried world. The monopolar power and allies also concentrate not only their military and political might but also their massive economic and technological capabilities. The economic focus on Eastern Europe including Moscow with the new European Bank for Reconstruction and Development designed to integrate them into the European Community. This Community with its bloc-mindedness will certainly emerge as "Fortress Europe" by 1992 and will eventually develop a joint diplomatic and defence role with its own culture of Euro-racism. This movement is being joined by what is going on in the Americas which is realising the dream of a free trade zone from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. While anti-protectionism rhetorics may be heard in the corridors of the State Department of the US the concept of multilateral liberalism in trade would be meaningless when such bloc arrangements as the Canada-US-Mexico Free Trade Agreement encourage trade with "partners" and bilateral agreements with selected third countries. The American and the European arrangements like osmosis will merge into a single blob that will threaten to blot out any people that do not follow its fancy. Taken together its political, military and economic forces, no government or small groupings of countries can really subsist without the monopolar power's approbation. Its surrogate can be extremely
dangerous being more Catholic than the Pope. That should be one of the security concerns of South East Asia in the new world monopolar order. With the emergence of the monopolar power with gigantic and oppressive military, economic and diplomatic weight South East Asian nations have to be more aware that the detente in Europe has not extended to Asia. (According to Reuter report Canberra April, 25, 1991 a letter dated November 19, 1990 from Mr. Baker (US) to Mr. Gareth Evans (Australia) Mr. Baker expressed the US fear that the USSR may use a security forum to gain naval superiority in the Pacific). This is the language of a cold warrior of a leader of the monopolar power. No one can foretell then what pattern of behaviour a monopolar power or its allies or surrogates would take in a given situation in Asia. Nor can it be predicted as to the response of those who might take up the challenge pertinent to a "cold war" or a "hot war" where detente exists in Europe but has not reached Asia. Let us look at the negotiations on US bases in the Philippines. The US may be negotiating for the bases with the knowledge and conviction that the USSR has lost its menacing capability for so long as the Soviet is in the present stage of economic quagmire and that will be for a long time. China, with financial and technological backwardness would also pose no threat to the US. Therefore the short or medium term need for a "hot war" base, strategic or otherwise, in the Philippines is diminished. However, since detente does not appear to extend to Asia these bases continue to be highly important in terms of "cold war". In that case, what is the maximum amount of money that the US is perpared to pay for the use of those bases encumbered by the "cold war" requirement of the delimitation of the freedom in its use and extraterritoriality? Those who are supportive of the presence of the US in Asia through those bases are they ad idem with the US in their perception of the importance of those bases? More important still is Manila's perception. Because if Manila is demanding a "hot war" compensation for those bases with all the "cold war" conditionalities in the use of the bases the US may just abandon the whole exercise without recompense and Manila will be left to carry the burden of economic displacement. It matters little to the US if economic upheaval and political chaos would transform Manila into a Marxian capital. After all under the post-Perestroika new monopolar order the US and the West have many marxian or socialist bedfellows including Moscow. Asia may now face what she once experienced when Europe led by
Britain was a monopolar power in the age of industrial revolution. That revolution by its very nature requiring natural resources, cheap labour and captive market created colonialism and its concomitant militarism supported by financial institutions like the East India Companies and Chartered companies which visited Asia and occupied the Indian subcontinent, Sout East Asia and a number of enclaves and "concessions" in China. Asia then was in complete disarray and became easy prey. At that point in time Japan alone in Asia decided, after she had been able to end those extraterritorial treaties (1899), to join the European industrial revolution with all its ugliness of colonialism, militariam and the business institution - the Zaibatsu. Japan wanted so much to be accepted as an equal and began to think of herself as Britain of the East. After all, she was an island off a continent, she had the tradition of having an Emperor with knights and barons and all the feudal trappings; she had a navy and an expeditionary force which triumphed for Japan the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895) forcing the unequal extra-territorial privileges from China which already had been given to Western powers. She had a bicameral Parliament and her Cabinet ministers wore top hats! So Japan, like Britain too must have an empire. Hence the intensification of adventures in Manchuria, Korea and China with the missionary zeal that Asia must be saved from the "barbarians". In the words of General Terauchi, (then War Minister in 1936 who later during the Pacific War served as GOC-in-C Southern Region) that the Japanese overriding aim was to establish the Japanese Empire's leadership in East Asia. Whatever may be the authenticity of the so-called TANAKA Memorial (1927) it became transfixed as a "master plan" for the domination of Asia by Japan. Until today Japan had made no serious attempt to discredit it particularly when the "Strike South" doctrine came so soon after the Imperial Rescript for the Showa Era (1926)".... progress in view of this period of evolution, improvement to keep pace with the advancement of civilisation, national harmony in purpose and action, beneficence to all classes of people, and friendship to all nations on earth: these are the cardinal aims to which Our most profound and abiding solicitude is directed." The words of the Imperial Rescript were tantalising enough. Coming as they did during the time of keeping pace with the "advancement of civilisation" which was the "white man's burden" colonies were fair game for grab, emboldening Terauchi to translate it into a concept of establishing, "The Japanese Empire's leadership in
East Asia". "Friendship to all nations," was the inspiration for Japan to claim to be on par with the predatory West therefore entitling her to have colonies and to have concessions in China just like the White imperialists had. There soon developed the so-called "philisophical" beliefs as embodided in the "Way of the Subjects", without shame or shroud, announcing to the world that Japan "has a political mission to help various regons in East Asia co-prosperity scheme so as to rescue them from the control of the colonial powers". This was to spell out the "Strike South" doctrine which meant that the colonies of the West be they the Dutch, the British, the American or the French in East Asia should be under the Japanese colonial domination. Japan was adjusting herself since the Meiji Restoration with the ambition of being accepted as equal of the West. If the West was ugly Japan was determined to be ugly as well. Japan could not accept that she would never be allowed by the Western colonialists to be skilful at any of those power games. After a certain point the "Nips" were regarded as rivals and Asiatic upstarts. The return of Liaotung Peninsula (December 1895) forced by France, Germany and Russia was not sufficient humiliation to serve as a message of the Western imperialist powers. When Western colonialists had gained what they wanted they would change the rules and overnight would wear the cloak of virtue and humanism leaving the Japanese with the odium of colonial behaviour. To the Western racists an Oriental was always a wog. Finally, led by the US the whole of the European allies boycotted Japan and embargoed on all goods except for raw cotton and food. Japan was left with little fuel for energy. War was inevitable although there were claims that the US and Japan wanted a diplomatic settlement. At a Historical Society debate, Raffles College, Singapore (1941) I was one of the proposers that, "Japan will expand and burst". The motion was carried and Japan did! Nomura-Kurusu Washington drama was going against Dr. Shumei Okawa's prophesy (1924) in his "Asia, Europe and Japan" when he wrote,"US and Japan are destined to fight each other as Greece had to battle Persia and Rome Carthage". We in South East Asia remember what happened in December 1941. Some of us are still alive who fought in that War, some on the side that won, some on the side that lost and neither was right since it was a war of one colonial power replacing the other. That war for South East Asia was indeed the very negation of freedom. South East Asia was being shortchanged by an Asian mimetic imperialist.
The Showa Imperial Rescript of 1926 exhorted Japan to go for "originality instead of blind imitation", but the Japanese habit of mimicry is still very much in evidence. If Britain of the East had become a wrong self-image by 1936 the anti-cominform Hitlerism was the new beau ideal; the paragon after the "MacArthur Restoration" was the alchemy of American finance and institutions. Since then Nomura has outpaced its Western rivals. But the US even with her monumental twin deficits and dissavings can in recent months still be the most powerful military power capable of making the whole of the UN serve her Middle East interest in foreign policy. What if it now strikes the Japanese that the newest paragons are the Bush men in the deserts of the Middle East, will they not be tempted to produce a Schwarzkopf to do the monopolar power bidding or on their own volition some similar character to cane those in Asia who are unwilling to bend towards the Rising Sun? Once, in recent history, because Japan chose the path of not being one of Asia but rather the self-appointed imperialist of Asia, she was beleaguered, isolated, despised by the West and hated by other Asians. Eventually she had to follow the path of war the only way colonial and imperial powers knew. At this point in time of the new monopolar power order if the Americas and the new combined Europe became inward looking, and if the US and the West in their desperation to cling to their waning economic dominance, intensified their picking on Japan to the a frazzle, Japan having regarded herself as superior to the others in Asia which she views like the West do, purely as low-priced production areas, might feel so humiliated, alone and beleagured, and in a catatonic fit of high dudgeoned inferiority complex or hubris she might opt to say "No". In the circumstances God help the rest of Asia from the resurgence of Japanese authoritarian nationalistic copycats who believe,"what America can do Japan can do better". Few will remember what Kaifu said in Singapore recently (3rd May 1991) that Japan could never be a military power again. The old slogan "Fukoku Kyohei" (prosperous country, strong military) will be back and out of the limbo of what was thought as oblivion there may re-emerge in full fury the divine mission - Hakko Ichiu (eight corners, one roof) which once spawned the hyper-hypocritical Daitoa Kyoei Ken (Great East Asia CoProsperity Sphere) and the Strike South Policy. Before Perestroika and the recent Gulf crisis there was reason to believe that Japan, having found the post-war paragons in the US industrial and financial giants and ideological values in a bipolar
world, she would not deviate from her comfortable constitutional commitment of never to become again a military power. But having outstripped the US and Europe in the financial and industrial rudiments Japan may find these elements to be intimately a part of Japanese life and therefore she amy feel qualified to claim as her own the ethos of the US and the West. Japan then may become possessed by the spirit of Bush mistaking it for Bushido! The monopolar power world might yet witness once again the happenings in Asia during the monopolar European power of the industrial revolution with the difference that the new China would not this time be a passive actor and the victim of monopolar power bullyism. The plastered idol of the mother of all democracies had fallen flat on her face in Tienanmen Square. Sinicised communism admixed with the Three Ethics (Buddhism,Taoism, Confusionism) is doomed to stay. Jiang Jemin (Secretary General of CCP) was recently in Moscow to reciprocate Gorbachev's visit to Beijing (May 1989) and witnessed the signing of an agreement regulating part of the frontier in the Khabarvosk Far Eastern region (16 May 1991) signalling for normalisation of the two giant communist parties that once together wreaked havoc in South East Asia. The following day Jiang declared, "This means we intend to return to the state of relations we had in the 50s. These are relations between allies," of course with the Chinese anti-hegemonic reservation. New China might begin to think once again of exporting revolutions as a way of saving South East Asia from both the Western and Japanese imperialisms or neo-colonialism as in 1948 but in terms of pax neosinica. Subversion which is cheap in cost in that event will certainly return with greater intensity and so will the exploitations of the Hoachio (Overseas Chinese) bringing instability wherever they occur in the Nanyang and there might be more "lessons" the kind of which the new China once gave Vietnam. Such a development will surely create a confrontational course between China and Japan in which case India might find difficulty in just being an interested bystander. The monopolar power and allies may declare that all these developments would not be in accordance with their new world order of things and may decide to act. In a chaotic, messy and divided Asia neo-colonialits, if not of the old kind, will be tempted to return. Our region of South East Asia which is the milking cow, will see ourselves being visited and carved up as if we were eternally cursed to suffer
since the world discovered the spices of Banda. The proposals for a South East Asian multilateral treaty followed immediately by a web inter-locking bilateral agreements and the East Asian togetherness have relevance. It is extremely important for Japan and the rest of Asia to remember that Japan with all her industrial advancement and economic power being extremely vulnerable could not fully influence the monopolar power and their allies and surrogates unless they realise that all East and South East Asia are united behind Japan. Japan not waiting to be an Asian first may be a Humpty Dumpty. After the great fall from the wall on which he is sitting, Shiranyuki and all the other Imperial horses and samurais may not be able to put Humpty Dumpty together again. As it is Japan speaks only for Japan. Japan has a special relationship with the US but that relationship has aged and needs updating if it was to serve Japan, humanity and world peace. Japan which is able to say "yes" to participate in East Asian cooperative endeavours would place that special relationship with the US on an even keel. Except for dispensing aid, trade and investment which bring their own pencuniary rewards to the point of obscenity the Japanese hitherto have done precious little to remove in South East Asia indeed in the whole of Asia, the self-image of a despicable ogre which cropped heads in the trail of so-called "incidents" from Mukden to Manila in the name of saving Asia from the West. Recently in Tokyo immediately after the cessation of hostilities in the Gulf, I was asked by a dear friend of mine, a Japanese as to what countries in South East Asia, like Malaysia, would feel should Japan direct her economic attention to the Middle East at the expense of South East Asia. Would that not revive the old latent anti-Japanese feeling created by the last War? I must admit that my immediate reaction to the second question was one of dismay and the sincerity with which it was asked made it even more appalling since it was outreaching my own naivete. My regard for him inclined me to say in all honesty that on the first point there would be disappointment and major adjustment would be required since ASEAN in particular had a very active economic and trade interaction with Japan. I could only express the hope that the diversion would not be total even if it was to comply with the wishes of the US since in simple economic sense the returns for Japan from the Middle East could never outmatch that from South East Asia with the assurances of raw material and energy supplies to boot. I could not resist adding a footnote in the response to the second
query by saying that the Japanese aid, trade and investments did not and could not by themselves erase the Japanese image which had been left by the actrocious Japanese armed forces. South East Asians, like everyone else, normally evaluated matters based on practical consequences or immediate benefits but that did not mean that their memory, good or bad, was short. It would be best for the Japanese not to continue to be under the delusion that the yen could soothe the wounds of the mind. The image of Japan created during the Pacific War cannot be obliterated simply by aid and apology after apology made by successive Japanese Prime Ministers if young Japanese were never exposed to what exactly took place in their study of recent Japanese history. Not only thousands of Chinese were slaughtered in Singapore but perhaps many more thousands of Malays from Malaya and Indonesians dragooned into slave labour and were never to be seen again. And so was the role of Fujiwara Kikan never given a historical appreciation to show the game of deception which led many anti-colonial patriots and nationalists to disaster or disappointment. Young Japanese will never understand why apologies are necessary particularly when no one is impressed. What should take place now is a recognition of common facts of history by calling a spade a spade, and not a "massacre" as a mere "incident". I have publicly spoken about this in Japan. It is a process of confidence building. When the young grow up having different references and texts of history there would grow a milieu of histrionics. In the cool shade of truth mutual confidence will return, where once there was falsehood inflamed. When Kaifu was in Singapore a few weeks ago he hinted about the usefulness of looking into the factualness of history. Perhaps it is time now for China, Japan, the two Koreas, ASEAN, the Indo China states and Myanmar to organise a study among top historians who would produce the recent history of East and South East Asia in the closest proximity to what had truly taken place. Not only recent Japanese history needed looking into; that of China and the Chinese Communist Party too when they were active in communist subversion at one time aided and abetted by the Soviets and the Communist Party of Indo-China in South East Asia. There was the CCP role in the PKI which created Konfrontasi and Gestapu. This is one way of using history to remove suspicions and make peoples comfortable with each other. It is not intended that there would be a whitewash or to freely yield to the "Sense of Foulness" of the Tendai Sect of Mount Hiei but merely to avoid the preservation of a bloody butchery or dastardly
subversive act as something less loathsome than it was. In this monopolar world the choice left for the peoples of South East Asia, if the nations herein valued their freedom and independence and did not wish to be client states or pawns or just peoples who provide low-priced production areas, is that they would have to be active players with adroitness in diplomacy. As a matter of priority ASEAN must find ways to collaborate actively with the states of Indo-China. And at the same time ASEAN in a common endeavour should get Japan and China to be less suspicious of each other. China and Japan should be persuaded to view the monopolar world with the same prismatic binoculars if the history of Asia during the monopolar age of the European industrial revolution was not to repeat itself when the Pacific rim of Asia, like today highly prized and in disarray was stripped, fragmented and exploited. China and Japan have to be convinced that their fate and destiny are intertwined and they are both part of East Asia. China as a political force in the Security Council and Japan an economic power in the world, both speaking for the whole of East and South East Asia would serve as a counterpoise in a world that is insecure and unbalanced. The togetherness is imperative in order to help defend an open global system against bullyism, neo-colonialism, monopolism and protectionism, to influence nations and blocs to bow to the principles of GATT and keep the Uruguay Round alive. To suggest that East Asian togetherness should be open to all others (besides the SARC countries) or that without the United States it would not work is to miss the point of it all other than a signal that the idea would have to be subject to monopolar power approbation. East and South East Asia should form a deliberative forum where through consultations, they could be aware of each other's hopes and fears in order that they may be taken care of. The togetherness will pave the way for the people of East and South East Asia to interact with one another in a people-to-people relationship thus increasing their potentials. In this way there is no danger or an outside power encroachment. Equally important is that the interaction between governments and people would reduce the sense of isolation and insularity. This is particularly so for Japan, Myanmar, China, IndoChina and the Koreas. With the idea of East and South East Asian togetherness (henceforth 'East Asia' for convenience and brevity) it would be possible to continue in the actualising of a new era of peace and
prosperity, an era for Japan and China and together with the rest of East Asia to be equal with any in the world. The East Asian deliberative forum could concern itself, through consultations, in building a regional political power and in creating the synergic economic sinews for the area. In addressing the subject of monopolar power in the world the ultimate response would have to be a new economic and political equilibrium with Asia as a whole within the power matrices. In this regard the SARC countries should also be brought in. The Middle East (West Asia) being a world of its own may be excluded and the Soviet Far East, moulded in thought and culture by Moscow, is hardly Asian. Beginning with East Asia in a forum which coheres the immediate challenges posed by the lack of political or military balance as well as the divide between the North and the South could be adequately met. Indeed, it could be the pacifier for the more troubled emotions and fears. The proposed togetherness, encouraging international trade and investment flows, abhoring protectionism, would be able to produce from among itself a group to serve as a core in laterally or horizontally integrated investment, production and marketing structures making the North as well as the South, the objectives of positive and active collaboration. Trade and economics will render nations to apply political thoughts in their policies and will soon get familiar with the domestic imperatives of each other. It should be the aim of all East Asian states to create a zone as a haven of peace for the littoral nations from the Sea of Japan to the Indian Ocean. The motivating factor is that we all share a common fate and destiny like a cluster of bamboos. Instead of leap-frogging in search of allies and alliances elswhere we are here as neighbours ready to be neighbourly.
12
Into the Nineties: Global Economic Challenges and ASEAN Responses
evelopments are in progress in the world which were unimaginable some years ago. Developments are in the direction of interdependent world, developments in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Soviet Union and in EastWest relations. The resurgence and the vitality in the progress of European integration, and the establishment of North American Free Trade Area are also examples of these developments. As walls crumble and barriers are penetrated, new forms of political, economic and even military relationships are evolving. The repercussions of the changes sweeping the Union that was Soviet and Eastern Europe have had a tremendous impact in this region. This is particularly true with regard to the socialist regimes of Vietnam and Laos which had hitherto depended ideologically and materially on the Soviet Union and her allies. Although there has been no change in the political regimes of these countries, there are steady signs towards economic liberalisation. The end of the Cold War in Europe also highlighted new roles in the region for the US, China and Japan. The US is now rethinking of its commitment in the Pacific in the wake of its problems with the Philippines and nature's intervention in her affairs. China for her part is strengthening her ties in the region with the establishment of diplomatic relations with Singapore and Indonesia and contacts with South Korea. A communique released on 10 November 1991 after the return of a high-powered visit to China from Vietnam led by the Vietnamese Communist Party Secretary General Do Muoi and Prime Minister Vo Van Kiet, marked the end of the twelve year hostilities dating from the "lessons" war in 1979. The communique declared that
Speech Delivered at the International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA) Enlarged Council Meeting in Hong Kong, 20-22 November 1991.
the two sides would turn the Sino-Vietnam border into "a border of peace and friendship", pledging to settle boundary and other territorial disputes through negotiations. Japan, because of her growing economic strength in the region is coming under increasing pressure particularly from the United States to play a more prominent political, diplomatic and security role in the region - a role that would commensurate with her economic status. One wonders as to what is the current regional threat that necessitates a security role only for Japan. The failure in December of the Uruguay Round after four years of tedious wrangling was a particular tragedy, and the subsequent meeting in Brussels achieved little anything of substance. This had an immediate impact on the region, not only in the call for the formation of regional alliances, but also for a new endeavour to seek more and better ways of promoting greater intra-regional economic cooperation. All these international developments attest to the importance of investment and trade as the engines of growth. ASEAN as a regional organisation has progressed significantly and had recorded magnificent success from its economic cooperative efforts. The coverage of items under Preferential Trading Arrangements had increased from the initial 71 items in 1976 to now over 20,000 items. This is largely due to the change from item by item approach to an across-the-board approach. Similarly, industrial cooperation has found a more pragmatic technique in the ASEAN industrial joint-ventures than the previous public-sector biased programmes. A further indication of this fact can be seen in the idea of the tripartite growth areas linking Singapore, with Indonesia's Riau Archipelago, and Johore in Malaysia. The close geographical proximity of the three areas with different comparative advantages, and factor endowments offer investors a unique combination of resources, expertise and global linkages and all the advantages needed for ventures to be successful. The acceptance and promotion of the tripartite growth areas by the governments concerned have been enthusiastic. A duplication of the idea encompassing Northern Malaysia, Southern Thailand and Northern Sumatera has been mentioned. These schemes, however, have had little impact on intra-ASEAN trade and industrial development. The wider differences in income, levels of industrialisation, the degree of protection provided for domestic producers and the lack of political will to submit totally to ASEAN centric ideas limited somewhat the extent to which ASEAN
Global Economic Challenges / 143
could optimally achieve economically. The economic success of ASEAN member states cannot be attributed to ASEAN economic cooperation alone, but rather, perhaps more so, to the role of ASEAN in promoting the ambience of peace and stability in the region. This has been an extremely important factor. Nevertheless factor flows in terms of labour, capital and services between ASEAN countries have seen phenomenal increase in recent years. It is very clear that factor movements play not only an important economic role but also enhances trade and investment. This is most apparent in the case of financial, transportation and communication services which provide the necessary infrastructure for investment and trade. The time has come for a bold new approach to ASEAN economic cooperation as expressed by the Economic Ministers Meeting in 1989. It may be recalled that ASEAN has already committed itself to market sharing and resource pooling as embodied in the Declaration of the first summit. At the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in July 1991, for the first time, there was a serious discussion on the proposal of creating a Free Trade Area by the year 2000. The increasing industrialisation of the countries and the reduction in external tariff make the formation of a Free Trade area in ASEAN a realistic goal. The idea is now being vigorously pursued. Officials are busy identifying substantive products for submission to the ASEAN Summit in January 1992, Singapore. No doubt there will be identification of supporting services to follow. Today, things are becoming more complicated by the establishment of super blocs such as the EC, NAFTA, Australia-New Zealand trade agreements. Even Taiwan on 2 November 1991 at a Seminar proposed that China, Taiwan and Hong Kong should form an economic bloc seemingly making virtue out of necessity. This latest trade bloc proposal by Mr. Vincent Siew, the Economics Minister of Taiwan, is adding yet one more to the idea of creating trade ganglands feeding fears that the international prosperity-producing open market system is about to disappear. It will be observed that the bloc agreements go well beyond regional freeing of tariffs and into such areas as non-tariff barriers, and services and discriminatory trade sanctions. Free market will soon be "Flea market" which will spawn a regime of an international black market. Lack of economic and trade opportunities is one of the reasons for turbulence which threatens peace and security. Therefore a rational,
democratic management of international economic and trading relations, which are evolved through a mechanism for consultation today is the best contributive factor for peace and security. Indeed, this should be placed on par with the traditional role of the United Nations in preserving peace and security. The question of good governance is as relevant to a nation as to the international arena. The engines of growth that would propel the ASEAN growth rates are investments and trade and by implication the availability of market.The international economic system is rapidly changing. In addition to the old style barriers to trade, many new forms of protectionism including absurd conditionalities and shibboleths are rising in importance. Moreover, the blossoming of the blooming trade blocs such as "Fortress Europe" and 'US-Canada FTA" soon to include Mexico which will stretch from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, pose problems except for those that are extended mitigating trade and aid cooperation which is temporary in nature and subject to unilateral withdrawals of such preferential handouts. Usually, this exercise is practised on poor, struggling countries which are regarded as pet pussy cats. Should they grow up to become torn cats, they will be out of favour! There is, therefore, in the face of these serious challenges a need to assess the modalities, mechanisms and practices characterising ASEAN economic cooperation to-date. An international committee of five including a member from Europe, one from Indonesia, one from Malaysia and another from the West Indies under my chairmanship had, not long ago, recommended possible ways to strengthen ASEAN Secretariat and its ASEAN mechanism in order to meet the challenges of the 1990s. The Report has been submitted to the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting recently in Kuala Lumpur; it provides some bold innovative approaches to achieve ASEAN's potentials and hopefully, it will be considered at the forthcoming ASEAN Summit in Singapore in January next year. Quite clearly it is necessary to construct a formal groundwork and mechanisms of enhancing cooperation in order to allow member states to move steadily towards a cohesive unit. The strengthening of the ASEAN Secretariat and the ASEAN mechanism should provide a framework which gives ASEAN enough flexibility to accommodate regional diversity, and provide sufficient room in which ASEAN can grow and prosper. It also should act as a path-finder in propelling ASEAN economic cooperation in the 1990s and beyond. A strengthened ASEAN
Secretariat with an ASEAN Secretary General, as opposed to the present Secretary General of the Secretariat, would be needed through whom ASEAN can chart its future course. ASEAN countries base their development strategies on outward looking commercial policies. Exports of manufactured goods play a key part in this strategy as does direct foreign investments. Any external changes such as the breakup of multilateral trading system, or increased protectionism are of great concern to all ASEAN countries. It stands to reason that ASEAN countries should cooperate with and consult each other on macro-economic policies and work together in international negotiations and voice its interest forcefully, maximising its clout everywhere. A more unified economic structure would stimulate intra-regional trade and investment, and this is particularly helpful to the private sector which are the most important implementors of ASEAN trade and investment cooperation. ASEAN is almost 25 years old. It has consistently played the role of the stabiliser in South East Asia which had seen some turbulent times. It was at the instance of ASEAN the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) was created thus depriving the Khmer Rouge of its political and diplomatic predominance. That Government, the CGDK, as represented in the UN headed by Prince Sihanouk became a legitimate party for negotiations, without the strong odour of the Khmer Rouge towards the settlement of the problem brought about by the Vietnamese intrusion. The Cambodian question has finally reached a settlement. Let us pray that under the leadership of Prince Sihanouk assisted by other patriotic Khmers, Cambodia will once again grow from strength to strength with dignity and prosperity in the community of nations. Now what could be conceived is an East Asian matrix where incrementally Indo-China begins to support the ASEAN economies and these together with China in turn support the industrialised economy of Japan assuming that Japan is prepared to be an East Asian at heart and in practice. Since peace has been achieved in Cambodia, there are many who allege that there is no more issue which can glue ASEAN together. ASEAN may soon disintegrate. It should be pointed out that, indeed, the problem of Cambodia took so much time and energy of ASEAN at the expense of other more productive projects. However, to ASEAN nothing is more serious and important than the tenet of international relations, than that nations particularly neighbours should respect the sovereignty and integrity of each other.
With the problem of Cambodia happily over ASEAN could get down to the business of facing a world of competition for investment, for trade and aid, of blossoming trade blocs, two of which are super blocs the EC and the US-Canada FTA. Should Japan decide to stand aside and become its own trade bloc then ASEAN will indeed have to grapple with problems posed by a TRIAD Society! ASEAN has a role to bring together all the nations of East Asia to a consultative forum, which serve as caucus, contributing towards resolving contentious problems, which naturally would emerge as a result of the trade blocs. By their very nature trade blocs are on collision course with each other and with others outside the bloc. The caucus could contribute positively towards enriching the understanding regarding the need for the multilateral system of trade, in an interdependent world, free from obstacles to growth. ASEAN as the nucleus of the caucus will seek to enhance East Asian cooperation and resilience. It should be high on the agenda of ASEAN, through the East Asian Caucus, to internationally cross-fertilise ideas which would stimulate growth, to draw up plans and programmes for action for the safety of the environment, for the security of humans against aids and deleterious drugs, and to manage in enlightened manners the problem of migration. All these problems transcend borders. The least the caucus could do would be to provide safety valve for the discussions of grievances at its consultative forum, given the high level interdependence of peoples. The US early this month had advised Japan to avoid being involved in the ASEAN proposal for an East Asian Economic Caucus because US was not included in the scheme of things. Neither was US invited to be a partner in EC yet she did not seem to mind. In any case it must be noted that the advice made reference to any grouping which would promote protectionism. Indeed, it is the very antithesis to such groupings as the North American Free Trade Area and the European Community which have shown signs of protectionism. President Bush in a letter to members of the US Congress referred to NAFTA as offering a historic opportunity to bring together the talents and energies of three great nations and that NAFTA would enhance "the well-being of our peoples". According to Harlan Cleaveland, a former US Secretary of State for International Organisation, the organisers of these trade blocs "are engaged in an elaborate game of 'Let's pretend', claiming that these blocs are not harmful to free trade, faster growth and fairer outcome". These trade blocs must be broken since they are outmoded and dangerous to world peace and security because of their
high degree of exploitation and discrimination. It can be done only by such a caucus as that from East Asia including Japan and China which will have the economic and political wherewithal to do so. The APEC which has just met at Seoul was conceived in Australia which belongs to an Australia-New Zealand economic grouping. They have their trade grievences with European countries. APEC includes the US-Canada FTA but not EC. Should non-bloc members of APEC be turned as tools in an anti-EC project, I believe many of them would jump off the APEC wagon. Already the mega blocs have begun to suggest the resuscitation of the Uruguay Round. It may be recalled that the Uruguay Round which started in 1974 came after the assertiveness of the oil power of the developing countries. Since that power has been thoroughly subverted the Uruguay Rounds came to a complete stand still. Because now there is a new assertiveness, and this time it is for the formation of the East Asia Economic Caucus, the Uruguay Round idea is rekindled and GATT is being returned to respectability with the sole purpose of placating developing countries and ASEAN. GATT negotiations have been laborious and long-winded which had been used to borrow time for something else, like subverting the oil power. To the industrialised countries it is a pandering game. But, the developing countries of the world consider GATT and the Uruguay Round seriously as a mechanism that could bring back sanity and equity to the international trading system. A success in the GATT negotiations can only be expected if East Asian countries are together in a consultative caucus to work out strategies and joint plans of action. Otherwise the Uruguay Round will be a monumental international bore. It will once again come to a stand still when the heat for the formation of the East Asia Economic Caucus is cooled off. If Japan refuse to be involved in the East Asian caucus then Japan will become her own trade bloc, and woe to the world when each of these three blocs, the TRIAD, go into a trade war bashing each other and everyone else. Already Japan is being denigrated as employing a "cheque book diplomacy" and accused of reincarnating the Dai Toa Kyo Eiken. Japan will be lonely indeed, if at the next Non-Aligned Movement conference, China, a veto-power holder in the Security Council which is being accused by US officials of many unfair trade practices and rigging her economic system, is invited to be a member and the Movement transforms itself into another bloc composed of developing countries. It may be named the South bloc or the ThirdWorld bloc. Call it what you will the radicals in that Movement will
certainly make life extremely lively, and perhaps Uruguay Round would go into an even faster spin. The offer to Japan to join the caucus is a golden opportunity for Japan to have a constituency for her yen as well as politics. In the 30s and 40s, Japan, like other colonial powers then, intruded into East Asia. This time Japan is invited to be around. It is an offer to Japan as an Asian in the concept and the spirit of caring and sharing a common destiny, Unmei Kyodo Tai. ASEAN now more than ever before will be expected to take the initiative in bring it together the political leaders, business community, NGOs, women and youth leaderships and others in a procession of East Asians towards a glorious future, ending the old divisive concept of geography and the hangups of history. EAST ASIA with ASEAN as the nucleus, will be in a cluster, like the bamboo, each independently growing, strong and generous and together, sharing and caring for a common destiny.
13
ASEAN: Shortfalls of the Past and Pitfalls of the Future
he story of ASEAN begins this way. The formation of Malaysia had, for whatever reasons, received the disapprobation of the late President Sukarno of Indonesia. From September 1963, Sukarno had declared a state of confrontation or "konfrontasi" as he called it against Malaysia. There were armed attacks on Malaysia but of little consequence. The propaganda war, however, was raging and the peoples of Indonesia and Malaysia were thoroughly confused. I was entrusted by the late Tun Abdul Razak who was then Deputy Prime Minister to seek ways and means of ending "konfrontasi". Special political action was initiated and credible contact was firmly established. The Indonesian side was led by the late General (Tan Sri) Ali Moertopo assisted most ably by General (Tan Sri) Benny Moerdani, the present Minister of Defence. He, with a cover job in Bangkok, played a very important role as the communication and operational link since "konfrontasi" had ruptured diplomatic ties. Ali Moetopo's team was responsible and answerable to no one else, none other than the present President of Indonesia, General Suharto. Both Tun Abdul Razak and General Suharto were of one mind that "konfrontasi" must cease and never be allowed to happen again nor must it happen between neighbouring countries of South East Asia. Accordingly, these objectives became the terms of reference for our mission. Ali Moertopo and I dug deeply into our common cultural heritage and we found that instinctively whenever there was a sense of insecurity the tendency was to get together - "BEKKAMPUNG" from
Text of Speech given at the Special Dinner Address of the First ASEAN Congress held on Thursday, October 8, 1992.
which the word "village" was derived. I had a secret meeting with the late Tun Adam Malik in Bangkok. Pak Adam also concluded that the fear he had was not the communist expansion but that which both Tun Razak and General Suharto were concerned with namely that countries of South East Asia would be at loggerheads and "konfrontasi" would become the order of the day. The possibility was real since the East-West rivalry was pulling and pushing nations to take sides. The element of fear was present but not the fear of communism. It was the fear that countries of South East Asia would be split assunder in chaos and used as pawns in the Cold War. After several meetings in Bangkok and other capitals, Ali Moertopo and I agreed that in presenting the concept of reconciliation and the idea of a regional cooperative organisation to our respective masters, emphasis should be made that for political problems to be effectively managed, leaders at all levels and in all sectors should constantly be exposed through personal meetings with each other. It should then be possible without inhibition with the objective of checking or making a point, for instance, for a minister or an official of Indonesia to pick up the phone and speak to his Malaysian counterpart. We recommended that inter-state problems should not be aired openly no matter how small. It they were border problems they should be dealt with locally through mechanisms or an apparatus which would serve to obviate the matter from becoming a diplomatic boil due to undue publicity. If there were border uncertainties they were to be surveyed together or together developed for mutual benefit. If the areas defied survey or development like gullies and gorges they should be left alone for the time being. We were recommending a special kind of relationship conscious of the fact that the modern separate state entities were the product of colonial designs which had left a number of thorny residues particularly in relation to borders. Ali Moertopo and I stressed that streams, seas and straits were not borders that separated peoples rather they were bridges that united them. This was self-evident in the South East Asian region in which relatives were found on each side of the border be it a stream, a strait or the sea. This unity and togetherness must never be governed by a sense of exclusiveness. (This concept of ASEAN entente was well demonstrated by Thailand and Malaysia when there was an overlapping claim in an area in the EEZ; the difficulty was overcome by both sides agreeing to the creation of a Joint Development Authority for the area concerned on the
Shortfalls of the Past and Pitfalls of the Future / 151
principle of "drinking water from the same well". Incidentally, the Agreement was signed by the Prime Ministers of Thailand and Malaysia, two friends, during a meal at a kway teow (noodle) shop in front of the University of Chiengmai, Thailand, without the fuss and pomp which usually accompanied such an occasion). In order that words did not become enshrined and ossified in written agreement, Ali Moertopo and I strongly suggested that a regional organisation should be established but it should not be a creature of a formal treaty, rather a solemn Declaration of a commitment based on the indigenous spirit of faith in "togetherness" (BERKAMPUNG). And we proposed that the regional organisation should be established only after the brotherly relationship between Indonesia and Malaysia had been resumed so that together Indonesia and Malaysia would serve as the mainstay of ASEAN. We also suggested that for the organisation to have a chance of success, its political function should be low-profiled. Stress should be put on its economic character to avoid burdening the organisation with having to deal with political issues in the press which very often were grave diggers for good efforts. Malaysia and Indonesia were reconciled. Sukarno had died and was succeeded by Suharto. It was in 1967 two years after the end of "konfrontasi", and with a great deal of behind the scene diplomatic activities and arguments on the wording of the Declaration, including the nomenclature of the organisation which was resolved by Pak Adam. ASEAN rose from the ashes of "konfrontasi" on August 8 in Bangkok. Based on the general assumption that ASEAN was a creature purely economic in character, its performance, thus far, to the consternation of many, had been more obvious in its political endeavours rather than its economic programmes. ASEAN had not shown much shine in its economic beacon. At least that is what commentators say, some mockingly, some with a tinge of disappointment. A look at the Bangkok Declaration will at once reveal the glaring political and diplomatic character of ASEAN. It was a commitment of a collective will. The highest machinery for ASEAN is the annual meeting of Foreign Ministers. The Standing Committee again is coloured by diplomatic and political participation. ASEAN arose out of the ashes of "konfrontasi" to ensure a "konfrontasi"-less future for countries of South East Asia. The cooperative need far outweighed the competitive desire; efforts and thoughts were constantly directed towards problem management,
towards togetherness, towards stability without which there could be no sustainable economic, social and political development, the basic ingredients for peace. Naturally, the performance of ASEAN had been more brilliant in the arena of politics and diplomacy than pure economic cooperation. The twenty five years had shown the resilience of ASEAN in manoeuvring the turbulence of the cold war and intense East West rivalries, despite the varied affiliations or non-alignment of its members. ASEAN stuck together through thick and thin amidst regional conflicts, grave external threats and deep economic crisis caused by the two oil shocks, collapse of primary commodity prices, explosive changes in currency values with consequential problems of external debt. ASEAN produced great political ideas like national resilience for regional resilience, like ZOPFAN as a positive contribution towards a world peace by encouraging the concept of building pockets and increasing arenas where peace should abound while big powers in the quest for world peace concentrated on arms control and reduction. The two endeavours were synergistic and mutually reinforcing. ASEAN produced a Treaty of Amity and Cooperation with a visionary view of accommodating some day the war-torn countries of Indo China. It was a political gesture of goodwill despite the ugly arrogance of Vietnam in the euphoria of victory over US armed might. The early summits of '76 and '77 displayed "togetherness" and common purpose sending strong signals that ASEAN was a political force to be reckoned with. The Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea quickly galvanised ASEAN into action led by Pak Mukhtar to be in the forefront to mobilise world opinion. It was ASEAN which devised the idea of the CGDK to diffuse the major political and diplomatic role of the Khmer Rouge. ASEAN worked extremely well to promote the group interest in the UN, G 77 and other international organisations even if all members were not represented. Wherever ASEAN countries are represented in the capitals of the world, interests of ASEAN members as well as the group as a whole are always taken care of. I can go on to catalogue the excellent political and diplomatic performances of ASEAN. In Bali 1976 after they had completed addressing themselves with political and diplomatic concerns the Heads of Government of ASEAN turned to the question of economics by embarking on the industrial cooperation as a first step towards creating an economic community. The Summit met once again in Kuala Lumpur the following year to
complete the unfinished agenda and set into motion other mechanisms for fostering trade cooperation. They were modest economic endeavours indeed. By the time the Summit met in Manila in 1987, ASEAN had to a great measure succeeded in achieving the original purpose of nurturing an ASEAN habit of mind; the present generation would find it difficult to imagine a past without ASEAN. Much of the edges of conflict have been blunted and contradicitons among ASEAN members had become better managed. But the recession of 1985-86 brought home to the leaders as well as the peoples of ASEAN as a whole that it was the moment for reappraisal. Without the impetus coming from the political side, the economic thrust of the Summit meeting of 1987 showed ASEAN as it was structured to be almost impotent to forge a shared economic vision. All it could do then was to take such initiatives as to modify the trading and investment schemes with the view to encouraging economic transactions among member states. The only notable objective was to bring about the value of intra-ASEAN trade to be a substantial proportion of the total by the end of the century. Obviously ASEAN was not living up to its economic image and expectation. Since the Manila Summit, Asean consciousness had brought about a growing awareness in the political, bureaucratic and the private sectors that it was time for ASEAN economic programmes to be transparently put in place. However, the desire to change emphasis brought some internal stresses. Because ASEAN was so structured, rivalries between ministries in some of the member governments came into focus. Some attempts were made to accommodate what might appear to be anomalies but without success. Pushed by world events such as the end of East-West rivalries following the demise of the Soviet Union and the rejection of communism in East Europe but not in China, North Korea and Vietnam, the Uruguay Round floundering, GATT weakening, NAFTA and EC emerging, ASEAN had to make a thorough review of itself and its mechanisms to meet the new challenges no longer based on the old fears. A committee of five eminent persons were appointed and submitted its Report and Recommendations in time for the Singapore Summit of 1992. The most important aspect of the Recommendations was that ASEAN should be serviced by an ASEAN centric Secretariat and led by a Secretary General of ASEAN. Therefore in assessing the shortfalls of ASEAN if the search was purely in the realm of economics, of course there would be many. The
first twenty-five years should be regarded as the period of preparation for securing national and regional resilience, for confidence building among members through observing scrupulously the principles of detente to ensure an enduring and durable entente. It may be recalled that it was a deliberate design that the ASEAN mechanism should be political and diplimatic so that through politics and diplomacy an ambience of togetherness could be strengthened. After every meeting of ASEAN Foreign Ministers government officials took great pains with persistence to impress on the press that the discussions centred on economic and non-political matters. As a result there grew an impression that ASEAN was purely but poorly an economic creature. It was not sweeping the dust below the carpet. On the contrary it was so arranged so that diplomatic pimples would not be made to look like boils. Without the fanfare of publicity, the Foreign Ministers were able to examine issues of political difficulties with thoroughness and cool heads. Many edges of conflicts were blunted and the first twenty-five years had been a period of confidence building. When commentators lament about the lack of economic success of ASEAN the comment would have been more to the point if ASEAN was meant only for that purpose without having to prepare for the environment that would conduce towards fruitful cooperative endeavours in matters economic. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there had been no shortfalls of any consequence in ASEAN performance in the last twenty-five years. On the other hand, its present leaders in the light of the new world configuration see the wisdom of changing emphasis. Singapore Summit gave that signal. The preamble of the Singapore Declaration indicated ASEAN selfconfidence as a result of what ASEAN had achieved in the past twentyfive years. The Singapore Summit lay out the welcome mat to Indo-Chinese countries to accede to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and then vowed to play an "active part" in international programmes for their reconstruction. Apart from underpinning the role of the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace, leaders pledged to make ASEAN itself a security dialogue mechanism and thus contribute to the process. In the institutional arena, the leaders promised to meet every three years. Further, the role of Secretary-General was upgraded to be
of the entire organisation rather than of the Secreatriat as he has been over the last twenty-five years. This will certainly conduce towards greater ASEAN centricism. A number of steps were taken, each significant in its own right, to strengthen the Secretariat. The Secretary General of ASEAN has since been chosen and things are moving. The Summit promised that ASEAN would uphold and maintain the GATT and the multi-lateral trading system, as well as collectively work towards a successful Uruguay Round. An ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) would be established within a 15 year time frame through the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT), starting with 15 groups of products. A Ministerial-level Council was formed to supervise, coordinate and review its implementation. Functional cooperation included a series of measures to be taken to increase investment, industrial cooperation, capital movement, transportation, telecommunications, joint-trade promotion and negotiation, tourism, science and technology and energy. Past promises to encourage intra-regional trade have had little effect. It is now an ASEAN with a new approach as a serious world player. The AFTA concept may even be fully actualised ahead of the original fifteen years given the upbeat tone of the Summit. The ASEAN Secretary General would help to provide more ASEAN centric inbuilt predictability and tranparency in governmental policies and actions. He will have to direct his attention to the questions of security, EAEC and other issues that transcend borders. What would be the pitfalls of the future? I think ASEAN would suffer if ASEAN became overly ambitious in her quest for economic success. But the more serious pitfal is if the managers of ASEAN mechanisms forget that security arrangements, politics, diplomacy are tools for the eventual economic gain. When the Portuguese came to Banda (in Indonesia) with her naval vessels, she did not do so as tourists but to acquire riches from the spice trade. That was economics. The devious diplomacy of the Dutch gained for Holland the wealth of what is now Indonesia. That was economics. The British realpolitik of pax brittanica and her web of treaty arrangements with the Sultans gained for her the economic abundance in natural resources of Malaysia. That was again economics. Devices and tools must not be confused with their objectives. To pursue an economic adventure in the international waters there must be a competent and constant nurturing of the political environment. I
hope ASEAN members post Singapore in their enthusiasm to make up for lost time and opportunity in economic endeavours would not ignore the need for political and diplomatic representations when dealing with economic problems with other countries, blocs, the G 77, the UN or other areas. ASEAN should not expect others to purely work on economic matters without the help of their politics and diplomacy. For instance, there is I think, the need now to review the ASEAN-EC relationship. Hitherto, since its inception in 1980, the ASEAN-EC relationship has been characterised by a recipient-donor relationship. That relationship now has to change to one of partnership in trade, economics and finance. In political terms, certain matters have to be reappraised and explained to remove concerns. But the initiatives to bring about the change will have to be taken by ASEAN using its political and diplomatic tools. Economic approaches, pure and simple, will not bring the desired results. Therefore in my view, to suppress the political and diplomatic role of ASEAN in order to project its economic role would be detrimental to ASEAN. By all means let us emphasise the economic plans and objectives of ASEAN but let us be mindful that none would be realised whether they involve intra-ASEAN schemes or relations with others without ASEAN being a political and diplomatic force. According to the Greeks, diplomats share the same patron god Hermes with merchants and thieves. To separate them would anger the god and so they are fated. I would shudder to think if the pitfall of the future was the result of an absentmindedness in this regard. That pitfall could easily cause a downfall.
14
ASEAN - Two and a Half Decades and then What?
he story of ASEAN begins this way. The formation of Malaysia had, for whatever reasons, received the disapprobation of President Sukarno of Indonesia. From September 1963, Sukarno had declared a state of confrontation or "konfrontasi" as he called it against Malaysia. There were armed attacks on Malaysia but of little consequence. The propaganda war, however, was raging and the peoples of the great Malay race in Indonesia and Malaysia were thoroughly confused. I was entrusted by the late Tun Abdul Razak who was then Deputy Prime Minister to seek ways and means of ending "konfrontasi". Special political action was initiated and credible contact was firmly established. The Indonesian side was led by the late General (Tan Sri) Ali Moertopo assisted most ably by General (Tan Sri) Benny Moerdani, the present Minister of Defence. Ali Moertopo's team was responsible and answerable to only General Suharto none other than the present President of Indonesia. Both the late Tun Abdul Razak and General Suharto were of one mind that "konfrontasi"must cease and never be allowed to recur nor must it happen between neighbouring countries of South East Asia. They feared that a South East Asia with "konfrontasi" galore would be pawns in the East West rivalry. Accordingly, these objectives became the terms of reference for our mission. Great Europeanists immediately after World War Two believed that the future well-being of Europe, and indeed the world, depended on the strong bond of cordiality between France and Germany. The seeds, in the economic form of coal and steel, those Europeanists planted had then begun to sprout. Lively debates were taking place all over Europe and beyond. Names like Monet and Schumann flashed
* Text of Luncheon Address at the ASEAN Paris Committee French Institute for International Relations Seminar/Roundtable on ASEAN held in Paris on 20th October 1992.
in our mind. The Treaty of Rome had been in place. These thoughts galvanised our conviction in "togetherness", a native instinct of getting together (berkampung). We even envisioned that the European process might be the forerunner of many more regional groupings. We concluded that stability and peace in South East Asia depended on the Malaysia-Indonesia cordiality just as in Europe on the cordial bond between Germany and France. Without stability there could be no sustainable economic, social and political developments. Without these developments there could be no meaningful peace. In order that words did not become enshrined and ossified in written agreement, Ali Moertopo and I strongly suggested to our respective masters that a regional organisation should be established but it should not be a creature of a formal treaty, rather a solemn Declaration of a commitment based on the indigenous spirit of faith in "togetherness". The organisation should be established only after the brotherly relationship between Indonesia dan Malaysia had been resumed so that together Indonesia and Malaysia would serve as the mainstay of ASEAN. For the organisation to have a chance of success, its political functions should be low-profiled. Stress should be put on its economic character to avoid burdening the organisation with having to embroil in political issues. We made a number of suggestions with regard to the mode of a special kind of relationship. In a nutshell, should a difficult situation arise, the principles of detente should be scrupulously observed thus ensuring an enduring and durable entente. Malaysia and Indonesia were soon reconciled. Sukarno died and was succeeded by Suharto. Two years after the end of "konfrontasi", ASEAN rose from the ashes of "konfrontasi" on August 8 1967 in Bangkok. During the twenty-five year period a lot of events took place in ASEAN; the present generation would find it difficult to imagine a past without ASEAN. It has become a habit of mind with consciousness which has kept its members together manoeuvring the turbulence of the Cold War. It is indeed a marvel that ASEAN, each member having its own affiliations, some non-aligned, were able to stick together on an even keel amidst intense East-West rivalries, regional conflicts, grave external threats and deep economic crisis brought about by the two oil shocks, collapse of primary commodity prices, explosive changes in currency values and consequential problems of external debt.
Two and a Half Decades and then What? / 159
Since then, Brunei on having attained her independence had been accepted as a member. It would seem the differences in governmental structures do not inhibit ASEAN members from interacting with one another so long as they believed and practised the free market system. The main ASEAN mechanism, composed of Foreign Ministers, always met in camera whether among themselves or with their dialogue partners. After these meetings ASEAN government officials took great pains to impress on the press that the discussions centred largely on economic and non-political matters; as a result there grew an impression that ASEAN was only an economic creature and as such it had so far not shown much shine in its economic beacon. As mentioned earlier, this was deliberately arranged so that political and diplomatic pimples would not be made to look like boils. Foreign Ministers without the blare and glare of publicity were able to thoroughly examine issues of political difficulties and thereby were successful in blunting the edges of conflict and to build confidence in each other. While the US was actively busy in Indo China trying to block the tide of communism there by force of arms, which of course failed miserably, ASEAN having taken note of the Nixon Doctrine, began to evolve the policy of responding to the security challenges and uncertain future through building the respective national resilience contributing towards the strengthening of ASEAN resilience. ASEAN members preferred bilateral security agreements forming a web of interlocking arrangements. There were regular meetings of the respective heads of the ASEAN security intelligence community. The present President of the Philippines, General Ramos, had taken part in such meetings when he was a member of the Philippine security forces. In 1971, ASEAN announced the idea of Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN). ASEAN regarded ZOPFAN as a positive contribution towards world peace by encouraging the concept of building pockets and increasing areas where peace should abound while big powers in the quest for world peace would concentrate on reducing offensive armaments. ASEAN regarded the two endeavours as synergistic and mutually reinforcing. Bali in 1976 was the site where the ASEAN Heads of Governement made a political gesture of providing the possibility for any country in the region - of course the Indo China states were foremost in ASEAN mind - to partake in regional cooperative endeavours through the first
ASEAN treaty namely the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. In Bali, after nine years of ASEAN existence, ASEAN Heads of Government addressed themselves to the question of economics by embarking on industrial cooperation as a first step towards creating an economic community. In 1977, the year after Bali, the summit met in Kuala Lumpur to complete the unfinished agenda and set into motion some modest mechanisms for fostering trade cooperation. The summits of 1976 and 1977 served to display "togetherness" and common purpose sending strong signals to the world that ASEAN was a political force that could not be ignored. The invasion of Kampuchea by Vietnam quickly galvanised ASEAN into action to be in the forefront to mobilise world opinion. It was ASEAN which devised the idea of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) diffusing the role of the Khmer Rouge. After that the world became more ready to make contact with its head, Norodom Sihanouk. This led to the positive French contribution in bringing about the present encouraging situation in Pnom Penh although the job is not yet over. In 1985-86, ASEAN suffered serious recession and slow growth which led to the Summit of 1987 in Manila focussing attention on economics. Without any impetus coming from the political side, the economic thrust of the meeting showed ASEAN as structured to be almost impotent to forge a common economic vision. The Manila Summit brought home to ASEAN leaders that ASEAN, after twenty years, had reached the moment that it should change its emphasis. The stress on economic matters should now be made clear and there must be more in-built predictability and be free from disguise in policies and actions of the member governments. There was a growing pressure from the private sector that it was time for the economic programme to be transparently put in place to meet the challenges of world economic pressures. World events perhaps posed the most comprehensive challenges to ASEAN. The world witnessed the dramatic end of East-West rivalries, the demise of the Soviet Union and the rejection of communism in Eastern Europe. Yet in Asia, China, Indo China and North Korea are still ideologically Marxian. However, the Marxist ideology no longer looked the same as before. China, in her desire to accommodate Hong Kong and Taipeh and to correct her stultified economy decided to adopt the principle of "one country two systems" in economic terms.
In the meantime Europe was progressing towards Europeanisation. Since then North America was evolving its own aggroupation which looked as if it was going to extend in due course from Yukon to Yucatan and then to Tierra del Fuego while Moscow, free of Asiatic nations, was moving towards a European home in step with the marching tune of perestroika. East Europeans were osmosising with the rest of Europe even if nationalism fragmented some of them. The possibility of a substantially eroded GATT was staring ASEAN in the face. The Uruguay Round was a merry-go-round. GATT is the only international agreement that stands in the way of excesses. ASEAN is developing towards modernisation and industrialisation. Its progress had been impressive. But for a market economy to survive and thrive it must have a market; it could not be hemmed in by the two big trade blocs and Japan. The assurances given so far had not been impressive since they smacked of the general attitude of caressing pussy cats. ASEAN soon would be regarded as torn cat! ASEAN might face discriminatory trade regimes when dealing with such monumental trade components such as NAFTA and EC. I was privileged to be associated with the creation of ASEAN and once again to be involved in the review when last year I was appointed to chair a committee of five eminent persons to suggest a new path for ASEAN. The Report and Recommendations of the Committee were submitted to ASEAN heads in time for the Singapore Summit in January this year when ASEAN became twenty-five years old. The former Thai Prime Minister, Anand, who attended the meeting remarked that the Singapore Summit enlarged the vision of what ASEAN was all about. The Singapore Declaration indicated ASEAN self-confidence. The Summit lay out the welcome mat to Indo-Chinese countries to accede to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and then vowed to play an "active part" in international programmes for their reconstruction. Apart from underpinning the role of the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace, leaders pledged to make ASEAN itself a security dialogue mechanism and thus contribute to the process. In the institutional arena, the leaders promised to meet every three years and the role of Secretary-General was upgraded. All these will certainly conduce towards greater ASEAN centricism with inbuilt predictability and transparency in governmental policies and actions.
The Summit promised ASEAN would uphold and maintain the GATT and the multi-lateral trading system, as well as collectively work towards a successful Uruguay Round. In this regard ASEAN will look forward to a positive cooperation from EC. Much attention was paid to a key Summit decision, namely that "an ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) shall be established within a 15 year time frame through the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT), starting with 15 groups of products". A Ministerial-level council was established to supervise, coordinate and review its implementation. Functional cooperation included a series of measures to be taken. It is now an ASEAN with a new approach as a serious world player. The AFTA concept may even be fully actualised ahead of the original fifteen years given the upbeat tone of the Summit. After the Singapore Summit, ASEAN is applying its mind seriously to the proposed East Asian Economic Caucus (EAEC). It was first mooted in December 1990 as the Uruguay Round floundered and was beginning to look as if it was becoming a bore.With the imminent emergence of the two giant blocs NAFTA and EC and the erosion of GATT, ASEAN leaders had reasons to be concerned that there might be increased protectionism and a break-up of the multi-trading system. Bloc practices might go well beyond regional freeing of tariffs into such areas as non-tariff barriers and services and disseminating unilateral trade sanctions based on some absurd conditionalities and outmoded shibboleths. It stands to reason that ASEAN and countries of South East Asia should cooperate and consult with each other and work together in international negotiations and voice their interests forcefully everywhere. An E a s t Asia t h a t coheres would be an effective investment to ensure the efficaciousness of GATT and the multitrading system. Anti EAEC blew smokes of suspicion that the proposed EAEC was some kind of acceptance of Japanese hegemony. China with her Security Council veto power and nuclear capability in EAEC and together with the economic power of Japan, EAEC is aimed to rival the US or EC. The one dimension of EAEC which has not received much notice is the question of the maintenance of peace and stability in East Asia. There were enough eminent Europeanists who believed that peace could be better served in West Europe through Franco-German cordiality. In East Asia, the Sino-Japanese cordiality is imperative.
The Schumann Plan used economic commodities to bring France and Germany closer together. It developed into the Treaty of Rome and now EC. In the same way economics should serve as the glue for a Sino Japan entente. Should China and Japan be at loggerheads, the countries of ASEAN would be dangerously affected. Let me illustrate my point. The Communist Parties in South East Asia are creatures of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Except for those in Laos and Vietnam all the subversive communist parties including Khmer Rouge of Kampuchea are still loyal to CPC even if they were dormant or inactive. Should China, for example, in a conflict scenario with Japan find that the declared policy of Malaysia was neutral, she might surmise, because of big Japanese investments, Malaysia was in fact siding with Japan. In the circumstances, China may be tempted through her international Liaison Department, a wing of the CPC, to revive subversive activities in Malaysia using the Communist Partyof Malaya. On the other hand if Japan could not influence Malaysia to stand against China, she might conclude that Malaysians of Chinese origin are influencing Malaysia to side with China. Japan may resort to armtwisting or even subvert the economy of the country through her gigantic investments. Let it not be forgotten in South East Asia the population make-up is such that the potential for instability is ever present. A Sino-Japanese strife is sure to cause upsets in East Asia. Many in South East Asia have doubts as to the ability and willingness of the United States to manage the Sino-Japanese relation if it turned sour. The US has thus far not shown much deftness in dealing with China or Japan. Even with those differences she has with Japan there is a common belief that in a Sino-Japan conflict scenario the US, because of her internal politics and other considerations, would side Japan against China. Besides the issue of Sino-Japanese relations as paramount in the economic and security equations of South East Asia, the role of EAEC as a forum for consultation and reconciliation transcends borders in other matters such as programmes for action for the safety of the environment and ecology, for the security of humans against piracies, against AIDS and deleterious drugs and to manage in manners that are enlightened such problems as mass migrations, refugees and displaced persons. The least EAEC could do would be to provide a safety valve for the discussions of grievances at its consultative forum. I believe that the present world trend would conduce nations of East Asia towards instinctive listening to their cultural drums of
"togetherness". I am further inclined to believe that South Asia would eventually find its way into this Caucus. That indeed would be a splendid development. The responsibility for peace in this region of Asia rests with the peoples of the region. China has sent strong positive meaningful signals when she agreed to establish diplomatic relation with South Korea boosting the prospect for an improved relation between the north and south of the Korean peninsula. A forum for consultation and reconciliation could address all those old and new problems including the Russo-Japanese dispute over the northern islands, a hangover of World War Two. With the changing equations and twenty-five years of ASEAN, there is merit in revising the ASEAN-EC relationship which since its inception in 1980 has been characterised by a recipient-donor relationship. Hitherto ASEAN post-ministerial meetings were attended by ASEAN foreign ministers while EC representatives had considerable powers in the fields of economics and trade. Quite correctly donor-recipient matters were dealt with in a foreign policy setting. If the nature of relationship has to be altered from one of donorrecipient to one of partnership in trade, economics and finance, in political terms certain matters have to be reappriaised to remove concerns. Many questions need convincing answers such as whether EC-ASEAN trade pattern would change against ASEAN interests particularly those relating to industrial products which are also produced in the least efficient industries of EC members. I would venture to suggest that ASEAN-EC cooperation is imperative for the health of the world free trade system which calls for a multipronged alternatives through which new avenues could be explored and possible barriers dismantled. Existing bilateral arrangement should be further capitalised and inter-regional cooperation more emphasised for mutual benefit. In the global environment of politics and economics ASEAN and EC have a common and joint responsibility towards sustainable development and social justice for all mankind who share a common fate and destiny. To bond a strong meaningful ASEAN-EC relationship is one of the answers to the question, "And then, what?"
75
ASEAN: Twenty-Five Years and Beyond
ne may recall the genesis of ASEAN in which Malaysia and Indonesia had a sad relationship, or shall we say non-relationship, from the middle of 1963 to 1965. During that period I was tasked by the Malaysian Government to find ways and means of resolving the unhappy episode. Various contacts were made but to no avail until finally a credible communication was firmly established. The process of reconciliation was begun with me leading the Malaysian team ably assisted by Ahmad Yusof of the Prime Minister's Department. The Indonesian team was led by the late General Tan Sri Ali Moertopo assisted by General Tan Sri Benny Moerdani, the present Minister of Defence of Indonesia, who at that time was a clerk in the Garuda Airlines office in Bangkok as his cover job.The late Tun Abdul Razak who later became Malaysia's Prime Minister was the arch leader on the Malaysian side while General Suharto who later became President and still is, was the chief on the Indonesian side. Our respective masters were of one mind that "Konfrontasi" must not be allowed to recur nor must it be allowed to happen between neighbouring countries of South East Asia. We met several times in various third countries and eventually evolved a formula with the rough modalities of the modes of the closest cooperation possible between Indonesia and Malaysia and also countries of South East Asia. It may be recalled that the idea of regional cooperation was not new among leaders of South East Asia. In 1961, ASA was formed for which even Sri Lanka was invited. ASA as an association had only Malaya, Thailand and the Philippines as members. Unfortunately in the context of East-West rivalry without Indonesia, the home of the Bandung spirit, the grouping looked too much like a Western inspired idea since the US had military ties with
* Speech delivered at The Asia Society Annual Dinner held in Washington, on Thursday, April 2, 1992.
Thailand arid the Philippines whilst Malaya had a defence relationship with Britain, Australia and New Zealand. Nothing happened. Sukarno rejected ASA and proposed an aggroupation of Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia to be known as Maphilindo. Maphilindo to Malaysia with her mult-racial and multi-religious communities was a non-starter since the idea smacked too much of a Malay racial grouping. Futhermore even with Maphilindo, President Sukarno had no desire to withdraw his "confrontation" policy against Malaysia. Maphilindo was to abort the Malaysia Plan. There were other problems besetting Malaysia at that time. Relation with the Philippines was disrupted with the Manila claim on the State of Sabah despite the wishes of the people there had been reaffirmed by the Secretary General of the United Nations and later reconfirmed by a freely held general elections. Singapore was granted her independence from Malaysia in 1964. The pangs of separation lingered on for some time. The various separatist movements in Southern Thailand had been illegally using the sanctuary of the Malayisan borders. This caused a great deal of strain in the Thai-Malaysia relationship. Before the formation of Malaysia while the former Sultan of Brunei was considering the question whether or not his state should join Malaysia, a rebellion against him took place.It was quelled only through the intervention of Britain who by a treaty was the protecting power. The Sultan eventually decided not to join Malaysia. By then the seeds of suspicion had been sown. Sukarno was not above suspicion for his hegemonic ambition over the Malay world of South East Asia. His special relation with Communist China and the Indoensian Communist Party, his training of Malaysian and Brunei anti-government guerrillas made him something of an ogre. I mentioned all these to indicate the extent of problems with which Ali Moertopo and I had to grapple.We eventually arrived at the conclusion that the ideas of ASA and Maphilindo could be merged and Singapore, once a part of Malaysia, was to be brought in. Brunei would remain as a future candidate for membership. Brunei is now a member. The aggroupation was to be known as ASEAN which would provide the forum for contacts at all levels - the politicians, the armed forces, the bureaucrats, the business communities, the nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and the general populace. In orally presenting the ASEAN concept to our respective masters Ali and I emphasised that for political problems to be managed the
Twenty-Five Years and Beyond / 167
relevant actors should constantly be exposed to each other. This must begin from the top. We concluded that most problems were usually the results of wrong relationship between men. No problems should be aired openly no matter how small, and if they were border problems they should be dealt with locally through mechanisms to be devised and not to be brought for publicity at the capitals. It is a special kind of international relation which was in keeping with the spirit of togetherness, taking into account that the modern separate state entities were in fact the product of colonial designs; that the seas and straits were not borders that separated peoples rather they were bridges that united them. Both Ali and I recommended that ASEAN should not be the creature of a formal treaty but rather a solemn declaration of a commitment based on the spirit of and faith in togetherness. And we emphasised that ASEAN should be established after the brotherly relationship between Indonesia and Malaysia had been resumed and they together would serve as the ASEAN mainstay. By 1967, two years after the end of Konfrontasi and Sukarno had been succeeded by Suharto, after a great deal of behind the scene activities in the capitals of the five member countries in order to get the agreed form of words, ASEAN came into being in Bangkok on August 8th by a Declaration made by the Deputy Prime Minister oi Malaysia, Foreign Ministers of Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. ASEAN was born out of the ashes of confrontation. While ostensibly ASEAN was no more than an economic organisation, the Declaration itself was a highly political document. Even a cursory glance at it one could discern its political and diplomatic weight. The mechanism was headed by meetings oi Foreign Ministers who would meet in camera. To the outside world, these Foreign Ministers were discussing economic and trade matters. However, the Foreign Ministers without the blare and glare oi publicity had a free hand to work out programmes, resolve problems and above all to blunt the edges of conflict and to bring the ordinary people closer together. ASEAN is twenty-five years old this year. A citizen from an ASEAN country will find it difficult to imagine a past without ASEAN. It has indeed become ingrained into the individual psyche. There is no denying that there developed a habit of mind that is ASEAN and this consciousness has blossomed and manifest itself in many ways. I encountered once at a seaside resort of Thailand an ASEAN conference of dentists, no doubt attended by people who had a lot of pull!
For twenty-five years ASEAN had, tightly knit at times and not so tightly at others, kept its members together amidst dangerous regional conflicts, grave external security threats and deep economic crisis. In the last twenty-five years, ASEAN indeed had successfully manouvered in traversing the turbulence of the East-West rivalries. Some members of ASEAN were non-aligned while others were not. Yet, ASEAN was able to keep together on an even keel among themselves and with dialogue partners on the basis of adherence to the free market system. The question of security was paramount in the mind of ASEAN. Security here meant both the external aggression and internal subversion. While US was actively busy in Indo-China, ASEAN had taken note of the Nixon Doctrine and prepared its response to security challenges and uncertain future through building the respective national resilience thereby strengthening ASEAN resilience. In 1971 ASEAN announced the idea of the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN). The concept of zone of peace was a contribution towards world peace by building pockets and increasing areas where peace should abound while the big powers concentrated on decreasing armaments. ASEAN for one never believed in the theory of falling dominoes. But ASEAN with its policy of national and regional resilience was prepared for co-existence with a dominant, militarily strong and Soviet aligned neighbour, Vietnam. After the US had abondoned South Vietnam in 1973 ASEAN showed goodwill towards Vietnam despite Vietnam's early arrogant euphoria which made her extremely ugly. In 1976, Bali was the site of the ASEAN Heads of Government's first attempt to co-ordinate a response. They did so by pledging close cooperation with each other and sealed this with the signing of ASEAN's only and therefore a historic Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. It also embarked on industrial cooperation as the first step towards creating an economic community. In Kuala Lumpur, the following year, the Summit met for a second time to complete the unfinished agenda and set into motion other mechanisms for fostering economic cooperation, namely in the field of trade. Broadly, the first and second Summits served two purposes. One, by displaying unity and common purpose, it hoped to send a strong signal to the world that ASEAN was a political force to be reckoned with. Two, by aiming to strengthen the economic and social vitality of
the region, it hoped to keep its member countries prosperous and communist-free. On both counts it succeeded. In many respects, the years that followed belonged to ASEAN. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1978, ASEAN was quickly galvanized into action. For the greater part of the decade, it was at the forefront of efforts to mobilise world opinion to settle a problem that, seemingly, many in the West just did not want to know, much less care. On a second front, and with only a few exceptions, its member economies started to develop at a very fast pace, at least until the midway through the period. In 1985-86, ASEAN countries faced one of the most serious bouts of recession or slow growth they had hitherto known. More depressing than that, induced by the past two oil shocks, the 1985-86 collapse of primary commodity prices, especially oil, the consequent effect this had on external debt-servicing and the explosive changes in currency values, led to a serious erosion of confidence. This pessimism permeated the setting of the third occasion when ASEAN Heads of Government sat together, this time in Manila, 1987. Without fresh impetus coming from the political side, the thrust of the meeting became primarily economic. But unable to forge a common vision, these initiatives were reduced to modifying the trading and investment schemes in order to encourage economic transactions among member states. Notable among their objectives was that the value of intra-ASEAN trade should be substantial proportion of the total by the end of the century. After 20 years ASEAN began to question itself as to what it wanted to be in the years ahead. It would seem that the original purpose of nurturing an ASEAN habit of mind has succeeded. Regional contradictions are practically well managed. Edges of conflict have been somwehat blunted. There was an ambience of peace and goodwill in ASEAN. There was a growing pressure from the peoples of ASEAN, particularly of the Bangkok Declaration should be transparently put in place to accelerate growth through joint endeavours towards greater prosperity. Political-driven, European-style integration has always been an option, but one that has been firmly rejected. ASEAN Governments have in fact had an allergic reaction to any hint of supranational control, no matter how minute or insignificant. This is perhaps because the concept of sovereignty was extremely dear to those who have just recovered it.
Process-driven, less "restrictive" forms of integration (for example, free trade areas) have been bandied about for some time. However, full-blooded commitment had not been shown by members because the benefits were not seen to outweigh costs. This had left ASEAN with a part quasi-process and part quasi-functional cooperation that was not at all satisfactory. The question of ASEAN's future takes on added importance given world events in recent days. Collectively, they posed perhaps the most comprehensive challenges to what ASEAN was and what it wanted to become. First, the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the East-West rivalries totally changed the way ASEAN perceives others and, in turn, the way it is perceived by the "outside" world. The Russian Commonwealth which looks very much like the Empire of the Ramanovs, no longer poses the strategic threat it once did when it was part of the wider Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The collapse of the USSE has precipitated not only wide ranging change throughout Eastern Europe but also in South East Asia, thus making a through review necessary. Vietnam, once viewed as potential aggressor, is now very much regarded by ASEAN as an economic companion to be cultivated. Farther North, Mongolia has had the distinction of being the first and thus far the only Asian communist country to embark not only on market reform but also extensive political liberalisation. And in the North-East, the two Koreas are on the verge of something which even if short of the fullest and most complete unification, will be tantamount to very considerable change compared to the situation before. Once the security equation is taken away, one can ask the hard question as to whether ASEAN will still be perceived as 'useful' by Western powers and in what context? One journalist observed: "ASEAN's value as a Cold War friend of the West has sharply diminished." This was thought to be especially so given that the Cambodia problem was all but resolved. Second, and more in the global economic field, ASEAN has to contend with the possibility of a substantially eroded GATT and with the consequences of the "Europeanisation" of Europe and the "Americanisation" of North America. Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, recently in Kyoto, echoed ASEAN's misgiving when he said: "The Uruguay Round can ... lead to a breakdown of GATT. World trade will be set back. Two economic blocs, the
EC-12 and NAFTA with US, Canada and Mexico, will leave East Asia with little choice but to get into closer association to improve its prospects. Three major economic blocs will slow world growth. Worse, they will increase the likelihood of conflicts." Ever since the Uruguay Round began, trade experts have argued that success is critical in keeping world trade growing and regional trade blocs and protectionism at bay. The Uruguay Round would contribute to improved market access that ASEAN needs for a wide variety of products and services. It would retain the integrity of the non-discrimination principle and help prevent totally managed trade, both of which are in the interests of ASEAN member countries. More generally, it would enable developing countries to participate in world trade and development. Obviously, if the Uruguay Round failed, ASEAN faces the danger that there would be restricted market access, discrimination based on regional blocs, managed trade, trade disputes and peripheralisation of developing countries. If the collapse of the Uruguay Round then leads to a break-down of GATT, the effects can be many times more damaging and costly. The GATT curbs governments from doing what they please, when they please. Even if it is not full or complete, it is the only international agreement that stands in the way of excesses the type of which happened in the '30s. A question that could arise is "Whose excesses?" The general answer is everybody's but specifically those that have high standards of living, low growth rates, poor trade competitiveness and problems of structural adjustment. Conversely, the "victims", it would be logical to conclude, would be countries with either high or low living standards but high growth, good trade competitiveness and sound industrial structures. The failure of the Uruguay Round exponentially increases the risk that world trade will be governed by realpolitik. Where power rules while rules do not have power, the future of the global economy is dismal. On the other point, ASEAN countries feel themselves "hemmed-in" by developments in the European Community and the North American Free Trade Area and are not reassured by their public relations efforts. Together, the intra-regional trade component of these two equals almost one-third of total world trade. In other words, up to one third of world trade may fall under discriminatory trade regimes and this is
increasing because the groups themselves are in the process of expanding. European Community may extend from the Mediterranean to Vladivostok while the American Free Trade Area, from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. Amidst this setting, the fourth ASEAN Heads of Government Meeting was held in Singapore in January 1992. With few exceptions, ASEAN members have been prospering and external security threats have largely, though not totally, gone off the boil. However', the Singapore Summit was a direct test of the organisation's present-day credibility, relevance and ability to respond to the changing world. Taken in its entirety, the Summit comprehensively addressed the burning themes, issues and subjects of the day and framed appropriate responses. As Anand Panyarachun, Thai Prime Minister, said: "The Summit enlarged the vision of what ASEAN is all about." The Preamble to the Singapore Declaration states the following: "ASEAN shall move towards a higher plane of political and economic cooperation to secure regional peace and prosperity." "ASEAN shall constantly seek to safegurad its collective interests in response to the formation of large and powerful economic groupings among the developed countries, in particular through the promotion of an open international economic regime and by stimulating economic cooperation in the region." "ASEAN shall seek avenues to engage member states in new areas of cooperation in security matters." "ASEAN shall forge a closer relationship based on friendship and cooperation with the Indo-Chinese countries, following the settlement on Cambodia." In support of these objectives, the Singapore Summit lay out the welcome mat to Indo-Chinese countries to accede to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and then vowed to play an "active part" in international programmes for their reconstruction. Apart from underpinning the role of the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace, leaders pledged to make ASEAN itself a security dialogue mechanism and thus contribute to the peace process. In the institutional arena, the leaders promised to meet every three years. In addition, the role of Secretary-General was upgraded to be of the entire organisation rather than of the Secretariat as he has been over the last 25 years. This will certainly conduce towards greater ASEAN centricism. Commensurate with this, a number of steps
were taken, each significant in its own right, to strengthen the Secretariat. In seeking to stimulate economic cooperation so as to "safeguard" itself from the European and American integration processes, ASEAN promised it would uphold and maintain the GATT and the multilateral trading system, as well as collectively work towards a successful Uruguay Round. For obvious reasons, much attention was paid to a key Summit decision, namely that "an ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) shall be established within a 15 year time frame through the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT), starting with 15 groups of products". However, financial cooperation was not forgotten and a series of measures were to be taken to increase investment, industrial cooperation, capital movement, transportation, telecommunications, joint-trade promotion and negotiation, tourism, science and technology and energy. And, as if to anticipate the criticism of the skeptics who may say that the implementation of the ASEAN Free Trade Area will be tardy and incomplete, a Ministerial-level Council was established to supervise, coordinate and review implementation. Past promises to encourage intra-regional trade have had little effect not only because decisions have been too little and too late, but also because of the opaque, time-consuming bureaucratic proceduers. ASEAN Free Trade Area however, could change all this. With a firm mandate from the highest level, a concrete timetable and workable plan, ASEAN could, after a period, at last be ribboned together for better or worse, into the start of an economic community. Singapore's Prime Minister, Goh Chok Thong remarked recently on the regional free-trade plan: "We will convince both domestic and foreign investors that ASEAN is a serious player in the new world order." Others, like Indonesia's Foreign Minister, Ali Alatas, ventured that impelementation of the Free Trade Area concept could even be brought forward from the original 15 years. At this stage, it would be absolutely premature to run counter to the upbeat tone of the Summit, especially with respect to the ASEAN Free Trade Area. It is the product of what is presently feasible and may be the harbinger of greater things to come. If ASEAN Free Trade Area was not to fall victim to convenience and changing circumstances, there must be more in-built predictability
and transparency in governmental policies and actions. The worldwide trend in trade liberalisation is towards substance with simplicity. Only then can governments reasonably expect the private sector to capitalise on the freer environment that they have created. ASEAN, after the Singapore Summit, will aslo apply its mind seriously to the question of the proposed East Asian Economic Caucus (EAEC). The idea of the Caucus had resulted at one time in some noisy and often incoherent rantipole, almost hysterical reaction from officials of the United States which appeared to have the underlying fear that the EAEC might be some kind of acceptance of Japanese hegemony. Or is it caused by the dread that China with her security Council veto power and nuclear capability in EAEC and together with Japan the proposed EAEC would become a rival super power that is inimical to the Pentagon? The proposal came in December 1990 when the Uruguay Round floundered and was beginning to become a bore. There was a genuine fear of potential American and European "trade blocs" despite contrary claims in public relations. Even Taiwan at a seminar on 2nd November 1991 through the statement by the Economics Minister, Mr. Vincent Siew proposed a chauvinistic idea of an economic bloc composed of China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. The EAEC was proposed to meet this kind of challenges that bloc agreements might go well beyond regional freeing of tariffs into such areas as non-tariff barriers, and services and discriminatory trade sanctions based on racism or some absurd conditionalities and outmoded shibboleths. An American luminary, Harlan Cleaveland, former US Secretary of State for International Organisations whose acquaintance I am privileged to claim, recently remarked that the organisers of these trade blocs,"are engaged in an elaborate game of 'et us pretend', claiming that these blocs are not harmful to free trade, faster growth and fairer outcome". It is recognised that both the EC and US-Canada FTA have made it public that where there were problems in the developing countries they would be extended mitigatory trade and aid cooperation. Usually this exercise is temporary in nature subject to unilateral withdrawal of such preferential handouts and practised on poor struggling countries which are regarded as pussy cats. Should they grow up to be torn cats, they will be out of favour. ASEAN members I am afraid, can easily be categorised as torn cats. Their engines of growth are investments and trade and by implication
the availability of market. Hence, any break-up of multi-trading system or increased protectionism are of great concern to ASEAN. It stands to reason that ASEAN and countries of East Asia should cooperate and consult with each other on macro economic policies and work together in international negotiations and voice their interests forcefully everywhere. By their very nature, trade blocs are on collision course with each other and with others outside the bloc. These are the fears that motivated the idea of EAEC whose purpose is compatible with GATT free trade. The hope is that the Caucus could contribute positively towards enriching the understanding regarding the need for the multi-lateral system of trade, in an inter-dependent world, free from obstacles to growth. In this regard I appeal to my American friends to view proposals from friends patiently, with purposeful prudence, with less jaundiced eyes without immediately declaring them as political poisons. Whether the world will agree or not, I have a very strong feeling that an East Asian community will inevitably emerge. ASEAN, which is a US dialogue partner, tested as collaborators and friends in the nurturing of the free market system, could serve as the nucleus of the Caucus enhancing greater cooperation among the various economic systems of the region and with Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). I am certain that when the Caucus is actualised, it would be high on the agenda of ASEAN to internationally cross fertilise ideas which would stimulate growth, to draw up plans and programmes for action for the safety of the environment, for the security of humans against AIDS and deleterious drugs and to manage in manners that will enlighten such problems as migration, refugees and displaced persons. All these matters transcend borders. The least the Caucus could do would be to provide a safety valve for the discussions of grievances at its consultative forum, given the high level of interdependence of peoples. Looking at ASEAN and the United States, I cannot help but thinking how important it is that ASEAN and the US should be ad idem in perceptions on a number of subjects of common concern. For instance, all the ASEAN leaders that I met expressed the importance of a healthy US-Japanese relationship which is vital for the economic well-being of East Asia. Yet, to the dismay of ASEAN leaders, there seems to be a growing movement in different directions. Both the US and Japan have to deal with their problems that should not cause discomfort and anxiety to their friends in the East Asian region.
Likewise, in the US dealing with China, ASEAN would prefer that the US and her friends would look at China with a greater depth of understanding. Taking into account her long cultural history China is going through a rough time to implement her modernisation plans at the same time to feed, clothe and house her 1.1 billion people who had been subject to previous social inequities, recent floods and other calamities. To me as a citizen of ASEAN, from a country that had once been the victim of Communist China's subversion after Communist China regarded this region as hostile, I would prefer to see China make her reforms at her own pace without the present leadership being undermined. What would be distressing to me would be a state of instability and chaos in China. A turmoil in China would mean we in South East Asia would have to bear the brunt of such a situation. I come from a democracy but I still prefer to see China stable rather than to see her progress towards the Western kind of democracy bringing with it upheavals, chaos, anarchy or other kinds of dictatorship, warlordism and chauvinism. My dear friends, what I am saying is from the botom of my heart with the sincerest wish that the United States would always be taken seriously by peoples of my region. The United States and ASEAN nations should be in continous dialogues, and not in a one way lecture; US ambassadors should be mandated to participate in intense discussions and not just to defend a viewpoint without absorbing other viewpoints. There are limitless areas of shared values. I am delighted to see a few days ago some US embassadors from ASEAN going back to the States to explain to business leaders and hopefully investors also, the nature and ambience that is ASEAN for trade and investment. Until today, all news is focused on trade disputes, on bashings, on tortured interpretations of laws and agreements. The way things are being handled are very discouraging even disturbing. The US-Canadian disputes do not escape ASEAN mass media. ASEAN is your dialogue partner. ASEAN is your friend even if some of the members do not have treaty arrangements with you. And friendship, to be meaningful and enduring, must always be kept in constant repair.
If we cared enough and shared enough we shall have enough. Above all we share a common destiny.
76
History and Prospective Views of ASEAN
do not know how to begin. The beginning of ASEAN is generally known. This year ASEAN is twenty-five years old. It must be obvious that ASEAN waw not just an economic association. The ASEAN Declaration itself clearly reveals its political character and contains the ASEAN philosophy of "togetherness". There has developed over the twenty-five years a habit of mind that is ASEAN. A citizen from ASEAN will find it difficult to think of the past without ASEAN, and ASEAN has been ingrained into the individual psyche. For twenty-five years ASEAN had managed to keep its members together amidst grave security and economic crisis in the world. It is unique indeed that in the waves of the Cold War some of its members were non-aligned yet ASEAN had kept itself on an even keel even with dialogue partners some of whom were leaders of the cold warriors. However, security of the ASEAN region was foremost in the mind of its leaders. They regard national security as comprehensive which included both external aggression and internal subversion.With regard to the latter, it must be principle and practice of free market system, even if some members, for internal developmental and social reasons, maintained some governmental business and enterprises for the time being. They are intended to be deregulated. Any effort at economic sabotage or creating a public order situation or the promotion of a change of government by force would be regarded as a threat to security. "Fukuda doctrine" became a beacon for ASEAN which quickly adopted the principle of building national and regional resilience through positive economic and social developments. In 1971, ASEAN came out with the idea of Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN). This Zone of Peace was intended as a contribution towards world peace by creating pockets and increasing areas of peace while the big powers were working out a system for the
Text of Speech delivered at the Japanese Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Malaysia (JACTIM) Commodity Group Luncheon Meeting on Monday, April 20,1992.
History and Prospective Views of ASEAN / 179
reduction of armaments. Zone of Freedom is self-explanatory. Independence and Freedom are highly valued together and alike. Neutrality is not only a contribution in respect of East-West rivalry but that members of ASEAN should not take sides in any international dispute simply by reason of alliance. While there was a Western theory that South East Asia would collapse into the cluthches of communism like falling dominoes after the US had abandoned South Vietnam in 1973, ASEAN was confident enough to adopt a policy not just of co-existence but active cooperation with a militarily strong and USSR assisted neighbour - Vietnam. There was a great deal of goodwill towards the victorious Vietnam despite her arrogant euphoria which indeed had made her appear extremely ugly then. The first meeting of the Heads of ASEAN Governments was held in Bali, Indonesia in 1976 where they signed the first ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation which was intended to accommodate other South East Asian countries to actively cooperate with ASEAN. The relevance of this Treaty emerged when the Heads of ASEAN met in Singapore in January this year. The following year (1977) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, the second summit was held to complete what they started in Bali. They set in motion mechanisms for fostering economic cooperation particularly in the area of trade. These two summits in successive years sent strong signals to the world that ASEAN was both a political and economic force that had to be taken seriously and that it hoped to promote further the prosperity of its members which must be kept communist free. The years that followed were certainly ASEAN's. ASEAN by then had developed the concept of inviting dialogue partners which eventually brought a great deal of benefits to all concerned. One of the greatest traumas experienced by ASEAN was the Vietnamese rude intrusion into Cambodia in 1979. ASEAN reaction was swift and direct. ASEAN had no love for Pol Pot and his horrendous ways but aggression could not be condoned or rewarded. The world sat up and took notice of the principled reaction of ASEAN. For a decade and more ASEAN was in the forefront mobilising world opinion to settle the problem. Despite the Vietnam-Cambodia debacle and the instability it brought to South East Asia, ASEAN economies developed at a fast pace until 1985-86 when ASEAN suffered the most serious bouts of recessions. These adversities brought ASEAN heads together again, this time in Manila, the Philippines, in 1987.
Staring grimly into the faces of the ASEAN summit were not political problems but economic hazards induced by the oil shocks, the collapse of commodity prices, debt servicing and the explosive changes in currency values. Unfortunately, there was no common economic vision among ASEAN except to modify trading and investment schemes in order to encourage ASEAN economic transactions. These they resolved to increase substantially by the end of the century. I think it was from that moment in time that ASEAN leaders and interested parties began to question, "Wither is ASEAN bound?" It would seem that the original purpose of nurturing an ASEAN habit of mind had already succeeded. Hardly a week passed without some ASEAN activities organised by NGOs, sports and social organisations on people to people basis. The edges of conflict had been blunted somewhat and there was an atmosphere of peace and well-being. Brunei had become the sixth member. However, the peoples of ASEAN in their ASEAN consciousness particularly among business, trading and industrial communities began to show greater desire for the full actualisation of the Bangkok Declaration. They wished to see economic programmes transparently in place, to accelerate greater growth and prosperity through joint endeavours. In the context of the world political and economic developments ASEAN future necessitated a review. Perestroika and glasnost, caused unprepared changes in Eastern Europe, breaking down familiar values, creating havoc all over the world. East-West rivalries had disappeared with the collapse of the USSR. The Russian Commonwealth came into being and it did not appear to be capable of posing any global strategic threat. To my mind, the Commonwealth is a misnomer because it looks very much like the dominion or the empire of the Ramanovs and there is every likelihood that it would not enjoy the security of tenure for long. The ideological warfare and the security equation having disappeared, ASEAN totally changed the way it perceived others and, in turn, the way others perceived ASEAN. Furthermore, ASEAN has to contend with the possibility of the failure of GATT on which ASEAN as the proponent of free market system had placed so much faith and hope in order to retain the integrity of the non-discrimination principles in world trade. ASEAN, which depends on world trade and is developing its industries, needed open markets and therefore a system of free trade for the world. And GATT is sorely needed as the only international agreement which stands in the way of "excesses", the kind of which was rampant in the thirties.
These "excesses" would be practised by those with high living standards, but low growth rates, poor trade competitiveness with problems of structural adjustment. They would be practised on weak developing nations who have the gut and grit to create growth with good trade competitiveness and sound industrial structure. The absence of GATT or such similar arrangement would simply mean that the world trade would be governed by realpolitik. The future of international trade and economy is bleak indeed when power rules while rules keep changing at the whim and fancy of power. Furthermore, with each passing day the world witnesses the growth of the European Community parallelled by the development of the American Free Trade Area. The European Community will eventually extend from Vladivostok to the Mediterranean, and the American Free Trade Area, from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. With this kind of developments, there is no denial that world free trade will fail even if the proponents of the blocs in a chorus claim that it would prevail. Very poor developing countries are given assurances that should there be problems in those countries, they would be offered mitigatory trade and aid schemes which by their very nature would be temporary and subject to conditionalities and outmoded shibboleths. Such exercises could be unilaterally withdrawn and often practised on poor countries which are regarded as pussy cats. Once they grow up to be tomcats they would be out of favour. Because of the looming dangers of discriminating trade regimes, peoples are promoting ideas to protect themselves from being hemmed in. Even Taiwan, at a seminar in November 1991 through a statement by her Economics Minister, proposed a chauvinistic idea of an economic bloc comprising China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. Amidst this setting the fourth ASEAN Summit was held in Singapore in January 1992. The Summit comprehensively addressed the burning themes and issues and framed appropriate responses. The Singapore Summit committed ASEAN to move towards a higher plane of political and economic cooperation to secure regional peace and security. In the face of the growing economic groupings among the developed world ASEAN would seek to safeguard its collective interests. ASEAN would also seek avenues to engage member states in new areas of cooperation in security matters and at the same time would forge a closer relationship with the Indo China states following the Cambodia settlement. The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, I mentioned earlier, would now come into active play after the Singapore Summit lay out the
welcome mat to the Indo China states to accede to this Treaty and ASEAN would then play an active role in the international programmes for their reconstruction. ASEAN and Japan could be partners in this field of endeavour. On the question of South East Asian security, the Summit, apart from under-pinning the role of the United Nations, pledged to make ASEAN itself a security dialogue mechanism. This is in addition to what had already been in place amongst many ASEAN governments which had created a web of interlocking security arrangements through bilateral agreements. There are also the regular meetings of the ASEAN heads of the intelligence community on security matters. The Summit also recognised the need for ASEAN-centricism. It agreed on refurbishing the Secretariat and the appointment of the ASEAN Secretary General and not just the Secretary General of the ASEAN Secretariat. The Summit itself promised to meet more regularly at least once every three years and would use its best endeavours towards upholding GATT as its principles of a multilateral trading system. The Singapore Summit took an extremely bold step when it declared that an ASEAN Free Trade Area would be established within a fifteen year time frame and if possible shorter, through the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) starting with fifteen groups of products. The Summit also urged for measures to be taken to increase investment, industrial cooperation, capital movement, transportation, telecommunication, joint trade promotion and negotiation, cooperation in tourism, energy, science and technology. The Singapore Summit indeed had shown the way for ASEAN and dramatic developments are in store when such programmes as the ASEAN Free Trade Area is in place. It is up to the Japanese to recognise and seize the opportunities which these developments offer. The tone of the Singapore Summit was indeed upbeat and it might turn out to be the harbinger of greater things to come. No doubt with such a firm decision assisted by the refurbished Secretariat and the ASEAN Secretary General, future programmes of ASEAN would be characterised by greater ASEAN centric inbuilt predictability and transparency in respective governmental policies and actions. Succinctly put by a Prime Minister (Anand of Thailand) the Singapore Summit had enlarged the vision of what ASEAN was all about. In the preamble of the Singapore Summit, it was stated that, "ASEAN shall constantly seek to safeguard its collective interests in
response to the formation of larger and powerful economic groupings among the developed countries . . .". Mr. Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore said recently in Kyoto, Japan, that the giant economic blocs, "will leave East Asia with little choice but to get into closer association . .." Asean at the Singapore Summit, having recognised the desirability of consultations, would have to apply its mind seriously to the question of EAEC as a consultative forum a response to the challenges of the European and American trade groupings. Whatever may be the assurances given by the giant trade groupings such arrangements would willy nilly go well beyond regional freeing of tariffs into such areas as non-tariff barriers and services, and discriminatory trade sanctions based on absurd conditionalities and tortured interpretations of agreements and regulations. These giant groupings are on a collision course with each other and with those outside which they regard as rivals. Such a prosepct is frightening particularly when the Uruguay Round floundered in 1990. It was precisely to meet this kind of challenge that the idea of EAEC emerged which is compatible with GATT Free Trade and the concept that no one country alone could be prosperous unless everyone else was also prosperous or at least on the road to prosperity. It may be recalled that GATT as a trading system was devised after World War II to prevent, what I said earlier, the "excesses" of the period of the thirties. Japan, I am sure would remember how she was then treated by the various Western blocs during the thirties which prompted her, by forcibly replacing the US, British, Dutch and French colonial powers with the Japanese military administration, to devise her own notorious bloc, Dai Toa Kyo Ei Ken (the Great East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere). And no one wants that to recur. The GATT trading system was extremely successful for forty years and Japan is one of its beneficiaries. There was growth almost everywhere. But that was because the United States then was wealthy. Rich US with its dollar power, motivated by the strong desire to defeat communism, single-handedly promoted and maintained the global trading system. To augment it, the US also provided the Marshall Plan. But by 1990 the US economy could no longer direct the system and be the economic locomotive for the globe. By then the US had been reduced from a position of economic and technical superiority to one of parity, at best. Moreover, without communism there is no more incentive to pursue the role and its rules. The age of industrial revolution with its ugly concomitantsimperialism and colonialism had evaporated. East-West rivalism was
no more. Familiar ways have disappeared. In the absence of any new wisdom, despite the advanced technology in communications and information, uncertainty had crept in and the human instinct of selfpreservation and self-protectionism conduces towards polarisation. Everyone seeks comfort and security among his own kind. Hence, the growing desire of Europeans to be together prompting Perestroika to find for Moscow a "European home" discarding the Asiatic republics to fend for themselves. Likewise, the American continent led by the United States would also want to build its own wall. The Third World is seriously watching this unwholesome development particularly the reality that many of them in Africa would be marginalised, if not already so. Europe led by Germany and the US, despite their differences in many other things particularly in trade matters, are of one mind that Eastern Europe and Russia must be given all the aid to prevent the ex-communists from being disillusioned with the West. Recently USA, accepting twenty-five percent of the burden, and EC agreed that a sum of US$24 billion would be set aside for this purpose for the next few years. That would leave the least developed countries with zero and the US economy without any apparent chance of chopping the root of its own chronic problems. This trend leaves an acute sense of insecurity, fear and hopelessness among the Third World countries. The anxiety and adversity are steadily becoming common factors and shared feelings among the Third World. For their salvation the Third World would be seeking for a forum; and there is such a one ready-made in the form of the Non-aligned Movement (NAM). NAM without the East-West rivalries has lost much its raison d'etre and lustre. However, since the members are all from the Third World, let us not be too surprised if NAM will be transformed into a Movement of the South motivated by the same impulses of self-preservation which motivated the EC and the American trade groupings. Some may sneer at this idea as ineffectual or may treat it with patronising condescension on the ground of the inability of such a Movement to make any impact. I, for one, would not dismiss the prospect of such a development. I can see China joining the Movement. China, with its manpower, veto power and nuclear power, may make the difference. The world may yet have to treat the Third World Movement seriously. If blocs were on collision course, something will have to be done to cushion if not prevent the collision. Hence, the need for the role of
EAEC with China and Japan and ASEAN as the mainstay. While the fear is the collision and complete collapse of the multi-lateral trade system, the hope is that the EAEC could contribute positively towards enriching the understanding that for the world to be free from one of the sharpest edges of acrimony, which in the past had caused wars, the multi-lateral system of trade should be nurtured and strengthened. In this regard the positive role of ASEAN as the nucleus of the Caucus, and the positive role of the Caucus in any world forum including the possibility of a South or Third World Movement, become self-evident since members of ASEAN belong to the Third World or the South and ASEAN has the US and the EC and some other developed countries of the North as dialogue partners. The EAEC may be the only instrument for the avoidance of a possible North-South confrontation. Japan has a very important role in helping to chart the way for the defence of the multi-lateral trading system. Quite clearly from the present trend, the American and EC groupings and Japan will rub roughly against each other with distressing consequences for the whole world. It would be a no win game, if "game" is an appropriate word. The European Community has all the ingredients of growing to be the most powerful and it is the powerful that set the rules. If the last century belonged to Britain, the present which is ending belongs to the US. I see that all things being as they are, the EC will be the power of the future. The economic drags for the EC would be the East Europeans and Russia but they are powerful political and military elements. APEC, the Pacific rim community, can hope to counterpoise any excesses from the powerful EC, but in my view this would be possible only if the potentials of East Asians were maximised. This could best be achieved when East Asians are rationally agrouping in a caucus, even loosely as a consultative forum. APEC without East Asian "togetherness" may flounder if it was monoeuvred to serve only the special agenda of some of its members. With ASEAN as the nucleus of the Caucus it would initiate and even lead the way towards a greater cross fertilisation of ideas which would stimulate growth everywhere. It could draw up plans and programmes for action for the safety of the environment and ecosystem, for the security of sea lanes, for the control of such menace as AIDS and deleterious drugs and for the management in ways that are enlightened of such problems as migration, refugees and displaced
persons. All these are matters which transcend borders rendering a new idiom to the meaning of sovereignty. The least the Caucus could do would be to provide a safety valve for discussions of real or imagined grievances at its consultative forum, given the high level of interdependence of peoples. The Japanese community in Malaysia fail to notice that the Malaysian leadership from the past to the presenty have always been serious and principled. The Japanese business community should persuade its political leaders to look at the EAEC proposal with less jaundiced eyes. I have said somewhere before that given the present trend of world political and economic development it stands to reason that the emergence of an East Asian Community is inevitable. To recognise that is to seize the opportunity of taking the initiative and being in the forefront to contribute positively towards an order which would not be injurious to any in the global community. Enlightened selfinterest alone will conduce Japan to view the proposal as something desirable and far from been a political poison. There are some who fear that China, Japan, Korea, Indo-China and ASEAN in EAEC would collectively become a rival superpower to the US. The draft Pentagon proposals which became public a few weeks ago reflected the desire of the US to be the sole superpower. That sort of judgement on EAEC by any one is ludicrous and could be regarded as having being made on the basis of mindless desperation rather than purposeful prudence. There are others who have the underlying fear that the EAEC might be some kind of acceptance of Japanese hegemony. That is for Japan to decide, knowing well that a Japanese hegemony at this stage would be a non-starter and I believe the Japanese themselves in their awareness have changed with the changing world. Colonialism, fashionable at one time during the industrial revolution, which made Japan desire to be the Britain of the East, had after the Pacific War been replaced by the Japanese desire to be masters of the financial alchemy of the United States. Now Japan has become many times more powerful in economic terms than the US. Japan easily outstripped the very people she used to admire. If Japan in the new world development where new rules are being set by the most powerful, she must realise that she could not go it alone. And if Japan is reluctant to be associated with the rest of East Asia she must expect distrust that Japan treats East Asia as an area
to recycle her wealth. Without Japan's close association with East Asia, others would be tempted to set out new rules and agenda for Japan. The so-called friends in G7 are in reality competitors who have no compunction in pounding their rivals as they had done before. In fact the G7 may be regarded as strange bedfellows who for reasons of trade, had ferociously fought each other before. Japan's business culture is very different from those others which base their rationale on the Anglo-Saxon business culture of profit maximisation to satisfy consumption and leisure. Japan belongs to Asia which has its own ethos and style. Japan going it alone will be like riding a bicycle in ever decreasing circular space. It would soom come to a halt and a bicycle cannot stand still. What EAEC offers now, supported by China, is a constituency for Japan who should be riding not a bicycle but a tandem in a wider circle. There is everything in East Asia for everyone to share on the basis of need. A young Japanese growing up in the city of Tokyo might not have seen the bamboos - "take". But he or she encounters them in paintings, poems, songs, musical instruments, and in stories and pictures where bamboos are made into houses, rafts and chopsticks. It is a tree which is God's special gift to mankind. The bamboo grows all over East Asia and even beyond. It is a great teacher. It shows the way of life that one cannot stand alone and survive the turbulence of the elements. Bamboos grow, never alone but in cluster, each its own tree and character, each is supple and resilient but only in togetherness do they find the security of never to be broken or uprooted by the violence of a storm. It is also the character of the bamboo tree to stoop when it is tall. What Japan, ASEAN and East Asia need is not a Great East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere (Dai Toa Kyo Eiken) as a Japanese hegemonistic bloc but a concept and a philosophy that will satisfy not one class, not one religion, not one race, not one people but overarchingly the whole region with the conviction that if we shared enough we shall have enough. And above all we share a common fate and destiny - -UN MEI
KYO DO TAI.
77
Experiences of ASEAN and Prospects of ASEAN-SAARC Cooperation
he track record of ASEAN since its formation on 8 August 1967 has been the subject of many studies, many criticisms and many praises. Twenty-six years and more had gone by and it would be superfluous to repeat what experts have said or written about ASEAN experiences. Nevertheless, the genesis of ASEAN is worth remembering simply because any judgement as to its action or inaction would have to be measured according to the approach of its founding fathers. One of the cultural traits of the region stems from the word KAMPUNG - which now has come to mean "village". The original meaning is "togetherness" when in time of joy or crisis or when a consensual decision is required the people would get together. This spirit of "togetherness" manifest itself in our region. Let us take my country, Malaysia. To get rid of colonialism our leadership was able to persuade not only the indigenous people to be "together" but also the immigrant races to be united with the indigenous people in one great "togetherness" which was expressed in a political term as the "Alliance". It was not as if the natives in the United Malay National Organisation could not then wrest power and rule but to resolve the question of colonialism it had to be in "togetherness". To strengthen national unity and the restructuring of society and above all to overcome the scourge of poverty irrespective of race, the original Alliance has since become a National Front embracing more than a dozen political parties in power-sharing thus enabling various affirmative actions and societal engineering to be carried out. The proposal for the formation of Association of the Southeast Asia (ASA) in the spirit of togetherness which also included Sri Lanka, then
* Speech delivered at the Conference on "Shaping South Asia's Future: Role of Regional Cooperation" held at the Hotel Yak & Yeti, Kathmandu, Nepal on Friday, 20th May, 1994.
Experiences of ASEAN / 189
Ceylon, was supported only by the Philippines, Thailand and Malaya. The Malaysia concept, again an idea of "togetherness" among the state of the Federation of Malaya together with the British Borneo territories and Singapore in a greater Federation was objected to by Sukarno. The President of Indonesia and that of the Philiippines desired an alternative togetherness in Maphilindo comprising Malaya, Philippines and Indonesia leaving the British Borneo territories to their own devices. Both ASA and Maphilindo did not get off the ground. ASA was thought to be too much under the thumb of the US since the Philippines and Thailand were members of SEATO while UK with whom Malaya had a special defence arrangement was also associated with SEATO. Maphilindo was thought to be a kind of a club with a big brother, Sukarno who was desiring to have all the time his way and say and it was considered a device to abort the Malaysia Plan. The formation of Malaysia and thereby the rejection of Maphilindo was received by Sukarno with disapprobation and ire. In September 1963, Sukarno declared a state of "confrontation" against Malaysia and it nearly became a hot war. It was during this Indonesian "confrontation" that a General by the name of Suharto, commissioned his senior aides, the late Ali Moertopo and Benny Moerdani to meet with the representatives of the Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister, Abdul Razak, in order to seek ways and means of ending the "confrontation". Both Suharto and the late Abdul Razak wanted also to ensure that there would be no repeat of such a "confrontation" contrary to the spirit of "togetherness", not only between Malaysia and Indonesia but also amongst the independent countries of South East Asia. These two leaders, young as they were then, had experienced colonial dominations which were associated with force and warfare.They realised that thoughtless and avaracious new leaderships might emulate colonial powers using force and warfare as a model to settle differences and disputes. I was privileged to be the team leader of the Malaysian side and both sides met secretly many times in Bangkok and elsewhere. The Suharto-Razak initiative received support from the Indonesian civilian leaders such as Adam Malik who played an enormously important role. Both Ali Moertopo and I were of one mind that Indonesia-Malaysia reconciliation and the concept of regional cooperation should be guided by the spirit of "BEKKAMPUNG" or to be in togetherness which emphasises that problems or differences of political or other nature
should be managed through consensual consultations. There should be deliberate programmes to expose the leaders and people of each side to the leaders and people of the other. If leaders were seen to embrace each other their respective followers and people would do likewise. Meetings should also be held in camera and no political issues should be aired openly, no matter how small, to prevent a pimple from appearing as a boil, an exaggeration often developed by the Press, particularly those mischevious ones on their own volition or on behalf of those who did not like the spirit of "togetherness" to flourish. If borders, the creations of imperial powers, were problematic and fraught with uncertainties, the two sides should together demarcate the disputed parts or would jointly develop them for mutual benefit. If they defied survey or development, like very deep gullies and gorges, they should for the time being be left alone. Suharto and Abdul Razak received our joint recommendations that Indonesia and Malaysia should re-establish a relationship of a very special and unique kind, quite unlike the normal relationship as dictated by the European type of diplomacy. Streams, seas and straits should revert to their original roles and no longer to be looked upon as borders but as bridges uniting peoples of a common region. If such practice was not possible the spirit of togetherness should serve as beacon in seeking a resolution to a tricky border problem. There could be no absolute exclusivity since relatives of people were found on both sides of the colonial-created borders be it a stream, sea or straits. Nothing should be allowed to serve as a source of acrimony. It was only after the resumption of relation between Indonesia and Malaysia and Suharto had succeeded Sukarno as President of Indonesia that the other leaders in the region were approcahed to seek their support for the setting up of a South East Asian "togetherness". As it turned out it was the countries of the stillborn ASA and Maphilindo that were united into ASEAN which indeed rose like a phoenix from the ashes of Sukarno's fiery "ganjang" or "confrantation" against Malaysia. Adam Malik coined the acronym "ASEAN". Behind the scene consultations reached a consensus that ASEAN should be presented publicly as an economic creature. This is to avoid a public discussion on any political issue. However, if one looked closely at its highest mechanism, the annual meeting of Foreign Ministers, it was glaringly political; its Standing Committee is very much coloured by diplomatic and political pattern. ASEAN had shown its dexterity in manouvering the volatile and turbulent period of East-West rivalries. Constitutional forms of ASEAN
members are not uniform ranging from the rule of autocratic sovereign to parliamentary democracy yet ASEAN was able to stick together through thick and thin overcoming the two oil shocks, collapse of commodity prices, changes in currency values which created problems of external debts. At all diplomatic and international arenas, even where ASEAN was not fully represented, the single voice of ASEAN had provided shock waves to international bullyism. ASEAN did not come into being out of any treaty or diplomatic agreement. It emerged as a result of a DECLARATION made in Bangkok by foreign ministers of five countries. This Declaration had produced the spirit of cooperation followed by great political ideas such as the emphasis on national resilience in order to achieve regional resilience, Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) as a positive contribution to world peace by the concept of increasing peace pockets and zones mutually reinforcing endeavours of big powers in reducing armaments. Then for the first time, ASEAN produced a treaty called Treaty of Amity and Cooperation with an eye for accomodating the countries of Indo-China. This was done at a time when Vietnam bathed in glory and arrogant euphoria of her victor over the US armed interventions. For the first time ASEAN met in summit in 1976 followed by another in 1977. These were strong signals sent to the world that ASEAN in "togetherness" could no longer be ignored. ASEAN, true to its ideals, led by Foreign Minister Mokhtar of Indonesia came to the forefront in its expression of concern and displeasure at Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea galvanising its actions to mobilise world opinion. This was followed by the ASEAN device to diffuse the status and role of the Khmer Rouge by the formation of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) with Norodom Sihanouk as the Head of State and the legitimate contact which led to the present situation in Phnom Penh. There had been many fruitful endeavours undertaken by ASEAN to promote its group interests in the G 77 and indeed in the UN and its specialised agencies. However, the world, particularly commentators and academicians, have grown weary of watching ASEAN which did not convince them that ASEAN was capable of performing in areas of economics and finance as ASEAN was ostensibly set out to do for its members. I can well understand the frustrations of those well-meaning observers who wanted to credit ASEAN with economic success yet there was precious little to talk about. However, as I mentioned earlier,
ASEAN was the result of a political Declaration with Foreign Ministers heading the mechanism which would operate in camera. ASEAN officials had been at pains to explain to the public that political issues were never discussed. In reality without the glare of publicity, ministers were able to resolve many outstanding political issues or at least blunt the edges of conflict. Since the formation of ASEAN, there had been no contradictions that could cause serious concern. Ordinary people, Non-Governmental Organisations and officials were brought together and they now know each other better.In this was ASEAN was able to keep together on an even keel, managing the ripples caused by external turbulence. The relative stability in ASEAN had contributed towards the many current endeavours in economic cooperation and the progress each member has achieved. At the Bali Summit of 1976, the first of its kind, after having addressed the political and diplomatic concerns, Heads of ASEAN governments seriously turned to the question of economics and commercial cooperation and prepared the way towards creating an ASEAN economic community and a Free Trade Zone. The Kuala Lumpur Summit of 1977 set into motion other mechanisms for fostering trade cooperation on a very modest scale. By the time ASEAN Summit met again in Manila ten years later, ASEAN had already achieved what it had set out to do which was the nurturing of an ASEAN habit of mind. The present generation can never imagine a past, present and future without ASEAN; and many problems between members had become better managed. At Manila, it was considered time for ASEAN economic programmes to be transparently put in place. World events had begun to push ASEAN into a fresh awareness of the need to make a review and self examination. A committee was get up headed by former senior-most official of the Foreign Ministry and later Prime Minister, Anand of Bangkok, and its recommendations were well considered and noted by governments of ASEAN. This was followed by another committee of five and I had the good fortune and privilege to be its Chairman. This committee was able to submit its Report and Recommendations in time for the ASEAN Summit in Singapore in 1992. Among the most important aspects of the change was that ASEAN should be serviced by an ASEAN centric Secretariat led by a Secretary General of ASEAN. In assessing the experiences of ASEAN, if the yardstick was purely in the realm of economics, there would be many shortfalls. The first twenty-five years should be viewed as the period for securing national and regional resilience, for confidence building among members
scrupulously observing the principle of "togetherness" through its political and diplomatic mechanisms, and the encouragement by all governments concerned for their peoples to mix freely with regular contacts amongst bureaucrats, politicians, community leaders, business community and non-governmental organisations. Any economic or commercial cooperation would not be enduring or durable if the peoples of ASEAN did not have mutual confidence and trust in each other. If ASEAN was set up merely for economic cooperation without the political and social preparatory measures, its shortfalls would have been overwhelming and ASEAN would already have been broken assunder. The Singapore Summit of 1992 made a declaration which indicated ASEAN's confidence as a result of what it had achieved in the previous twenty-five years. It rolled out the welcome mat to Indo-China countries to accede to the Treaty of Amity and Friendship had vowed to play an active role in the reconstruction of the Indo-China region. ASEAN also pledged to make itself a security dialogue mechanism contributing to the role of the United Nations in the maintenance of peace. A meeting for that purpose is being prepared for this year. For the first time ASEAN Heads of Government agreed to commit themselves that ASEAN Summit should be held every three years. Recent world events and trends moved very fast as the unfolding of new developments, some highly positive as witnessed in Johannesburg and Jericho and some extremely negative as in Sarejevo and Kigali and they have to be addressed. The end of Washington-Moscow rivalries after the demise of the Soviet Union changed totally the way ASEAN perceives others as well as how others perceive ASEAN. A new outlook was necessary particularly in the field of international trading system. ASEAN has to reckon with the consequences of Europeanisation and the US-led NAFTA which eventually may extend from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. When the Uruguay Round was floundering, ASEAN seized upon the idea of the Mahathir initiative in "togetherness" of an East Asian Economic Caucus (EAEC). Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore reminded the world of the natural push for "togetherness" when he spoke in Kyoto as the concept of EAEC was being mulled over by ASEAN leaders. He said, "Two economic blocs, the EC and NAFTA with US, Canada and Mexico will leave East Asia with little choice but to get into closer association to improve its prospects". Prime Minister Mahathir has just returned from China after having stitched together into a single EAEC venture comprising Chinese, Japanese and Malaysian interests. Let us have more of such cooperative ventures.
As to the prospects of ASEAN-SAARC cooperation I can think of no better way as a beginning than to show solidarity in keeping world trade growing through a multi-lateral regime but keeping regional trade blocs and protectionism at bay. In Singapore only a few days ago, Labour ministers and officials from ASEAN met to disabuse the linkage between labour practices and trade relations. Also there has been some noises expressing preference for the first World Trade Organisation meeting not to be held in Singapore which was alleged to be indulging in some barbaric practice of caning as a form of punishment meted out to an American youth for vandalism. It is in such fields that ASEAN-SAARC cooperation is most needed to thwart those efforts at imposing some self-serving values, not in the spirit of cooperation but of self-righteousness and the protection of unenlightened self-interests by another name. Powerful nations, where modern technology is at its highest, have appropriated the logic of technology translating it as the only true feature of a political culture which must be accepted by all irrespective of their standard of advancement in science and technology. Such logic sees only black or white. It does not see any grey area. Those technologically advanced societies when they were climbing the ladder of modernisation before they reached the top, they were the worst offenders. Any imposition of such values could only be interpreted as a braking system in the progress of the industrialisation process so that t h e r e would be less competition in t h e world m a r k e t . It is protectionism by other means. The features of Western logic should remain technological and not to be directed to change our values and way of life and living. Our dances cannot be beautiful if done in the jerky mechanical movement of Michael jackson - a true product of Western technological culture. ASEAN-SAARC collaboration and cooperation is desirable as a SouthSouth cooperation. Perhaps, in the promotion of the idea of ASEANSAARC cooperation the Secretary-General of ASEAN, Datuk Ajit Singh, should be approached with the aim of encouraging more people to people contacts among the peoples of both regional groupings, facilitating easier travels and rationalising the movements of peoples for commerce or employment. A start is being made when there is a move that India, a member of SAARC, should be a dialogue partner to ASEAN. To avoid any future difficulties or misunderstanding let me remind those who wish an ASEAN-SAARC cooperation well that one of the pillars of "togetherness" in ASEAN is that there is no big brother
attitude in the aggrouption. An ASEAN leader once explained this to the leader of a country who wanted to know the secret of ASEAN success. ASEAN is more or less like a cluster of bamboos which together, though each an independent entity, could stand the force of turbulent winds, but the taller of the bamboos always stoop its head. Indonesia is a big country but it had never imposed its will on the other ASEAN members. On the contrary, invoking the ASEAN spirit of "togetherness", the latest roadshow when the Secretary-General of ASEAN with a team of very senior ASEAN officials went to the United States a few weeks ago to explain the concept of EAEC the spokesman was a Brunei official-the youngest, the newest and the smallest member of ASEAN. At this moment in time, all developing countries should intensify their cooperatve endeavours with one another and at the same time to seek cooperation with the industrialised nations of the North. Together South-South and South-North should work out an equitable international trade regime which would stand in the way of excesses, the type of which happened in the 30s. The victims of such excessess would be peoples with either high or low living standards but high growth, good trade competitiveness and sound industrial structures. We may work hard to level the playing field through modernisation and industrialisation but if bullyism was not prevented from shifting the goal posts then the world is indeed in jeopardy. Where power rules and rules do not have power the future of the world is dismal. Should ASEAN and SAAEC evolve a partnership in the spirit of togetherness as the bamboo clusters which thrive in our part of the world, then this partnership together with EAEC would be a contributor to the advancement of human civilisation as it has been in the past. Asia can still stand upon its own with its moral, political and economic leadership, if we put our respective houses in order on the basis of togetherness, forbearance and mutual respect. This is not the product of a fuzzy mind but a responsible expectation in delightful anticipation that we shall see the dawn of an Asian renaissance and that the whole world will truly share a common fate and destiny.
18
Managing Political Differences To Enhance Cooperation For Economic Development Among ASEAN Countries
he principle goals of the ASEAN Declaration in Bangkok on 8 August 1967 was to reconcile intra-regional strifes which characterised South East Asia at that time in the form of border and territorial disputes, ethnic conflicts and animosities, religious prejudices and the fear of smaller states towards bigger ones. The second, is to manage and create a South East Asian regional order on the basis of the social and economic systems of each member country. Both the above goals are to be achieved via a third goal which is to speed up the "economic growth, social progress and cultural development of the region", because it was felt that there was strong belief that social and economic development on the one hand and peace and stability on the other were tightly linked. The fourth goal was "to ensure their stability and security from external interference in any form or manifestation" and to "preserve their national identities in accordance with the ideals and aspirations of their peoples". Hence, "all foreign bases are temporary and remain only with the expressed concurrence of the countries concerned and are not intended to be used directly or indirectly to subvert the national independence and freedom" of the member states. It is explicit from these pronouncements that national independence and freedom were to take precedence over regionalism. It is also implied from this that ASEAN is to remain a loose mechanism of intergovernmental cooperation. In order to make ASEAN an dependent variable, the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting became the highest decision-making body with
* Speech Delivered at the ASEAN Conference on Human Resource Management held at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS), Kuching, on 5-6 September, 1994.
Managing Political Differences / 197
the ASEAN Standing Committee as the manager of ASEAN affairs between ministerial meetings. It is the AMM and the Standing Committee that guarantees that ASEAN does not become an independent variable i.e. a more integrated regional organisation which would reduce the role of member states. The position of ASEAN' s Foreign Ministers as the highest decision-making body on ASEAN affairs has not changed even after the institutionalisation of the ASEAN Economic Ministers Meeting in 1976 and the ASEAN Heads of Government Meeting in 1992. Security Three major declarations form the basic instruments and lay the foundation for the political and security buildup of ASEAN. They are:1. The ASEAN Declaration on Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality. 2. The Bali Concord 3. The Treaty of Amity & Cooperation in South East Asia. The ZOPFAN is a declaration of ASEAN's willingness to allow the major powers unlimited involvement in the region, and it had sought the recognition of the major powers for recognition of South East Asia as a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality. ZOPFAN was followed by 14 principles signed by the Foreign Ministers in April 1972. The 14 principles are:1. Observance of the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on the Promotion of World Peace and Cooperation on the Bandung Declaration of 1955, the Bangkok Declaration of 1967 and the Kuala Lumpur Declaration of 1971. 2. Mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations within and without the region. 3. The right of every state to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coercion. 4. Non-interference in the internal affairs of zonal states. 5. Refraining from inviting or giving consent to intervention by external powers in domestic or regional affairs of zonal states. 6. Settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 7. Renunciation of threat, or use of force in the conduct of international relations. 8. Refraining from the use of armed forces for any purpose in the conduct of international relations except for individual or
9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Abstention from involvement in any conflict of powers outside the zone from entering into any agreement which would be inconsistent with the objectives of the zone. The absence of foreign military bases in the territories of zonal states. The right to trade freely with any country of international agency irrespective of differences in socio-political systems. The right to receive aid freely for the purpose of strengthening national resilience except when the aid is subject to conditions inconsistent with the objectives of the zone. Effective regional cooperation among the zonal states.
These opened the way for the management of political and security cooperation both internal and external. These principles were then incorporated into the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in South East Asia. The objective here was that each member country shall have the right to "lead its national existence free from external interference, subversive coercion; that there will be non-interference in the internal affairs of one another; that the settlement of difference or disputes shall be conducted only by peaceful means and that the threat or use of force shall be repudiated". These guideliness simultaneously provide for internal as well as external security. If a dispute between countries in the region were to occur which is likely to disturb regional peace and harmony, and if the parties to the dispute were unable to solve it, they would constitute a "High Council" comprising a representative at ministerial level from each of the high contracting parties to take cognizance of the existence disputes or situations likely to disturb regional peace and harmony. This is a form of preventive diplomacy, but this is only valid if the parties to the dispute agree to apply the instrument to their dispute. On the other hand, parties to the dispute should be persuaded to take initiative in finding a solution to their disputes through peaceful negotiations and in the shortest possible time. The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation is therefore an instrument of preventive diplomacy rather than of conflict resolution. However, conflict prevention in ASEAN is informal in nature. It adheres strictly to the principle of ASEAN norm of non-interference and non-use of force in inter-state relations. ASEAN member countries have thus proved that they are capable of co-existing in peace and harmony since its formation in 1967.
Managing Political Differences / 199
Although regional disputes and differences have not been solved ASEAN countries have learned in the process to diffuse their conflicts and not to exploit it for their own interests. It is therefore difficult now to visualise a conflict between two ASEAN countries. On December 15, 1987 ASEAN made amendments to para (14) and (18) of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation to enable Papua New Guinea to become a party and the "states outside South East Asia" by consent of all the states in South East Asia which are signatories to the Treaty. The essence of the Treaty has also been applied to the South China Sea. The Declaration of Principles of th South China Sea signed by the ASEAN Foreign Minisers in Manila in July 1992 persuades all parties to "apply the principles of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation as a base for formulating a code of international conduct in the South China Sea" and "invites all parties to abide by the Declaration of Principles". The expansion of signatories of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation with Laos and Vietnam in July 1992 indicates that ASEAN is the foremost regional organisation in South East Asia. The concept of South East Asia as a nuclear free zone was proposed by Indonesia and supported by Malaysia at the 16th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Jakarta in July 1984. The Singapore Summit has declared the ASEAN will be further promoted, but there seems to be some difficulty in achieving an agreement. There are some countries which are reluctant to accept the idea on various grounds. The ASEAN Regional Forum held its inaugural meeting in Bangkok on 25 July 1994. Some points agreed to are as follows: 1. To be held annually; 2. Endorse the purpose and principles of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation as a code of conduct for inter-state relations; 3. Collate and study all the ideas raised at the meeting such as confidence and security building, nuclear proliferation, peacekeeping, exchange of non-classified military information, maritime security issues; 4. Study the comprehensive concept of security, including its economic and social aspects and other "relevent internationally recognised norms and principles pertaining to international and regional political and security cooperation". By the time the Jakarta Meeting takes place in 1996, ASEAN Forum would have been institutionalised so that negotiations can proceed efficiently and effectively. ASEAN is also being supported by various forces on regional security and stability.
The ASEAN-ISIS are playing a very important role in urging ASEAN to start a formal process of security dialogue. Equally, the newly instituted Council on Security Cooperation in Asia Pacific which was established on 8 June 1993 can be expected to provide inputs to the ASEAN Regional Forum.
The Economic Dimension

Over the last decade, ASEAN has established five areas of economic co-operation: 1. The ASEAN Preferential Trading Arrangement; 2. The ASEAN Industrial Project; 3. The ASEAN Industrial Complementation Scheme; 4. The Brand to Brand Complimentary Scheme in the automative industry; and 5. The ASEAN Industrial Joint Ventures. All these schemes have met with limited success. The major reason is the flaw in the assumption that each ASEAN member state is willing to share its entire domestic market with the other members. This assumption may be true at some future date when ASEAN countries accept the idea of a single market. For now, however, each country is anxious to preserve an important part of its internal market for its own industries. The establishment of the ASEAN Free Trade Area is an answer to this problem. The ultimate objective of AFTA is to establish a regional market with effective tariff levels ranging from 0 to 5% unhampered by non-tariff barriers. AFTA's implementation started only on 1 January 1994 after a year of postponement. AFTA's weakness lies primarily in the problem of implementation and in the long list of exclusions. For many the transition period of 15 years is too long to be meaningful. The slowness of the programme also made the private sector skeptical. As a consequence, the participation of the private sector in the AFTA programme remains minimal. The informal ASEAN Economic Ministers Meeting on April 1994 had instructed SEOM to further study the lowering of the transition period from 15 to 10 years in parallel to the Uruguay Round's Final Act transition period. The ASEAN Economic Minister Meeting in September 1994 will decide on the revitalisation measure.
Conclusion
ASEAN's initiatives in forging regional political security and economic cooperation have been designed against the background of security threats, both political and economic in nature. The ASEAN Regional Forum in Bangkok marked the first time the major powers - China, Japan, Russia, US and the EU sat together to deliberate on regional security. There is an optimistic note that ASEAN Regional Forum will become an outstanding regional vehicle for confidence building and preventive diplomacy. In the last 24 years ASEAN has made its presence felt both within and outside the region. A number of factors account for its success. Firstly, ASEAN's main contribution lies in the promotion of peace and stability in the region. This had allowed the member countries to concentrate on economic development. Secondly, ASEAN in its dealings with "Dialogue Partners" has been quite successful in raising its collective bargaining power to ensure market accessibility. Thirdly ASEAN countries have built up a cohesive and strong network for consultation and cooperation in major economic policy development without compromising national sovereignty. Finally ASEAN countries share a common economic policy of increasingly allowing market forces to drive their economies which has brought efficiency and prosperity in the past two decades. But it must be emphasised that the success of the ASEAN economy is largely due to their own individual efforts and not to ASEAN economic cooperation although ASEAN made it possible by ensuring peace and stability in the region so that its member countries could concentrate on their economic pursuits independently and cooperatively as well.
79
The Bamboo Cluster Symbolises the Common Destiny of Asia
fter the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan the world was never the same again. There came into being a great divide and a state of peace was maintained by the terror of mutual nuclear annihilation. The absence of physical confrontation provided the opportunity for the opposing parties to make self-examinations about their respective beliefs and ideologies searching for a new strategy that would better reconcile their differences. The US, USSR and China leaderships began to make personal contacts through which they saw each other as less diabolical and the world felt at ease. With Perestroika, traditional ideoilogical divisions are being erased in Europe. The Warsaw Pact has been disbanded and Moscow has come closer to Europe bringing with her a new relationship with the US as witnessed in the Gulf crisis. However, the voice of Moscow in the Perestroika era has become a squeak. "We are Europeans. Old Russia was united with Europe by Christianity". This outlook as expressed in Perestroika has forfeited for the USSR a swaying influence. In areas where the monopolar power is yielding to paroxysms of victorious euphoria, driving away all hopes of settlement of problems as in the case of Palestine, Lebanon, Israel and even Jordan with her monumental economic sufferings, the fear syndrome is at its worst. More catatonic behaviour will emerge among those in utter despair. There are problems in Asia and the Pacific Islands needing attention. Claims and counter-claims of islands, Afghanistan, Kampuchea, refugees and boat people, problems of confidence between states, internal disorder and instability with
* Article Prepared for Dentsu Instute for Human Studies, Tokyo, Japan, April 1991.
The Bamboo Cluster / 203
denuclearisation, decolonisation, nuclear dumping and problems of environment and ruination of marine ecology to name a few which are ready for exploitation. The end of the Cold War has yet to arrive in Asia. The world economic balance is beginning to get more and more lopsided. Western attention is now concentrated on Eastern Europe neglecting the dire needs of the Third World resulting in turbulence and instability. What may be gained in terms of democracy and freedom in East Europe may be lost in neglected areas of Africa and Asia. The economic focus on Eastern Europe is designed towards integration into the European Community. European bloc mindedness manifested itself in the Treaty of Rome (1957). By 1992 there will emerge a "Fortress Europe" when the borders of the EC countries will be lowered. The bloc would eventually develop a joint defence role which will be a natural sequence as the EC outgrows its original trade and economic aims. So also will surely develop a joint foreign policy and the emergence of the culture of Euro-racism. There are signs of bloc building programmes and protectionism in the US trade policies although there are also anti-protectionist rhetorics. By 1995 all tariffs and most non-tariff barriers in mutual trade between USA and Israel in goods and services will be removed. A Free Trade Agreement between USA, Canada and Mexico is in place. With the signing of the Southern Common Market Blueprint (MEECOSUR: 26 March 1991) among Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay added to Carribean Common Market and Central American Common Market the US dream of a free trade zone stretching from "Alaska to Tierra del Fuego" as Carlos Menem of Argentina exclaimed, "is becoming a reality." The concept of multi-lateral liberalisation in trade would therefore be meaningless when such pacts encourage trade with "partners" and bilateral agreements with selected third countries. The American arrangement together with EC acting more or less as a single trading bloc would be the most powerful in the world and could pose a real threat. The political and security aspects taken together with the economic elements, the concentration of power will manifest a total imbalance in world affairs. No strong leader, no country or a grouping of countries can emerge without the approbation of the monopolar power. The old order has changed. It is a period of opportunity for
Asia by entering the arena as a new factor in the matrices of power contributing towards a new equilibrium. The Asia as envisioned geographically will include those in the Pacific Rim excluding USSR Far East since the thinking and culture there are moulded in Moscow and therefore hardly Asian. ASEAN, the SARC nations, Indochina States, Myanmar, Korea and Japan are certainly Asian. West Asia or Middle East were a world of their own stretching to Africa with a separate political and cultural cohesion and, for our present purpose, should be treated separately. Asia which coheres can be the pacifier for the more troubled emotions of fear, insecurity and hopelessness as well as help solve intra-Asia problems. The Security Council with China backed by all Asia could be the initiator in the pacific settlement of disputes. Likewise, Japan in G-7 with economic collaborative roles in NorthSouth and South-South relations, conscious of the Asian backing she will always have, would truly be an Asian and not merely a Japanese power. Asia may now face what she once experienced during the European industrial revolution when powerful forces from Europe visited Asia with all the ugliness of colonialism and its concomitant militarism. China, the Indian subcontinent and South East Asia were in disarray and became easy prey. Only Japan in Asia chose to defy the forces of the European colonialism by deciding to join the march towards becoming an industrial power. But that made Japan a more hideous militaristic and colonialist power behaving in mimicry as the Britain of the East, searching for natural resources and markets in Korea, Manchuria, China, and might even have gone into Siberia if she had not been stopped at Halba river (Mongolia-Manchuria border 1939). Japan eventually came down the South East Asia leaving a trail of "black holes of Calcutta", which Japanese children learn in their history books today as mere "incidents". In the pursuit of being "one of them" Japan became not a partner but a rival in all aspects of endeavours. The rest is history. This time Asia must draw lessons from its own history. The Asian togetherness is imperative. Old suspicions and prejudices among Asians should be resolved through the new awareness and the solutions lie in getting together, to know each other better through consultations, collectively and bilaterally, and to be aware of each other's hopes and fears in order that they may be taken care of. Indeed, there are scars among Asians which were the results of
The Bamboo Cluster / 205
wounds inflicted on each other and there are bitter historical experiences which were caused by creatures of historical determinants. They should be corrected. But without an attempt at togetherness there will be no balm to soothe the scars. Asian togetherness will open up new areas of economic and commercial cooperation, provide continuous exposure of its members and people-to-people contacts which eventually will develop an Asian habit of mind. Such a cooperative measure can help to defend an open global system and against protectionism influencing nations and blocks to strictly adhere to GATT principles and practices. In this Asian venture Japan, being Asian, has a special responsibility towards Asia because of her economic, industrial and financial standing. Japan also, since MacArthur, has a special tie with the US in political, economic and trade relations. That special tie, because of age and the world political and economic evolution may tend to be somewhat obsolescent needing repair and adjustment. For Japan, the Asian togetherness providing a bigger base and backing will strengthen further that special tie with the US on an even keel. The important issue is not about Japan's ability to say "no" to the US but her readiness to say "yes" to Asia. The rest of Asia, with lingering nightmares of Japanese colonial militarism, will be more comfortable with a Japan as a true partner in the Asian Unmei Kyodo Tai than a Japan that feels beleaguered and isolated as in the late thirties. In a fit of national hubris, "NO" to "ieru Nippon" may become a choice, reverting to Japan's old idea of "Hakko Icihiu", which eventually became the hyper-hypocritical "Daitoa Kyoeiken". The proposal made by Dr. Mahathir, the Malaysian Prime Minister, for an East Asia Economic Grouping with China and Japan, influential in their respective roles, can be the beginning of an Asia as the pacifier for the more turbulent emotions. Among the plants that are commonly found in Asia is the "take". In all cultures of Asia, particularly of East and South East Asia, the bamboo palys a notable role. It is used for building of shelter, for carrying water, for passing food from the cup to the mouth, as percussion or wind instrument of melodious music; its shoots and maw are food for humans and animals; it serves as rafts and means of transportation; it supports the weak and the aged as walking staff. It decorates homes and villages in important ceremonies; it fills those magical stories, songs and poems with its enchanting splendour; it inspires artist by its simple beauty. It serves as boards on which words of wisdom were once written for posterity. It forms subjects of wise sayings and parables.
That gift of God lusciously growing in clusters teaches us yet one more lesson, that the plant by nature does not grow alone or singly. It always grows in clusters with the taller stooping in humility. Together no wind can devastate the cluster. A bamboo tree standing alone will be a broken reed by a simple gust. The gushing of winds are now everywhere and the monopolar cyclone is brewing. Let us not wait for a threatening disaster before looking for friends and shelter. Let us follow our great teacher and benefactor, the bamboo, by getting ourselves now in a protective cluster, each tree an individual yet together, sharing a common fate and destiny in the true spirit of Unmei Kyodo Tai.
20 Blossoming Trade Blocs
trade bloc is an institutionalised grouping of countries which reduces and even demolishes barriers to trade and goods and services intra-regionally. Smaller economies within the bloc tare given a larger market which they need in order to create for themselves a "critical mass" of production and sales. It is also designed to increase negotiations leverage with third countries or other blocs. Within itself it promotes political cooperation. The bloc also protects members from what it regards as unfair practices. By 1992 the single European Market would be in place. Historically, it all started with good and thoughtful intentions of men like Schumann who held the view of a post World War Two ambience in the face of Stalinist challenges, that a European community with Germany and France as allies would avoid another war. Cooperation was centred around commodities like coal and steel. The idea was subsequently developed further resulting in the Treaty of Rome and refined to its present proposal in 1968. This development perhaps became more than Schuman might have dared to envision. The East-West relations and the Cold War in the 60s were going through an extremely bad phase. The concept of 1968 would give the Europeans not only a sense of security vis-a-vis Germany but with Germany in the Community that security plays a major part in the East-West Cold War relations. The whole motivation was political with the sprinkling of economic advantage such as standardisation of industrial relations and intra-free trade and the dismantling of all intra-regional border controls. Another group of European countries in 1960 established the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and by an agreement with the European Community has abolished duties on nearly all
* Paper Presented at the Conference on "Blossoming Trade Blocs" organised by the World Times, held in Seoul, Republic of Korea, 4-5 November 1991.
industrial products. Virtually the whole Western Europe now is a single market stretching from the Arctic to the Mediterranean embracing altogether 19 nations. The United States who never liked any grouping which did not include her had looked askance at the concept of the European Community. However, the community concept in the context of burden sharing contributed towards the ideological competition in the East-West relations. By 1989 the USA, feeling more and more uncomfortable with the trends in the European Community concept, created with Canada the US-Canada Free Trade Area (FTA). At the moment efforts are in train to get Mexico included in the US-Canada FTA and inevitably following the present trend there will emerge a Free Trade Area from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. Australia and New Zealand entered into a closer Economic Relations Agreement in 1982. Within the same decade Australia came out with the APEC proposal that included the USA. The EC seeing that its "Fortress Europe" might hurt some developing countries, and that would be counter-productive in terms of the Cold War, devised a special arrangement in the form of the Lome Convention. The Lome Convention extended an extensive economic cooperation to African, Carribean and pacific countries (APC) providing for the duty free and quota free access to EC (some agricultural products excepted); also arrangements for the stabilisation funds in exports of certain commodities, development aid packages, mechanisms for industrial and technical cooperation and dialogues. The US devised in 1981 a somewhat similar economic cooperation with the Carribean Basin qualifying for their preferential access to the US of some categorised goods supported by an aid programme. The South Pacific Islands is caught by another net other than the Lome Convention in the form of South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement concluded also in 1981 now to be entangled with APEC. If it develops as a trade bloc APEC could be a countervailing force against EC. However, it is not clear under the circumstances if some East Asian Pacific Rim countries would remain in APEC should it turn itself as a confrontational adversary of EC serving the interest of US, Australia and Japan. Seen from these developments, developing countries of South and South East Asia which are opposed to protectionism and mercantilism will be falling between two giant stools. ASEAN even if it wanted to be
Blossoming Trade Blocs / 209
a trade bloc which it is not could be no match to those two super blocs which, perhaps, in their fit of absent-mindedness, guided only by selfish interest, have broken the tenets of the free international trading system. The 1980s saw radical re-adjustments and structural changes in world economy. The Brettonwoods monetary system collapsed and there was an erosion of the GATT trading system. Because of the very close linkages among sectors of the international economy, any problem in one sector spread to others quickly and in manifold. There was no rational management of the world economy for the developing countries; the major powers have their G-7 to seek ways of overcoming the new problems that included the collapse of Brettonwoods system and oil shocks, the Gulf War and even Gorbachev's request for aid. Other cooperative machinery among industrial countries, even if they were broadbased, include Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) or the Bank for International Settlement (BIS) 'which serve as links between major economies and even coordinate monetary arrangements. Through OECD, the members could identify areas for joint action and take common position. All what the developing countries have are rather ineffectual groupings like the Group of 77 (1963) and the Group of 24. Lately following the report of the South Commission the Group of 15 held a summit in Kuala Lumpur where it agreed on a programme of action and would meet again in Caracas later this year. There is indeed a proliferation of trade blocs and groupings all desperately looking for ways of preserving and promoting their economic interests in the international field. There is only one free world and, without argument, interdependent. It is now a question of how to relate the politics of new world situation with economics. The struggle for hegemony in politics and exploitation in economics have to be replaced by a non-hegemonistic relationship in politics as well as non-exploitative, non-protectionistic in economics in order that the world would truly share a common destiny. Tensions and conflicts are being experienced everywhere, not less in East Asia. Lack of economic opportunity is one of the reasons for turbulence. Mass migration across borders is no longer a national but an international problem. The world does not need the blossoming of blocs and groupings but a rational, democratic management of international economic and trading relations through a mechanism for consultation. There was a time in 1974 when the UN General Assembly adopted
the Declaration and Programme of Action in the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, an opportunity seized through dialogues to establish for such an economic order. The industrialised countries were then responsive to the idea of holding dialogues but it seems clear now that the willingness was motivated not by any desire to seek a consensus in the idea of an Economic Order, but rather moved by the pressure of the rise of oil prices and through the assertiveness of Third World oil producing countries. Playing for time was the name of the game, and while ways were sought to subvert the pressure of the assertiveness of the oil producers as representing the South, the Uruguay Round was established and dialogues took place. In 1976 the idea of Integrated Programmes for Commodities was accepted in order to stabilise commodity markets through a Common Fund. Then there were other declarations including the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, the Convention in Multimodal Transport, the Agreement on Restrictive Business. Some industrialised countries were then willing to write off official debts and the Paris Club was devised to alleviate the sufferings of Third World debtors. However, with the subsiding of the oil power, the talks became fragmented and eventually floundered in Manila in 1979. The UN in April last year in a desperate effort managed to obtain at a Special Session the adoption of a Declaration on Development and Cooperation which recognised many of the world problems but regretfully did not provide for a follow-up mechanism and did not commit itself into action towards the revitalisation of international economic cooperation. Issues on environment, drugs, aids, are linked to the international economic order since like migration, they transcend borders. The strategies to secure a safer world will certainly require a global regime if they are to be effective in the management of these issues. It is therefore necessary to set up deliberative forums where opinions could be exchanged in order to find the sequence of steps towards a better managed world where the flow of resources, trade and aid are predictable and not subject to such subjectively imposed conditionalities as "democratisation"or "human rights". The idea of trading groups or economic blocs can easily lead to protectionism contradicting the notion of open, multilateral and nondiscriminatory trade. The tendency could be discerned in the practices of the two giant blocs - the EC and US-Canada FTA. The impact of free trade within these groupings will be the denial of excess from outside
into the market except for those favoured nations whose privileges could be curtailed subjectively by the mega blocs. Again, demands for the protection of intellectual property in effect will warehouse knowledge within the exclusive stockpile of the two gargantuan combines. The provisions of the GSP and the Lome Convention only confirm that there is a high level of discrimination against imports from the developing countries. Even if they enjoyed the mitigating arrangements they will be subject to unilateral subjective termination on whatever ground such as non-compliance with "democratisation". Already Mr. Frans Andriessen the EC Commission Vice President in Kuala Lumpur early this month warned that any failure to respect "human rights", would have, "a severe impact on our relations". Trading blocs certainly raise important questions with regard to free flows in the international trading system, particularly more so when the peoples of East Asia are now fast developing towards industrialisation, which require an assurance of a trading system that offers a fair share of the market. Malaysia has a vision of being fully industrialised by 2020. The two mega blocs should accept the reality of a growing number of countries which are evolving towards industrialisation; a trading system should not be imposed on them by the giant blocs but it should be determined multilaterally based on an objective criteria which are predictable and transparent. This brings me to the point that the UN should play the role in the management of the international economic and trading system which, in the absence of East-West tension, could be placed on par with the traditional role of preserving peace and security. Indeed, a universally accepted trading system is today the most important contributive factor for peace and security. Peace and security can only be guaranteed if peoples are free from discrimination. Therefore the question of democracy, good governance, human rights are as relevant to a nation as to the international arena. Let the UN make the judgement whether such matters of "human rights" or "good governance" have been breached. There should be multi-lateral arrangements for the protection of the global environmental concerns taking into account that poverty existing in any part of the globe has negative environmental implications to other parts. As indicated earlier, on looking at the genesis and the backdrops of
these trade blocs, they stem from a number of factors but all of them point to the central issue of the East-West relations of the Cold War period. At that time everyone was seeking expressions of how best to promote the free market system and ideologically immunise themselves and their friends and surrogates from the attraction of the centrally controlled system. However, in the very nature of free market system, competitiveness is a virtue, even in the quest for profit. The usual tendency, unless bridled, is towards monopolism. The net result is that the very philosophy of free market becomes the victim in an international trading system which is mercantilistic, protectionistic and blocistic. The free market is turned into a FLEA market! Now that the Cold War is over and arrogant men have declared the victory for the free market system, then surely it is time to pause and evaluate the situation. Those who are concerned with weapons and military alliances are now dismantling their systems and even their prejudices when French and united German troops will be marching shoulder-to-shoulder in an Eurocorp of the European Army - the realisation of a vision of a united Europe. With Perestroika claiming for Moscow a European home and the Union, that was Soviet, is kneeling at the alter of free market system with hand-wringing promises for democratisation, surely it is time for the two super blocs, even if it is not ready yet to dismantle themselves, should now be ready to return to the much valued free market system for the whole inter-dependent globe. The original raison d'etre for EC which spawned the reactive US-Canada FTA is no more. A start could be made by returning in earnest to the Uruguay Round and bring it to its successful conclusion so that posterity will witness that this generation is not manned by hucksters and supremely greedy mercantilists; that we care for humans and would leave as heritage an environment that will be a liveable habitat; that we are bold enough to make structural changes and our measures are reinforcing a positive global programme and plan of action towards the making of a better world. However, if absolute selfishness and greed should deafen and blind the two super blocs to the call for rationality and reasonableness, to me the blooms of those blossoming blocs carry with them the seeds of acrimony and the world is in danger. Since the two monster blocs are European in culture it is possible that they are guided by a thought process of democracy that is confrontational which constantly requires
an opposition. With the absence of the communist power to confront, as a matter of doctrinal habit they will soon confront each other. Indeed, the signs are there. There is need for a third force to emerge to prevent them from knocking each other and bringing disaster to the rest of the world. However, a third bloc comprising of aggrieved parties like China, Japan or South Korea supported by the radicals of the Third World will only inflame economic nationalism. Marx is vindicated if the free world is pitted against each other for their mutual destruction. The proposed East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC) recently debated by ASEAN can play the role of the third force not with the idea of creating a third trading bloc with all the ugliness of protectionism. It is a deliberative forum which might give wise counsel with rational proposals to replace the concept of discrimination and protectionism based on greed, with a fresh and positive environment and system for international trade and aid. In his desperation, when he saw the folly of the two giant blocs incapable of sorting out their differences on the basis of consensus in Brussels late last year, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad the Prime Minister of Malaysia, proposed the formation of a grouping of East Asians. There are some who thought it was a proposal patterned on the model of the two blocs. That is not so. The subject has been thoroughly discussed in ASEAN. It is an idea to form a caucus, to harness all the strength of East Asia including China, Japan and South Korea, to devise a way of averting an international economic catastrophe which may be brought about by the two super blocs. If Schumann dreamt of a Europe with Germans and Frenchmen living together in peace surely no one should begrudge a proposal that the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese and Aseanese should in a grouping of East Asia, living together like a cluster of bamboo, generous and strong, contributing towards a world order, which recognises that democracy and good governance is not only for each people but also for the international trade and political system. For better or for worse the world shares a common destiny.
27
Freedom: The Asian Perspective
he semantic difficulties over what constitutes freedom we all experience and these are compounded by the widerspread assumption among the world's principal media insisting that the narrow Western definition of it is applicable to the rest of the world. Most people in Asia, Europe, Africa, Latin America have no quarrel with its basic, emotive definition - the right to be free. But that covers a wide spectrum of meanings, each valid in its context, that adds to the confusion and complexities bedevilling the issue. It makes for difficult rational discussion because the emotive, superimposed definition of the western politician and bureaucrat is at odds with what the bush-dweller or the Serbian "ethnic cleanser" thinks of it. China's perception of freedom is in total variance with what the United States or Germany believes in. So, let us at least look at one generally acceptable definition of what freedom means. The one that everyone could agree is that it is liberty from colonialism. It is the right of peoples to determine their own fate and future. It is the right of the individual within that people to pursue his work in the manner that he would like to be within the limitation of the accepted laws of the land. It is something that would enhance the common good. It ensures the security of the state. But it does not mean an absolute right of the individual to act if that action harms the collective interests of his community or such action would conduce towards panic or despondency. For example, to shout "fire!" when there is none in a theatre full of people may be an exercise in the freedom of speech but that freedom is constrained by the law of the land. Collective security and well-being is of paramount importance, and any straying from this would inevitably mean that the odd man out would be isolated like the weed in a well-kempt garden. Freedom of
* Text of Speech delivered on September 8, 1992 at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Regional Parliamentary Seminar for Asia and South East Asia held in Kuching, September 4 - 9,1992.
Freedom: The Asian Perspective / 215
the individual becomes important only if the other needs of the community are met. Many Asian, African, South American societies do not accept the freedom of the individual as the most important imperative. What is important is the collective well-being of the community. The freedom in relation to pangan, sandang, papan (food, clothing, housing) is top priority among peoples who exist in subsistence economy. For more than five thousand years, China subsisted on the cultural principle that the state, not the individual, had rights. Her cultural underpinnings ensured that her current rulers, the Communist Party, rule for so long as it is regarded by the people as benevolent providing for the people those basic needs. So far one does not see the extreme poverty like living in rags and sleeping under bridges, ekeing out food from garbage dumps as witnessed in some countries which claim to practice Western democracy. Once the Communist Party ceases to be benevolent in the eyes of the people the heavenly mandate would be withdrawn. The West viewed the Tienanmen incident of June 1989 as a prodemocratic process brutally crushed by an oligarchic, octogenarian cabal. That view could not have been more wrong. In making a value judgement to a period in the evolution of his own civilisation and he would easily recognise that stage of its own development from the primitive to the post-industrial age. The Beijing crackdown on the socalled pro-democracy is consistent with the development process in the Asian context. A Western observer who at the time of Tienanmen was in a remote Chinese village. At the height of the confrontation he would saunter down, when he had a moment, to the communal television set, which was showing Cable News Network's (CNN) coverage of the confrontation in Beijing. For days, the peasants and others who gathered around the set sat gnawing their teeth in bridling hostility, staring at the screen in controlled anger that this foreigner thought the government's future could be numbered in days. But on the day that the People's Liberation Army cracked down on the demonstrators, to the consternation of this Western observer the peasants cheered and clapped: the empire had been saved; the students, whose job was to study and not dictate politics, got what they deserved; to the Chinese education is paramount for youngsters and life went back to normal. A few individuals took up the banner of revolt and now ply their trade within the cloisters of little-known universities, plying their revolutionary or is it counter-revolutionary trade to ever decreasing concentric circles of Western advocates of freedom, and wondering what forced them into this state.
Freedom as it refers to Asia, therefore, has to be viewed in the context of Asia which itself is at various stages of development. There is no world-wide definition of acceptance of freedom, just as there is no adequate definition of freedom's offshoots such as democracy and human rights. The underlying basis of power, politics, life and culture is different from country to country that a uniform definition is not possible even in Asia. Each people in each era talk of freedom and liberty. The concept has to be part of the social system. That system itself is dynamic, like a river flowing, changing its course caused by outside determinants, like excessive rain causing flood, effecting changes in its depth and bank. When the river returns to normalcy in flow, it is no more the same in terms of its banks, depth and meandering. But it will retain its flow and dynamism unless of course there is an earth convulsion that turns the river into a lake. That itself is process e.g. Moscow went through this experience as Peking did. But later Moscow went through another experience when the lake is being drained and the social river is once again flowing but no one yet knows which way it is going. The social system which is likened to a river is made up of molecules harbouring residues which remain behind stuck to the river bed or its bank. But the river goes on, like the social system transversing new environment and itself contributing to the fresh scenery. Such is the social system and like the river it will at some stage bring forth the molecules of freedom, liberty, human rights and other fundamentals having discarded those negative residues in its journey. It is this social system that will continue to determine the conduct of man. It is not logical to seek similarity in the conduct of the river at the source and at the mouth. Nor is it logical to expect the ulu group to conduct itself in the same manner as the people of the muara. To force that similarity is the very negation of freedom and liberty. On the other hand not to hasten the removal of negative residual molecules through societal engineering conducted by elders of the community is equally a denial of right. In Asia, there are some which indulge in relatively full-fleged universal suffrage procedures; some in the tightly controlled set up; some are in fledging Western democratic order and there are those characterised by the absence of it. In each of these states, freedom evolves within the constraints in each state but all are free from foreign domination or colonialism.
The spirit of Dunburton Oak and the Charter of the United Nations forced the colonial powers to give up their overlordship. These colonial powers left behind even in India an alien system that had to be modified to local modes of administration, with the new leaders often picking up a system that the coloniser had stifled centuries earlier. Yet today, the yardstick used by those former Western colonialists is completely out of reality as if they are all suffering from a fit of absent-mindedness. Burma's disenchantment with the British overlords was so traumatic that she did not want any link with London on independence in 1948. Suddenly, Hong Kong, on the eve of its return to China is deliberately induced to yearn for Western democracy which is certain to create instability in 1997 or soon afterwards. When China talked of two systems one country, I am sure she meant economic and not the political system. A Western-type democracy is certain to be regarded politically as a square peg. Without a smooth administrative system, Myanmar, continues to search for an acceptable system by trial and error which sardonically referred to by her enemies as a system by trials and error. When the Netherlands was forced to give up its prize colony, Indonesia, it left behind shambles of an administration that blighted the independent Indonesian government for decades. Portugal's over-protective stance on East Timor ignores her own shabby record there: the Indonesian government, whatever else one may fault it for, did more in the 15 years for the island than Lisbon did in four centuries and the people of Timtim, have since their entry into the Republic, been accepted as equal and not a colonial people. If outsiders could learn to respect the principle of non-interference, it would be the better for the people of that tiny island. The West's concerns over lack of freedom underscores another Western fear: that the countries of Asia would overtake it in the very areas the West currently dominates. It is logical to conclude that whatever the imperatives, the West is using all ploys and devises to ensure that this fast growing Asia would be allowed to grow only at the speed determined by the industrialised world including Japan which is Asian in geography but not, as it appears, in spirit. Developing countries of Asia would have to be made to reckon with internal hurdles such as Western concepts of freedom, democracy, and even the idea of keeping humans in a primitive state like wild beasts or anthropological objects. The Asian peoples would have to cope with these pressures rather than in freedom develop their economies and social well-being.
Those Westerners that claim to be horrified by the lack of freedom in Asian countries were themselves the very peoples that exploited and denied freedom when they were unchallenged colonialists. It must not be forgotton that every colonial and Western power in Asia then established themselves within an undemocratic framework. The culture system of the Dutch in Indonesia, the indentured labour of the British, the dictatorial rule of the United States in the Philippines, the colonial hatred that the French inspired in Indochina all point to unacceptable conditions that they themselves would now decry. But Asia has come to terms with these precepts within its own pace of development. That is combined with a parallel attempt to develop economically. But the definition and framework are not Western; neither is it Asian; it is the definition and framework of the country concerned, based on its own historical, cultural, politcal moorings. Each country in Asia is listening to the drums of its own cultural system and not of the others. The Singapore government cannot be anything but what it is, however democratic or undemocratic one perceives that country to be. Neither would Indonesia or Malaysia or Thailand be any different. The story of social system flowing like the river changing courses, ejecting negative molecules and subject to external determinants is no different in its process whether in the East of West. The United States freed the slaves in 1865 after a fratricidal civil war but took 99 years to give it legislative bite in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In between, Red Indians were hunted like beasts and blacks were hanged from gibbets, treetops and make-shift gallows just for being blacks. Now everyone looks back in horror and rectification is attempted through movies and novels. When it comes to looking at Asia, the US commentators are not prepared to transport themselves to the time and backdrop of Asian peoples which are struggling like the US age of slavery which became a provisional function for the preparation of conditions that ultimately brought about the present situation. For instance, Western commentators insist on free democratic elections in Myanmar, where elections at best have been wrapped in inexperience and uncertainty. At the same time, these same commentators welcomed the military take over in Algeria when it appears that the Islamic opposition threatened to take over power in the first free elections ever held there. Such an attitude makes freedom a mockery and offers a false idea of what freedom is all about.
Besides political freedom in the wider sense, freedom exists in Asia at the juncture of the flow of the river of social system. It may not be evident to the outsider, since it is not based on the framework outlined by Plato or Socrates or John Mills or whoever. It is based on a system that provided for the well-being of the individual within the framework of the community. And above all it is constantly maintaining a state of equilibrium of the flowing and changing social system. The priority to Asians is that change must take place based on present values which themselves, while tempering the velocity of change, will inevitably change into a new valuational system. Change is revolution and the most desirable is the kind whose process is dynamic with rhythm and harmony reducing tension to absolute minimum. Malaysia is changing silently but surely. Malaysia is in the process of evolving by stages a society as envisioned in Rukunegara with its ownn yardstick for moral and ethical integration out of a disordered condition. Currently, her vision is fixed towards achieving the stage of a fully industrialised society by 2020. Asia is changing too and the basis of change is constantly through the concept of freedom as understood by each Asian people. And that change is towards togetherness and greater interaction among Asian peoples who have become extremely aware that in the defence of their cherished freedom and liberty Asians must care for each other and share their common fate and destiny. Ever since the closing of the Tokugawa Era, Japan had decided to be industrialised, just like the West. She had much to admire in the West and she yearned to be accepted and respected by the West. Colonialism was the product of the industrial revolution of Europe. In mimicking the West, including top-hats and striped pants for ministers, Japan too became colonialist and preferred to be known as Britain of the East. This naturally brought Japan to battle for colonial supremacy in Asia; what she started she did not know how to end it with advantage. Fatman and Little Boy vitiated the Great Asia Coprosperity Sphere. MacArthur gave Japan a Constitution which is still in place. Japan, having discarded the British and Europeans as paragons during the days of industrial revolution successfully after the war imitated the US in the alchemy of finance, and outstripped her. And when Japan has become wealthy enough to be a donor towards economic development of the developing countries Japan mirrored the aid conditionalities of the Western powers. Like a sore thumb the new
Japanese philosophy of aid to the developing countries as aimed towards the process of "democratisation" a subject requiring a common understanding between Japan and recipients. Asian potential recipients are anxiously awaiting clarification. Togetherness among Asian peoples is that togetherness in freedom to ensure freedom. It is freedom to grow individually. Japan can meaningfully gain acceptability and respect of Asian peoples and is regarded as one of them. In "togetherness" all Asia grows like the cluster of bamboos. The proposal for East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC) is driven by this spirit. The bamboos grow all over East Asia.They provide us with all, things beautiful like songs, poetry and paintings. They give us food from the shoots, means of water transport, weapons, implements and functional things which make humans more comfortable with life. The bamboo is God's gift, it is a great teacher. Therefore Asian peoples should learn from the bamboos and like the bamboos grow in cluster but each is free and independent. The taller of the bamboos will bow their heads in humility. No wind can break a cluster of bamboos. In togetherness; like the bamboos in a cluster, no single Asian people will lose its precious freedom.
22
Possibilities and Roles for Asia in the 21 st Century: The Evolution of Asian Culture
ulture is a matter of human consciousness and imagination determining objectives which would be pre-figured and thus actualised into realities providing comfort and security. Those realities, with their set of norms, in turn, provide impulses for pre-figuring new forms, modes and sensations becoming the new social structure. A living culture evolves silently transforming and modifying modes, sensations and beliefs. If the change is abrupt, noisy, fundamental and radical it is revolutionary. Throughout history there had been revolutions as well as evolutions in cultures. Not long ago, nazism, fascism and communism had brought about major cultural revolutions wherever they emerged. The industrial revolution of the West brought about a cultural evolution producing a bourgois class which in turn radicalised socio-economic ideas and beliefs, eventually devitalising the very same religious and ethical values which stimulated the Western industrial revolution. Western industrial revolution provided products within reach of the masses whose appetitive drive of materialistic consumerism turned the "being" into an "I". Having achieved what was once regarded as "need", "desires" became new "needs". No longer the old ethos and way of life held any relevance; hedonistic egoism became the new order. Money, being the measure to desire. "Necessity" may be the mother of invention; but "necessity"and "want" cohabiting procreate innovations. Social discipline came to be regarded as repressive and it was replaced by releases and liberalism as expressed through symbolisms in art, songs and dramas bringing about changes in social structures and traditional ways. Western industrial revolution brought about modernism, and modernism cultural evolution.
* Paper Presented at the 18th AdAsia Congress, Tokyo, Japan, 7-10 November 1993.
The pot and pop subcultures of the industrial revolution brought in its wake melodies as well as maladies to the psyche. Electricity produces a new sound of the guitar causing singers and songs to follow the twanging pitch, with deafening drums, stimulating men and women to dance in frenzy. When singers croon the bobbysoxers unashamedly weep and swoon. The young mob their idols, whose underpants are at risk of being snatched as souvenirs. Movements of the rap dance are mimicries of modernism and caricatures of the chugging industrial machines. The cinema and television, also the products of electricity of Western industrial revolution, started with clean "and educative entertainments like our East Asian kamishibai and wayang kulit. But now within popular reach, they expose to viewers of all ages new points of view, and a new release where vulgar or violent scenes are not merely suggested but ritualistically portrayed as the set standard. It is now no longer possible to wall our young mind from the negative intrusions of the TV. TV also has replaced reading, and with that the habit of reading may soon disappear. Films and radios have been effectively used as psychological weapons in the World War II and the Cold War. Minds can be conditioned by regular Pavlovan use of certain symbols. Advertising in TV, films and radios can be constructive in nation building, economic development and positive cultural evolution. It can also negatively influence the yound mind and character. For example, there was an advertisement on TV where a child showed selfishness and greed for a kind of drink while his little friend was suffering from a begging syndrome. In this case the advertiser might merely want to glorify his ware, but young minds are conditioned to the "I" in selfishness, not highly keen to care and share. Also based on "I" another child was portrayed as coveting what the other has. Whereas a better imagery would be for the child with the drink to offer with loving care to his friend who gratefully need not have to ask! Expansive consumerism creating needs out of desires, requires a variety of choices which are offered by advertisers. However, some advertisers in under-developed East Asia often thoughtlessly lend repectability to something which traditional East Asians abhor and regard as hideous or ill-mannered as a young person greedily munching fast food with rolling eyes and licking tongue or drinking straight from a bottle with curling lips as if in ecstasy. East Asian youths will emulate those so-called modernist behavioural patterns as
Possibilities and Roles for Asia / 223
the "in" thing. To the under-developed East Asian adults these behavioural patterns appear to be an expression of conceit and a vulgar show of having "fun". In such cases, advertisements are likely to cause ruptures. The cultural disjunction in the West has caused some to reactively return to fundamentalism in religion as the Jones commune in Guyana or the Wako incident in the US. Some are turning to deleterious drugs or intoxicants. Some seek new inspirations from the serene view of pine clad mountains or whatever is left of the ecosystem in their environment. Some join in the chanting of Hindu mantras or Buddhist hymns, to express their feelings and impulses seeking refuge from the negative elements in the culture of the postindustrial revolution era. They have become culturally displaced. Those cultural refugees while repudiating the a-go-go culture of "I" and hedonism also reject in totality the old norms and ethos which had brought success to the industrial revolution. They are no longer au fait with such values as integrity or hard work; and, indeed, they regard as outmoded, to the extent of being intolerable, those who continue to be committed to the old values. Since the Meiji period, Japan had admired, envied and emulated the Western industrial revolution. That revolution, which is now over, had spawned excessive exploitation, facism, colonialism, and imperialism and as an anti-thesis, communism. Japan went through the various phases of the Western industrial revolution with all its negative features including imperialism. Japan has reached the zenith in her industrialisation achievement and in the process has also imbibed the cultural products, good and bad, of that industrial revolution. It seems now there is a growing disjunction in Japanese cultural values between the old and new. The question which developing communities are asking is whether the culturally and ethically impregnated Look East Policy will continue to be relevant. There is a trend today towards the fusion of all post-industrial revolution cultures, so that a time may come when there would be a single cultural valuational system with old cultures modified or completely devitalised. If this trend should persist and every developing country became industrialised, one positive consequence may emerge; in time there will be no contradictions based on culture. On the other hand, if the developing countries failed to be industrialised and there is no cultural expressions from a new perspective of global living in a post industrial revolution era, there
will be a South-North cultural dichotomy. The old cultures of the developing countries might be pitted against the new of the post industrial era. If the industrialised North were to insist on conditionalities for aid and trade bludgeoning the South with post industrial values, then the edges of conflict between the South and North would be sharpened. Among some peoples of Asia where communism or socialistic pattern of society had been established, the logic of dilectical materialistic determinism became a part of their consciousness. There are East Asian peoples who opted against the communist or socialist ideological values. Asia, from West to East Asia encompassing South Asia are culturally diverse. Yet despite the diversity in ideological or political values there are discernible indigenous cultural impulses that are uniquely Asian. The great religions of the world are Asian: Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism with their respective litanies and rituals have contributed to this uniqueness. So also have those teachings reflecting the correct way of living such as Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and their numerous offshoots. Since the purview is East Asia, the one common forefront feature of the various East Asian cultures is the concept of communitarianism or "togetherness". The West once talked of the "Bamboo Curtain". The term might have been coined in a fit of absentmindedness or meant to be derisive when compared to the "Iron" kind. Nevertheless, all East Asia have always venerated the "Bamboo". It serves mankind of East Asia in a variety of ways more than any other plant. The shoots are a delicacy, the tree can be turned into material for housing, furniture, transport on land or water, can be made into crutches, weapons and water or windmills, as toothpicks, chopsticks and smoking pipes, as cups, containers, cooking pots and toys, as flutes and other musical intruments, as writing material which had preserved the ancient cultures of Asia, as inspirations for poems, songs, music and paintings. Above all the "Bamboo" is a great teacher in "togetherness". Never do they grow otherwise than in a cluster where each tree is sufficiently pliable to withstand the rage of wind and tremor. In cluster, the taller of the trees bend their heads in humble bow, devoid of hauteur. ASEAN and the proposed East Asian Economic Caucus (EAEC), these bear the hallmark of East Asian "togehterness". APEC? Well, it is something else. It looks like some kind of a foreign guided jamboree with an imperialistic odour which may be politically exclusivistic.
Possibilities and Roles for Asia / 225
How can APEC be a genuine "togetherness" when different members have different visions and paradigms, some to gang up against EC and some running with the hare and chasing with the hounds? Some are thinking or treating APEC in the dubious spirit of kyoryoku shi nagara
kyoso .
There is now an opportunity for all East Asian leaders to sense the future and evolve for all East Asia a mechanism, which would keep looking for alternatives, to positively respond to the challenges of the global disarray, in the eras of post-Western industrial revolution and post Cold War. East Asia has all the elements which can mature not only in terms of modernisation but also evolving eclectically, ethos and consciousness imbibing the beauteous, rejecting the hideous and repulsive cultural expressions. In East Asia there are the under-developed, developing and fully developed economic and social communities stretching from Laos to ASEAN to Japan. It is an ideal area where the concepts of South-South cooperation, and South-North axis could be fully developed. The possibilities and roles for East Asia in the 21st Century are to yield a leadership which would with vision frame a mechanism for the purpose of eventually securing a world strategy for a sustainable human-centred development, in the paradigm of a redefined notion of global interdependence, shared benefits and costs. The watchword for sustainable development is ethical creation of wealth and its equitable distribution. The corner-stone of peace without which there would be no development in East Asia is the China-Japan entente and solidarity. These can best be nurtured by invoking the "Bamboo" spirit of East Asian "togetherness" expressed in the form of the ASEAN proposed EAEC - consultative forum in the best East Asian tradition. EAEC will weather the storm of protectionism and blocism. It will be a transparent forum to promote the ideals of multi-lateralism in global trade, supporting the notion and spirit of GATT. It will be a caucus representing East Asians in any world economic forum. Both China and Japan, the two faces of the same coin" of East Asian leadership, will have a supportive constituency in EAEC whose mechanism will be at their disposal for them to constructively assert themselves in any cockpit of contention or to take developmental or corrective measures in their respective economic and societal structures, as well as to eventually secure a world strategy for a sustainable human-centred development. For Japan in EAEC, the idea
of a permanent seat in a re-moulded Security Council will not at all be far-fetched. EAEC with Japan, China, ASEAN, and the rest of East Asian peoples including Myanmar as members will genuinely reflect the notion of South-South and South-North cooperative and collaborative "togetherness", just as the "Bamboo" in cluster, will weather the wind of change. The global communities share a common fate and destiny as you, ladies and gentlemen of Japan would say, "Unmei Kyodo Tai".
23 Perestroika - European Home and the Islamic World
he paper delivered at the United Nations Asian Regional Seminar and NGO Symposium on the Question of Palestine in Kuala Lumpur on December 18,1989 entitled "The Urgency of Convening The International Conference on The Middle East and The Impact of Intifadah on The Achievements of a Comprehensive Settlement of The Middle East Conflict", is written with a conviction that a new configuration is evolving which eventually will end up in a global Muslim - non-Muslim juxtaposition as if the prediction of Nostradamus is about to come to pass. When Gorbachev launched his Perestroika and Glasnost it brought in the freshness of approach to whose generation which was too young to fight in the 2nd World War and therefore remembered only the devastation and misery brought about by the War. If he was born earlier and conscripted he would have participated in the War and could claim to be a hero and like all those leaders before him he also would have thought of war as a glorious moment. In 1980 when he became a member of the politburo he was the youngest (b. 1931) next to Grigorii Romanov (b. 1923) while the rest ranged from Brezhnev (1906) to Vladimir Shcherbitsky (1918). Those for destalinisition led by Khrushchev (1956) and the demythicisation of the xenophobia of the West and also a fresh approach towards Communism and Socialism found ready support among Gorbachev's generation and Russian nationalists. Being of that age and exposed more than others to modern communications technology particularly television, Gorbachev undoubtedly became very aware of the thinking and happening of the outside world as well as the events taking place in the various republics.
* Article Prepared in December 1989.
Gorbachev must have seen that the Asiatic republics pose a special problem. They happen to be predominantly Islamic despite deportations and persecutions over the years. The 1959 census certainly confirmed that there were then at least 39 "nationalities" or ethnic groups with Islam as their religious background. Contacts between Slav and Viking tribes settled in Russia and Asiatic Muslims started soon after Bokhara and Samarkand became Islamic (710 AD) and later in the 13th century, the Mongols who had by then become Muslims conquered the Caucasus. Under Teymor (Tamerlane) in the 14th Century Bokhara and Samarkand became to most well-known centres of Islamic science and culture. When the Golden Horde fell apart in Astrakhan, Kazan and the Crimea and became separate Khanates the princes of Muscovy, who regarded themselves as the defenders of Christendoms against the Eastern Horsemen, began their intrigues among the Muslims which eventually provided the opportunity for Ivan, who became the Tsar in 1547, to start his campagin of imperialistic wars. The Khanates were soon annexed and the Steppes colonised between 1551-61 followed by large-scale massacres and deportations earning for Ivan IV the nickname of "The Terrible". The Church of St. Basil standing in the Kremlin today which has turban-shaped domes on each of which perched a cross on top of a crescent, was built to mark the domination of the Church over Islam after the conquest of Kazan. The Romanovs (1613-1917) who regard themselves as Europeans took advantage of the internecine quarrels among the Muslim states and the Russian empire spread into the Asiatic and Siberian region. Those were the eras of European colonialism as witnessed in our part of the world but other European powers went overseas to the Americas, Africa, Asia, the Australasias and the Pacific. The Russian defeat by the Japanese in 1904 halted any Russian designs on the Far East. Added to that, the unimpressive performances of Tsar Nicholas during World War I which led to his abdication in 1917 opened the way for a Bolshevik success in seizing power later in the same year. It is therefore obvious to a man of Gorbachev's intelligence and his commitment to socialist ideals that Moscow has to come to terms with the reality that while other colonial and imperialistic powers had their colonial territories divested from them the Empire left by the Tsar was still under the clutches of Moscow, a legacy which was legitimised by the Bolshevik revolutionary leaders. (Even Lenin who was vehement in his condemnation of colonialism of the West did not
European Home and the Islamic World / 229
object to the annexation of Georgia by the Red Army in 1921 nor of the Tsar's previous conquests of Central Asia). There was a brief moment when the Tsar was tottering and the first few months after the Revolution the Asiatic nations could have had their independence but the Red Army engineered by Stalin after the Revolution soon incorporated these territories once again as the colonies of Moscow with the facade of being republics within the Soviet Union. Moscow's rule of more than seventy years with all the systems introduced by Stalin and those after him, in their efforts to destroy nationalism, religion and ethnicity did not produce the SOVIET MAN. Gorbachev saw the Afghan War which started in 1979 sparking a nationalistic and Islamic anger in the Soviet Union, so much so that a riot took place in Alma Ata (Khazakhstan) when the Muslims there objected to the burial of a Muslim officer (one of the first few killed in Afghanistan) in a cemetary reserved for Soviet heroes. The Muslims wanted all Muslims to be buried in a Muslim cemetary. The Muslim troops eventually had to be withdrawn from the Afghanistan operations. Because the demographic growth rate in the USSR favour the Asiatic republics, where there is an abundance of arable land, about half the conscripts in the Soviet armed forces are Asiatics and Muslims. And then there is the question of the borders. The Soviet Union has about 4,600 km of porous frontiers with Muslim countries as opposed to about 3,200 km with European countries. While in the early days of the post-revolution era the Russians were welcomed in the Asiatic Republics that welcome has worn out by now when the once backward people there have no more need for Russian doctors, engineers and societal developers. Today the Russians are seen as colonisers, oppressors and grabbers of land under the Virgin Land Policy of 1954 and indeed the harbingers of an anti-God ideology. There have been riots, arrests, anti-religious and anti-nationalist campaigns in all the Muslim republics in the last twenty years with the simultaneous growing influence of the underground Islam with its clandestine centres and printing presses. The official Islam is regarded by most Muslims in the Southern republics merely as the tool of Soviet administration and international diplomacy. These are realities of the situation which must be causing grave concern to Gorbachev. The army which is about 50% Asiatics who are not as advanced in modern education as the Russians to handle
sophisticated weapons can easily be reduced by cutting down personnel who are Muslim Asiatics (many of whom will include staff and field grade officers). The Army reduction also can be taken with advantage if it was offered as a reduction of arms proposal to the US and Nato to be the price for detente in Europe. There is no talk of detente in the Far East hence the question of US-USSR presence in this part of the world has never been taken up seriously. On the other hand leaders of Asia have been invited to visit Moscow and all have been requested to consider seriously the Vladivostok offer. Trade missions from the Southern Republics suddenly appear in various countries with Islamic coloration including Malaysia. All these stink of Cold War strategy. Surely it is obvious to all that, as in Europe, the initiative for a detente in the Asia Pacific region must be a US-USSR matter. Glasnost and Freedom of Information may facilitate a peek into the briefs of Stalin and Roosevelt at Potsdam which may help to resolve the Russo-Japanese problem of the Northern islands. Other problems like the bases will also fall in place. Efforts at enticing an Asian power to one side or the other is to indulge in the old practices of political seduction. Together with problems of nationalism among the Russians and the Asiatics and the fact that many of the industries both commercial and military are located in the Asiatic Republics, the programme of socialism is also not going smoothly resulting in dissatisfaction all over the Union. Russian nationalism is surging and perhaps people like Solzhenitsyn is more of a nationalist than anything else and this phenomenon certainly creates problems for the Union. If nationalism and Islamic fervour in the Asiatic republics are on the upsurge and on a collision course with the Russian nationalism with equal fervour of the Orthodox Church, which has always been an element in Russian nationalism and if Communism was losing its respectability and regarded as an outmoded and irrelevant ideology out of and in the Soviet Union of both Russian and Asiatic then very drastic measures would have to be resorted to. Perestroika and Glasnost provide those measures to serve both domestic and foreign policies in a kind of a "middle class" revolt among the bureaucrats and people of Gorbachev's age who want to cling to the centrally-controlled system of government. But Perestroika will benefit the Asiatics more because they have the background of a culture that recognises land ownership and free enterprise. (Who could forget the traders on the silk routes?)
Assuming that all will go well, the Asiatics would grow stronger economically and their demands for autonomy and eventual independence would also be stronger with Glasnost. They could even demand to have their own armies in the various Republics now with a good number of ex-officers floating around as a result of Army strength being cut. The formation of local armies is permissible according to Soviet Constitution. The edges of conflict with the Russians and Armenians settled in the Islamic Republics as witnessed in Azerbaijan will become sharper. But to the West particularly the US, Perestroika and Glasnost offer a new dimension in East-West relations which provides an opportunity for a definite Soviet commitment to the abandonment of nuclear war, reduction of conventional armaments and detente in Europe. Those who have been rabid anti-Communists are gleefully gloating over the appearance of a roll back of Communism in East Europe and the opportunity of introducing a free market system with all its exploitative ugliness. Gorbachev was careful to spell out that there have been past errors which under Perestroika would be remedied and not allowed to recur. Old methods would not be used to accomplish new ideas. He reminds his audience that despite those many errors the USSR had proved to be a success since the Revolution, putting the USSR as a world power at par with or at least regarded as a rival of the USA. Be that as it may, it must be noticeable to Gorbachev that the free market system has made greater strides in economic growth and distribution than the centrally controlled system of Communism. Without reversing the Communist ideology, Perestroika aims at correcting the economic decline and to remove any Marxian irrelevancies as a result of the passage of time. Gorbachev through Perestroika and Glasnost is determined to free USSR and the Soviet brand of socialism from the ossification set in by the canonisation of distorted dogmas. These authoritatiran outmoded ideas and practices have served as a "braking mechanism" in the modernisation of the USSR. The Russians under the Tsar had been backward and the Revolution simply replaced the Tsar with a proletarian dictatorship which turned the Russian men and women who were once serfs into agricultural, industrial or commercial civil servants not knowing how to own land or to be entrepreneurs with all the necessary motivations. Authoritarianism is that "braking mechanism".
Gorbachev is determined to make Perestroika saleable to meet the challenges of the present day realities which should be apparent to him. Some of them are as follows: 1. Great strides made by those who adhere to the free market system; 2. Great strides made by the US in the conventional arms industries and the star wars which benefit Nato as against Warsaw Pact; nuclear strategic weapons are not useable; 3. Inability to keep continuously under control countries in Eastern Europe which have strong traditions of Christianity and individual freedom; 4. Growing nationalism and religious revival among the Russians, the Armenians and the Balks and even stronger upsurge among the Asiatic Muslims will inevitably confront each other and bring about a disintegration of the Soviet Empire. Short of repressive measures which have their limitation in a colonial context it will be well nigh impossible for Moscow to hold on to the myth that all is well in the Asiatic republics. Perestroika will find for the Russians a way out by claiming a niche or an "Apartment in the European Home" where Moscow would be welcome as the capital of a socialistic Christian and a European nation. Reminiscent of the days of the Tsars the European inheritance seems to be a major influence in thinking for the future of Russia. Christianity and socialism are according to some Westerners and some others, the hallmarks of modernity. The "European Home" is from the Atlantic to the Ural and the Caucasus to the Black and the Caspian Seas. The European Home is a solution both for the Caucasian Russia and the Eastern bloc countries if they were accepted by the West. The signs are that they would be welcomed. There will then be a Western exclusiveness. There is no way that the Asiatic Republics could claim to be Europeans neither would they be accepted if they wanted to. Even Turkey despite membership of Nato is not regarded as European. The consequent loss of the Asiatic and "backward" peoples of the empire would not be too unbearable if the alternative was to belong and be back in the European fold. Of course as long as possible the integrity of the empire had to be preserved. The West, unlike their attitude towards another Communist but Asian power - China, would not be harsh on Moscow if Russian troops were sent to quell and suppress "ethnic riots or barbaric Islamic revolts". The whole thing stinks of racialism.
The West still remembers the Crusade and the Ottoman Empire which disappeared only in 1918. The new real or imagined fears will be the upsurge of Islam with which is associated backwardness, fundamentalism, extremism and terrorism. To prevent Islam from becoming a uniting factor and a world force that it once was, a few Lawrences (of Arabia fame) will be let loose supported by so-called objective syndicated writers to seduce the naive minds of the Western readers who will form the required negative perception about Islam. Countries that claim to be Islamic (including Malaysia) will be the new targets of the East-West collusion and propaganda, while Pakistan under Bhutto will be wooed not to support the Mujahideen (not regarded as nationalists who happen to be Muslims but 'slamic rebels') leaving the porous Afghanistan border free from subversive threats to the Muslim Republics. Iran, Turkey and possibly Iraq would be special anti-Islamic targets and Malaysia and other Islamic countries that practise independent foreign policies will also be targets for political and economic attacks. Aid towards developing countries would no more be based on denying the Communist ideology but on denying the upsurge of Islam. A cynic could be inclined to be amused by the letter written by Khomeini to Gorbachev in January 1989 Khomeini was trying to provide Gorbachev a way out by inviting him to find in Islam the solutions to the Soviet ills, one of which is the fast growing Islamic population and thereby its influence in the Soviet empire. To the Russians and the West the understanding of Islam is not a panacea but a bane indeed. This will be a new factor which has come once again to plague the West this time together with the Eastern bloc. The European Home is a proposed solution. Perestroika and Glasnost have already had their effect in China although China had started her reforms much earlier. China is following her own style of reforms which until today had not shown much success. But Chinese leaders do not share Gorbachev's Perestroika and Glasnost since China understands they are the Russian way of expressing a desire of the prodigal son to return home to Europe. "European Home" is irrelevant to China. The Tienanmen incident is only a part of the problem but being Asian, unlike the Russian, the Chinese will be more exposed to condemnation by the West. The problems for China will get worse when the Tibetans begin to move in a more determined manner and so will the people of Sinkiang which before Mao's annexation in 1949 was known as East
234 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World. Order
Turkestan Republic have religious and cultural ties with those in the Soviet Union. Similar movements as in the Soviet Islamic Republics are also taking place. In May 1989 the Communist party headquarters in Urumqi was attacked followed by other incidents in other towns, artfully dubbed by Western writers who fear the resurgence of Islam as part of the rising flood of Islamic fundamentalism sweeping the world, which in fact was a simple anti-colonial movement as in Tibet. Here China may seek the sympathies of the West particularly US Congress. The suppression of Tienanmen may be forgotton by the West if China could be made to act effectively and decisively in Sinkiang to prevent the Islamic osmosis. Japan has no Islamic experience of colonial problem as such. But sooner or later she too will have to look at the problem of the new dichotomy and configuration. She is rich and economically powerful but utterly selfish and self-centred suffering from problems of self image and an induced sense of World War II guilt. The interest any Japanese businessman has is merely the acquisition of raw material and the market for Japanese industrial products and areas of investment. She is also obsessed with the desire to be totally accepted as a member of the G-7, often demonstrating her fits of absentmindedness that she has the privilege and responsibility of assuming the political and economic leadership in collaboration with China for the development of Asian and Pacific region. ASEAN relationships must be constantly watched and kept in constant repair. Islam is a big element in ASEAN and divisive forces are already at work. There should be greater personal consultations among top leaders and in the words of Gen. Moerdani recently uttered in the Malindo Dialogue II, "Nothing should be taken for granted".
24
The Changing World: A Viewpoint
ne thing is certain: the world is changing as it has always been doing, but this time much of the change is towards one world not in the fashion of religious or secular conquerors and imperialism of the past, but the shift is driven by powerful technology-related forces like microchips. New knowledge and analytical skills have shown some issues to have been ill-managed or neglected. These issues include macro-pollution bringing about earth warming, damage to ozone layer, nuclear waste and toxic waste, or transferable diseases, ethnic and cultural imbalances following human migrations resulting from economic pressures, pleasure and leisure seekers, or international terrorism, piracies and drug trafficking. Such issues and more lead towards the direction of one world since the management could only be effective by measures that transcend national borders. Yet the globalisation trend is distorted by industrialised nations showing tendencies to fortify their short-term economic self-interest to the exclusion of others through bloc building. This short-term consideration is the result of democratic demands of short-term period of office of policy-makers. Dictated by the need for communal comfort and security in adversity, the opposite tendency which is towards fragmentation is also taking place. Empires and nation states because of nationalism, tribalism or religion have been splintered or are breaking up. Chairs in the UN will soon be overflowing to the corridors with so great a number of nanosias as has never been witnessed before. Atlas and maps render geography lessons in smudged colours. During the bipolar world of the Cold War everyone on both sides knew his place, what to do and what to expect. The breakdown of the Berlin Wall brought in torrents of new problems some of which are
* Keynote Address at the opening of the International Islamic University, Kuala Lumpur, 910 January 1993.
becoming monumental because of the inability of the present so-called world powers to cope and manage. The traditional yardsticks had become obsolete. For instance, industrialised peoples of America, Europe and Japan began for the first time to acknowledge that, after all is said and done, national and global economy will weaken with the weakening of the national and global agricultural foundations. Hence the Uruguay Rounds are bothered by agricultural issues; with the erosion of GATT there will certainly be a breakdown in the international open trade system to the detriment of new industrialising peoples. Values which have been held high during the Cold War for over forty years now seem irrelevant. At one time industrialisation was the ambition of every people; now industrialisation is being blamed for environmental degradation, for breaches in human rights, exploitation of workers and child labour, of colonialism and genocide, of imperialism and two World Wars and the Cold War. Industrialisation will soon become a dirty word because of the deleterious effects its poisonous residues have on humans and plants similar to the situation when the Japanese once were told that colonialism was objectionable after the West had established their colonies with all the negative implications. Communism and socialism also were put in the dock because they coerced and subverted other peoples claiming that the ideology of materialistic determinism could right the inequities of capitalism in the context of industrialisation; instead communism and socialism created other inequities. Above all, industrialisation both in the West and East was blamed for the main cause of the present day scourge of the degradation of the earth ecological system threatening the very life on planet Earth. The rules will be changed making industrialisation safer for mankind but the cost to new players will almost be prohibitive. Planet Earth is the one on which we live in and the only planet at the moment available to us. The notion of living on the moon seems remote and silly yet who knows the moon or some other planet may be the only salvation for humans to escape the devastation of planet Earth as a result of the ecological ruination and floods induced by the earth warming, melting the ice in the Arctic and Antartic regions drowning islands with all their inhabitants. For those islanders and for others there would be no Noah's Ark; what will be left of planet Earth might not be liveable.
The Changing World / 237
Therefore, what is it that should exercise our mind now? Is it the probability and possibility of similar World War as the previous two? I think those types of World Wars would not recur since political connections pressured by weak economy would make such a war futile. Today, every people could produce the same weaponry so that, unlike the period of imperalism when the Europeans had machine guns against the spear - wielding Africans, except for the temporary arms superiority of the US, no one will have the superiority of weapons to make war attractively profitable. History is filled with stories of rise and decline of power and familiar signs are written on the wall. It must be admitted that in limited ways terrorism may be rewarding to its perpetrators. Any country with a petrochemical industry could easily manufacture poison gas to intimidate its neighbours but, for sure, not beyond unless there is an efficient delivery system. The Cold War would be the last global war on our planet. There might be limited eruptions of the heated kind like the Security Council sanctioned Desert Shield. Nevertheless, the question arises as to why the absence of the bipolar world has only brought cold peace without any real warmth in friendship among nations. Is it because the new paradigm renders governments to be more sensitive to national and international market forces that the natural reaction would be self-preservation through protectionism or gangin up? It would seem to me to be so. While Cold Warriors had fought to make the other side change now that one side has changed the other has as yet not done so. The confrontational democracy of the Western culture is at a loss as to what it has to do since it only understands that a democratic life to be meaningful has to have an opposition. Now that the Cold War opponent is gone new opponents will have to be found. There lie the problems of this decade.' As developing countries move towards industrialisation they will be regarded as potential enemies by the old industrialised powers in the quest for markets. Some industrialised nations would find security in trade blocs. They will pretend as if these blocs are not harmful to the wealth creating free multi-national trade. The more powerful within each of the blocs will impose conditionalities and shibboleths regulating their partners in dealing with the outside world. The semantics of human dignity becomes exclusive to each bloc. Newly industrialised and developing countries will find themselves outside the bloc-gates to sell their wares.
Japan, being herself an industrialised nation, cannot escape feeling the heat that she is more and more being treated as a trade threat to other industrialised countries. With the formation of NAFTA and EC the main preoccupation of Japan is to avoid being regarded an economic enemy by hanging on to the coat tail of the US under any aegis. APEC, supported by the US, becomes a strategic objective but the rationalisation of her membership is based on the principle of, "competition while cooperating" (Kyoryoku shinagara kyoso). It is not clear whether other APEC members understand the implication of this. If eventually such an attitude is regarded dubious that would be a source of acrimony. EC and NAFTA may also gang up for selfpreservation against Japan if Japan because of her own reason is unable to satisfy either side on agricultural issues in the Uruguay Rounds. Japan may also find herself isolated if US saw that she was no longer comfortable with Japan and that NAFTA has grown from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. Globalisation could easily reproduce the Monroe Doctrine. It is not possible to foretell as to how long these problem creating uncertainties would subsist without effective management. During this post-Cold War decade the process of change will cause old habits and values to change including the system of beliefs. Those peoples who once ardently adhered to socialism and communism now find themselves in a state of trauma and turbulence. After discarding old beliefs and values former communists are now even more uncertain as to which way to go. They are confused when they discover the truth that their old adversaries are faring none too well either, what with debts and fiscal fiascos and the clawing of each other for markets. The former communist peoples are left without any recompense or aid. On the human personal level there are murmurings that they are worse off without communism; they see themselves still standing in long queues to buy rationed food and clothing: some are waiting for handouts, no different from the Somalis and Ethiopians, wondering whether the Western democracy, with its junk food, burping drink and jarring music, is after all a grand illusion. It would be very serious indeed if ordinary individuals begin to entertain a lingering doubt whether their Soviet leaders had been bamboozled into the present state of disaster, and that the Chinese leadership is right in rejecting the ideological option dangled by the West. This could be a factor in the changing world. With the emergence of the unipolar power, the least developed peoples find themselves marginalised. Those who were adept at
playing one power against the other during the Cold War period now find that the playing field is no longer there. Instead of something positive emerging from the demise of the Cold War, the South, find that the unipolar power had changed the rules. The United Nations once extolled by all including those from behind the iron curtain, from under-developed countries and colonies as a sacred instrument for freedom, peace and sustainable development, is now looked upon as a miserable tool for international policies of the unipolar power and its friends. Those basic values which were enshrined by the founding fathers at Dunburton Oaks are now dilapidated tomb stones. UN sacred purposes like,"to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person; to promote social progress and better standards of life in large freedom", and many more well-intentioned scriptures, under those tombstones they are still lying! Today the United Nations is a tool for the legitimisation of the selective wishes, bona fide maybe, of a unipolar power and its allies. In a pseudo-democratic manner the Security Council sanctioned actions such as Desert Storm, a truly modern war, payable by credit card! Japan and Germany, without a say in the decision, had to share the cost of the shots fired in Desert Shield which later became Desert Storm, a unipolar initiative under the sheeny sanction of the Security Council. The South considers it a question of immediacy for the UN to adopt to a changing world, to new demands and new opportunities. The UN needs revitalisation, greater efficiency and cost effectivenesss. In the context of the changing world where old rulers of international relations and even power itself has to be redefined, it would be best for us to focus our thoughts on preparing for the change by carefully discerning the patterns that are patterning and not to mistake them for the pattern that might ultimately emerge. When a change takes place, particularly as sudden as the breaking down of the Berlin Wall, it is always acompanied by uncertainty after the trauma or euphoria has died down. As mentioned earlier there are two trends - one is towards globalisation, another is moving towards fragmentation when new nation-states would emerge based on religion, ethnicity, nationalism or tribalism or whatever identifiable groupings which could provide a sense of security and well-being in time of adversity. The globalisation trend would certainly render a nation-state the change in concepts or even loss of salience in such matters as
sovereignty, ethnic identities and communal interest. Whether that nation-state is homogenous or not the forces of modern science and techonology, will dictate the trend for the emergence of trans-national cultures. Issues transcending borders would alter man's understanding of sovereignty. The ruination of the ecosystem, earth warming, nuclear and toxic wastes will surely ruin mankind unless humans irrespective of colour or creed with resoluteness hold hands to face their challenges. Each nation-state whether old or new will, perforce have to make peace with its environment and together with others battle to save the planet. The new world leadership, I believe, will be the ones who could provide a planetary responsibility for the protection of the future. They will emerge from among those peoples who not only possess but assist to promote affordable clean industries which will reverse the ecological and ethical degradation brought about by the industrial age. Arms for destruction will soon be archaic. The trend will naturally force men to regard other men as natural allies and not potential adversaries in the efforts to save the world, thus allowing for greater mutual respect in each others cultures providing for the growth of an international culture transcending the state-society unit. Today we witness a persistent move to impose the belief system of the strong over the weak. However, with the greater understanding of the need of the threatened world there would be changes about thought process and its basis. People will have to listen to each other. In that situation power and strength may also be found among the powerless and the weak. The system of beliefs of one state will have to take into account the system of beliefs of its neighbour - and the whole world is its neighbour. The concept of power will change, so will be the concept of security and hegemony. The world in the globalisation trend will quietly realise that what the world needs as a minimum is not the kind of democracy tied to the issue of votes, but a sustainable governance. Sustainably good governance involves accountability of the government and political equity which would provide a mechanism for consultation so that people would have a say, as in consensual democracy without the rancour and despair often associated with confrontational democracy. Any insistence that democracy of the Western kind, spelt with capital D, should be grafted everywhere will hurt more than help humans. Those who promote the system of one man one vote, winner taking all, need to be reminded that the journey from Athens to
London took a long time. The Westminster democracy which Churchill said was the best Britain had is only about 65 years old. This magnificent seat of learning is urged to have a full debate on "Democracy" and all its aspects and implications, and continue to do so for every generation of undergraduates, so that the use of the word and its concept are not blatant and misleading. The product of this institution may be a source of danger to society and even mankind if in the name of democracy they would be advocating some pseudodemocracy, even in the western term. It would be an error to regard the trend towards globalisation as a consequence of the breakdown of communism. In fact globalisation exposed the errors of communism. Therefore, if globalisation could destroy the values which communism held high, it certainly will also change those values held by the West. This is generally recognised and the West is trying to delay or pre-empt this change which may cause a reduction in the standard and style of life. Governments of developed countries would fight tooth and nail to prevent any erosion in the standard of living. It is an immoral person who could say that irrespective of the outcome to the ecosystem nothing would be allowed to reduce the living standard of the Western people. Equally immoral is the person who indulges in mal-development. Globalisation exposes global problems requiring global attention but the remedy offered by the West was still based on the dominant pattern of the Cold War period. This is most frustrating and is a source of insecurity which in turn breeds extremism, fanaticism or protectionism. Conflagrations in the world are the results of insecurity. West Asia is an example. Nobody allays the fears of the peoples there; nobody does because nobody cares to understand the fears of Israelis, of Palestinians, of Iraqis, of Jordanians, of Syrians, of Lebanese, of Iranians, of the Gulf Arabs, of men, women and children displaced. When this human emotion runs wild, they become paranoiac and irrational. These irrational people are condemned and punished just as if the world is still in the Middle Ages dealing with insanity. What is happening on the Israel Lebanon border today is an example of that insanity of all concerned driven by extreme fears which nobody has tried to understand and allay. Globalisation also exposes another kind of irrationality but insanity nevertheless. This begins with the satisfaction of human need. Once that level has been achieved desires emerge. That desire once satisfied if uncontrolled turns to greed. Greed breeds
irrationality. Protectionism, blocism, ecodebauchry are some of the symptoms of this madness or irrationality. The effect is not felt during a period of prosperity when the lions could get their share but during lean years, like the full moon lunacy is most transparent as it is now. China bashing, Japan bashing, Islam bashing, dragon bashing, bash anything that is not with you because, by definition, they are against you. That is one of the negative effects of globalisation. The Malaysian proposal for East Asia Caucus would provide a consultative forum so that the age-old suspicion of East Asians particularly between China and Japan creating fear on both sides could be diminished. A joint East Asian approach to world problems in this age of globalisation would be more positive than otherwise. In a grouping as proposed, stability could be ensured in East Asia. Stability is the most essential ingredient for sustainable development. Together East Asians in this decade share a common fate and destiny. Together East Asians positively could contribute towards the betterment of future living. While the global trend also see the breaking-up of old empires and alliances, the sense of fear during the lean years tend to polarise communities. People identified as a religious or an ethnic group would find comfort in close proximity with each other. Many countries have the potential for fragmentation but it is not necessary that this is an inevitable trend. Various reasons can be attributed to the trend towards fragmentation; the forces at work are many and they are most effective in an ambience of adversity. The present trend may be a glowing pointer indicating the coming of a very serious world economic downturn. Malaysia, chasing Vision 2020 does not simply focus on industrialisation but industries that are at peace with the demands of environment. True to Rukunegara there are multifarious facets of the whole people which have to be reckoned with to keep each growth in harmony with others. Disequilibrium in a multi-ethnic, multireligious society spells disaster. All Malaysians are committed to continue to make every effort to maintain a sustainable good governance in order to provide the ambience of stability for development. Practices, laws and rules that are archaic or obstructive to good governance will have to be removed. Futurist markets and food security will have to be planned and actualised. Malaysians will be a society that cares for both humans and the environment. Education will be overarching not only to acquire knowledge and skill but also to understand the purposiveness in education. The provision
for interaction among different cultural or religious groups must continue untiringly. Goodwill and unity achieved should be kept in constant repair. Nothing is to be left to chance. The essence in the endeavours of human development is good governance. Aid donor countries are urged to review the philosophy of their programme. Priority should be given to basic needs where it is found to be so, such as in the famine stricken countries of Africa. The next is to concentrate on helping how to produce the human resources in leadership. There are two levels of leadership. One is the policy level and the other is the level of implementation. Nothing is going to succeed if these two levels do not relate to each other, are inept or corrupt. They need to possess a commitment and strong ethical standards. Training in this area is imperative. Introduction of Western democracy may produce people chosen for the wrong reasons and Marcoses will emerge. It does not matter how a man finds his way at the helm so long as he is capable of leading a sustainable good governance. What is therefore the core problem facing us in this decade of transition? To me it is the problem of man and the wrong relationship with his fellow men. This wrong relationship makes him blind to the greater danger of the degradation of the ecosystem that will destroy all men. What we often quarrel about are about minute matters no bigger than specks of dust. Unless we converge and put our heads together communicate meaningfully with each other to save this planet Earth through caring and sharing, unless we remove the cobwebs in our own hearts we may end up ourselves being specks of dust. Each of us should resolve that the change begins with each one of us - me. Let us together change with the changing world.
25
Economic Issues and Challenges in Vision 2020: International and Regional Ramifications
wo years have passed since the concept of Vision 2020 was unveiled on 28 February, 1991 by Prime Minister Dato' Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at the inaugural meeting of the Malaysian Business Council.Vision 2020 envisages that in a span of 30 years Malaysia would be a fully developed and an industrialised country in all dimensions: economically, politically, spiritually, psychologically and culturally. The eight strategic challenges are as follows: 1. Establishing a united Malaysian nation made of one Bangsa Malaysia; 2. Creating a psychologically liberated, secure and developed Malaysian society; 3. Strengthening and developing a mature democratic society with a high sense of regional and international responsibility; 4. Fostering a fully moral and ethical society; 5. Ensuring the continuance of a liberal and tolerant society; 6. Developing a scientific and progressive society capable of adjusting to basic paradigm shifts in science and technology; 7. Nurturing a fully caring society maintaining the inter-relationship between man and man and man and his ecosystem (man in this context embraces woman); 8. Establishing a prosperous society with an economy that will be fully competitive, dynamic, robust and resilient.
Economic Issues and Challenges

This article while superficially touching on other challenges deals mainly with one of the challenges namely the eighth. The Eighth
* Paper prepared for inclusion in QUILL STUDIES IN MALAYSIAN SOCIETY, June 1993.
Economic Issues and Challenges in Vision 2020 / 245
Challenge is establishing a prosperous society with an economy that will be fully competitive, dynamic, robust and resilient. In this respect the Prime Minister stated that there is a need for an accelerated industrialisation drive and that Malaysia must maintain export-led growth strategy, where Malaysians must learn to be competitive through higher productivity and be able to withstand the full force of international competition. The Prime Minister stated that we have to be more lean, more resourceful, more productive and generally more competitive and be able to take on the world. The Prime Minister stated that the establishment of a competitive economy must mean among other things: 1. A diversified and balanced economy with a mature and widely based industrial sector, a modern and mature agricultural sector, and an efficient and productive sector and an equally mature service sector. 2. An economy that is quick on its feet, able to quickly adapt to changing patterns of supply, demand and competition. 3. An economy that is technologically proficient, fully able to adapt, innovate and invest that is increasingly technology-intensive moving in the direction of higher and higher levels of technology. 4. An economy that has strong and cohesive industrial linkages throughout the system. 5. An economy driven by brain power, skills and diligence, in possession of a wealth of information, with the knowledge of what to do and how to do it. 6. An economy with high and escalating productivity. 7. An entrepreneurial economy that is self-reliant, outward-looking and enterprising. The realisation of this vision entails structural transformation that needs to be undertaken at a stable and sustainable rate. The rapid economic development that we have achieved since independence has progressively brought the Vision 2020 of fully developed economy within our reach. In the last two decades, Malaysia had achieved a sustained growth rate averaging 6.7% per annum. Among the strengths we now have include a high domestic savings rate, a relatively well-developed physical, social and institutional infrastructure as well as politcal, economic and financial stability. However, much more has to be prepared in the area of developing multiple intelligences through the education system nuanced towards the national goals.
Changing Economic Environment

The international economic environment facing Malaysia is likely to be characterised not only by the intensification in the major trends already evident in the 80s but also by the emergence of the following tendencies. First is the increasing globalisation of economic activities especially in production, evolution of technology and mobilisation of capital resources. This is a direct consequence of the growth of world trade at a faster pace than of world output and the growth and integration of world capital markets. Deregulation of financial services and capital flows, along with the use of high speed information technology have resulted in the world financial flows being 50 times larger than commodity trade flows. Secondly, an important aspect of the new global economic environment will be a rapidly changing configuration of economic power among major countries or country groups resulting in fragmented hegemony of major world economic powers. Economic and financial power is much more diffused today than it was at the beginning of the 70s. While the US share of GNP has fallen to a fifth it has turned from the world's largest net creditor to the world's largest net debtor. Japan and the European Community have been emerging as powerful competitors in the world economy. An economic multipolarity world can therefore give Malaysia more room for economic manoeuvre to promote its own development. The third tendency is the emergence of regional economic alliances or blocs centred on large domestic or international markets, such as the European Economic Community and NAFTA. The open trading system which had been largely responsible for world economic growth during much of the second half of this century could degenerate into a regime of rival trading blocs. Fourthly, the prospects of the emergence of China, the IndoChinese countries and Eastern Europe as a new and dynamic segment in the world economy which will profoundly affect ASEAN, and in particular Malaysia. Malaysia should find that this factor in the world economy would provide it with greater opportunities for trade and investment and technology transfer in the long run. Even in the short term if Malaysia should experience a slackening of demand in its traditional markets owing to protectionist measures it would benefit from the sharp increase in imports to meet the pent-up demand for economic durables in these countries.
Fifth the emergence of the 'information era' which is rapidly replacing the industrial era in the developed countries will make way for the age of "bio-technology".
Malaysian Economy in 2020

Based on the targetted output growth rate of 7% per annum, the Malaysian GDP would have increased from RM115 in 1990 to RM920 billion (in constant 1990 prices) by 2020 some eight-fold increase. The population would have reached about 32 million having grown at an average rate of 1.9% per annum during the 30 year period. This will result in per capita incomes rising steadily form RM6,180 in 1990 to RM26,100 (in constant prices) sufficient to qualify as a developed country. In addition continuing application NDPC objectives of sustainable growth and equitable distribution will see the enhanced eradication of poverty and reduction of income differentials between the various strata and communities of the society which will result in issues of racial imbalance receding into the background. Growth will be primarily led by rapid expansion of the manufacturing sector as well as the services sector, and this will result in changes in the structure of economy which is expected to take the following line: 1. The manufacturing sector is expected to grow rapidly and is expected to account for about 40% of the total output by the year 2020 compared to its present share of about 27%. The production structure is expected to be predominantly industrial in nature. 2. The service sector will also grow rapidly over the next 30 years and this sector as a whole will increase its share of output from 41.8% in 1990 to around 50% by the year 2020. Rapid growth is expected in all non-governmental services sub-sectors growing as a result of increasing industrialisation of production and tradeable services. Services such as those related to leisure, health, private education and entertainment will also increase with rising levels of income and the resultant improvement in the quality of life. This sector is expected to gain in relative size and sophistication. 3. The share of the primary sector and government services to total output will continue to decline as the industrial and modern services sectors increase their dominance. By the year 2020 agricultural output which is expected to grow at 3.2% per annum, will find its share of the total output declining from 18.7% to 6.3% as a result of much more rapid growth in the other sectors. The nature of agriculture will
change drastically in favour of higher value-added product and methods and intensive utilisation of land. Differences in the sectoral rates of growth in favour of the industrial and modern services sector is expected as shown in Table I. Malaysian production structure in the year 2020 will be similar to the developed countries of today. The whole production structure will progressively shift towards higher value-added, higher skill and more technology intensive activities. Such change in the structure of production is expected to lead to improvements in the quality of labour, human resource development and R & D. In order to achieve the target set by Vision 2020, Malaysian economy must progress from low value-added and traditional economic activities to newer and higher value-added activities, so as to support continuous increase in per capita incomes. The following socio-economic qualities will help ensure that Malaysia is able to develop competitive industries and increase overall economic resilience. 1. The maintenance of political stability, social justice and the development of education relevant to the national need and objectives. The NEP and NDP have clearly indicated the crucial role to be played by these factors in the maintenance of national unity and economic development of the country. 2. The maintenance of financial and price stability, and this involves the maintenance of healthy balance of payments and fiscal position as well as stable prices and exchange rates. 3. The maintenance of non-distorted prices, whether for goods and services, capital or foreign exchange. This will ensure efficient allocation of resources between industries and between tradeable and non-tradeable sectors. Measures include the maintenance of low protective tariffs, avoidance of financial repression and the maintenance of a free exchange rate regime. 4. The development of a larger regional market to reduce external uncertainties. This can be made possible by the creation of East Asian Regional Market, and the ASEAN FTA.
Regional and International Environment

Analysing the future growth in output in terms of trade groupings the Asia Pacific region will continue to be the most populated group and at the same time its economic size as measured by the expected total output at US$12.5 billion will slightly equal to that of NAFTA.
TABLE I Malaysia's Structure of Production Compared with Selected Countries

Sector Average for Low Income Economies Middle Income Economies 19 Developed Economies Industrial Countries South Korea Singapore UK US Germany Japan Malaysia 1990 2000 2020
10 0 2
Primary
Industry
Manufacturing
Services
33 3
28 38 34
14 24 20
39 43 63
2 2 3
44 37 37 29 37 41
26 26 20 17 32 30
46 63 61 69 61 56
28.0 18.0 7.6
30.2 38.7 42.8
27.0 37.2 40.0
41.8 48.3 49.6
Source: 1. World Development Bank 2. EPU
The EEC's economy will not be far behind these two giants. This tripolar nature of the economy will be firmly in place by 2020. In the 90s the pattern of regionalism will continue to evolve further under the impact of differential and the degree to which internationalised trade is liberalised. One of Malaysia's main concerns is to avoid the danger of regional blocs being structured in a way that they interfere with the growth of its economy. While Malaysia's stake in the world economic environment is high its capacity to mould it remains extremely limited. Thus Malaysia needs to coalesce with other economies in the region to help mould an economic environment which would be able to sustain its growth. The nature of its past growth had locked it in a quadrangular relationship with
Japan, the US and Europe. The emerging international environment is unlikely to prove very conducive to sustain this pattern. Malaysia has put forward a broader framework of regional cooperation in the East Asian region, which while continuing to rely on the US and EC export markets with links with countries like China could prove much more helpful in reducing international and regional imbalances. The stimulus for Malaysia's call for an EAEC came from its recognition that the increasing interdependence of the regional economies indicated a need for effective consultation among decision makers to: 1. Help strengthening the multi-lateral trading system and enhancing the prospects of Uruguay Round. 2. Provide an opportunity to assess prospects for, and obstacles to, increased trade and investment flows within the East Asian region. 3. Identify the range of political and common economic interests. Malaysia also noticed as the degree and level of international interdependency increased traditional ways of controlling imports has given way to new type of protectionist measures. Such measures include non-tariff barriers, such as orderly marketing agreements, voluntarily export restraints, quotas and product standards. Non-tariff barriers have become increasingly important in determining trade flows. Another major concern to Malaysia is over regional trade agreements. As a result of such agreements, the world market could become segregated into several trading blocs along geographical lines: the EC, the NAFTA and the ASEAN region. As business activities become globalised the distinction between trade policy and competition policy has also become ambiguous. Trade liberalisation policy is targetted at free and fair international trade, while competition policy seeks to ensure the efficient functioning of markets through an open and competitive market.Sceptism over the market mechanism and fairness in trade had accelerated the spread of "result-oriented" managed trade and strategic trade policies. Upgrading international coordination to deal with the rules and institutional framework of trade competition is a particularly important task as it will help alleviate conflicts between systems, help prevent protectionism and support global economic progress over the long term. The principle of free and fair competition needs to be
reaffirmed. Towards this end the-Uruguay Round is a vital test for effective future cooperation. But the Uruguay Round is likely to take a long time to bear any result. To sum up then for Malaysian policy makers international trade continues to pose a contentious and potentially dangerous dilemma. The current GATT negotiations are not promising, regional economic integrations have caused concern over the potential emergence of adversarial trading blocs, and bilateral trade talks between the US and Japan have resulted in a growing number of managed trade practices. The multi-lateral trade system has deteriorated as newer types of protection emerge in response to trade imbalances and doubts about market rules. Yet it is necessary to foster the sound growth of world trade and free market competition if the world economy is to overcome short-term doldrums and achieve long-term prosperity. As economic activities have become more internationally integrated and interdependent, trade friction arising from differences in market structure and structural policies have become more common. Each country, however, has a different concept of what constitutes a free market and each operates in the context of different cultural and historical background in seeking to maintain a fair competition in its markets. It is with this in view that the Prime Minister had advocated the establishment of an EAEC as a corollary to Vision 2020. With the establishment of EAEC, harmonising competition policy within the region would become an important step in coordinating the economic systems of the region in order to maintain sustainable growth with strong adherence to principles of equity. The agenda of EAEC must formulate standardised competition system, in order to prevent the market becoming monopolistic and protectionistic. Malaysia's proposal is one of the responses to the scepticism over the market mechanism and fairness in trade which he feels has mutated into a result- oriented managed trade and other strategic economic policies. These mutations, of protectionism has necessitated in the changes of policy measurements and coordination. The Prime Minister feels that the upgrading of the private sector led East Asian Regional Integration into an EAEC with government involvement will help to establish the principles of fair and free competition for sustainable growth with principles of equity observed. He feels that a collective approach for a broader re-adjustment of economic laws are useful roles in global rule making it competitive.
TABLE II Population & Economic Size by Region

Population (M) Economic size 2020/ 2020 1990 1990 1990 360 492 1.4 5,846 (Bil) 2020/ 2020 12,970
Region NAFTA Europe (EC & EFTA) EAEC (Japan, China, ANIC's, ASEAN) E. Europe & USSR L. America Africa Australia & NZ Others Source:
1990 2.2
356
369
1.0
5,354
10,540
2.0
1,618
2,229
1.4
3,916
12,530
3.2
379 459 635 21 1,414
476 784 1,345 29 2,086
1.3 1.7 2.1 1.4 1.5
680 809 162 323 2,892
1,570 2,380 360 710 7,430
2.3 2.9 2.2 2.2 2.6
1. World Development Report 2.World Bank Long Term Outlook for the World Economy 1990 3.UN Project Link World Outlook 1990
Although the Uruguay Round is a vital test for effective future cooperation it is most likely to take a long time to bear results and immediate action is therefore needed to set the table for new negotiations to ensure economic activity in both domestic and international market go unimpeded. It is for this reason Malaysia has been zealously pursuing the idea of EAEC which is in fact a corollary to the successful implementation of Vision 2020.
TABLE III Growth Rate by Region to 2020 Eegion NAFTA Europe EAEC Japan China ANIC's ASEAN E. Europe & USSR Latin America & Caribbean Sub Sahara Africa Australia, New Zealand & Pacific Islands Others World Malaysia Source: 3.0 3.5 2,8 3.0 3.1 3.2 2.5 3.4 2.9 7.5 2.5 3.1 2.9 6.5 1.4 1.9 4.0 2.5 3.5 2.7 3.5 3.0 1981-1990 2.9 2.0 4.2 3.6 5.1 8.6 3.4 0.5 1991-2000 3.0 2.9 4.1 3.5 4.5 6.5 5.4 2.0 2001-2010 2.5 2.0 3.9 3.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 2011-2020 2.5 2.0 3.8 3.0 4.5 5.0 6.0 3.5
5.7 7.0 1. World Development Report 2. UN Project Link World Outlook 1990
26_
Cultural and Religious "Tolerance" in the Emerging International Order? The Challenge to Humanity
et us look at Sri Lanka which is relatively close to us. There are many other places we could look at where cultural and religious attitudes are impacting on the lives of people and their security when understanding and respect are absent. Until the early part of the '80s Sri Lanka could be regarded as a model of a newly independent and developing country that was able to manage a pluralistic society. Everyone inside and outside Sri Lanka was hoping and praying that the country would progress in development, paying heed to the needs of the people, where peace and plenty should abound eternally. That hope was smashed and dreams became a nightmare when cultural and religious furies were let loose from among the Hindu Tamils of the north and eastern part or Sri Lanka in all their savage hatreds as a reaction to the real or imagined cultural hegemonistic policy of the Buddhist Sinhalese who make up about 3/4 of a population of 17 million. During the struggle for independence and its early years, the people in the forefront were the elites who managed to provide cultural and religious harmony among the minority Hindu Tamils and majority Buddhist Sinhalese on the basis of "tolerance". (Buddhism strictly speaking is not a religion just as Confucianism is not, at least in their pure forms. In certain societies both Buddhism and Confucianism had been given the attributes of religions with their rituals and symbols). 1956 saw the rise of Sinhalese nationalism. The emergence of Sinhalese nationalism gave rise to Tamil nationalism. These two nationalisms with features of culture and religion in dominant roles, soon compartmentalised the society into two distinct groups. By late '70s, Tamil nationalism, to escape from minority discriminations
* Paper prepared at the Seminar on "Religious and Cultural Tolerance: Enhancing Cultural Harmony and Strengthening Religious Tolerance", held in Malacca 14-16 October 1993.
Cultural and Religious "Tolerance" / 255
began to clamour for a separate state. It was then not at all clear if the State was going to be a part of Sri Lanka in a federation or that it would be an independent state. The young militants would certainly have preferred liberation altogether from Sri Lanka. Of course, the majority Buddhist Sinhalese whose culture by then had been fully politicised would not tolerate such a tendency. After the failure of the Tamil United Liberation Front, who had been voted into Parliament, to make any dent in the posture of the Buddhist Sinhalese, bullets began to fly. By 1983 Sinhalese mobs killed thousands of Hindu Tamils everywhere which caused a great upheaval. Displaced people ran to India and even flew as far as Canada. Some Tamil young men left Sri Lanka to avoid forced conscription. One could easily foretell, by seeing the mounting problems of displaced persons and already disgruntled Tamils now feeling even more deeply aggrieved, that the volcano of emotion would soon erupt. The Tamils who were at first considered to be meek and conservative, with the support of arms from outside, staunchly loyal to their culture and deeply faithful to their religion defied the Sri Lanka Government forces, giving them a bloody nose whenever they confronted one another. India stepped in (May 1987) and brokered a peace pact but this triggered the emergence of another extreme Sinhalese movement calling itself the Peoples Liberation Front mainly manned by youths and poor peasants of the Sinhalese community. The Front known as JanathaVimukthi Peramuna(JVP)alleged that India was not an honest broker for peace and that she had her own agenda for Indian hegemony over Sri Lanka. At that stage the divide had become clear and there was no more the elitist group of the immediate pre-and post-independence era to be of any consequence to advise even in the management of the crisis let alone the promotion of cooperative endeavours. They were staunch believers in "tolerance" and "tolerance" was a temporary phenomenon. Politics of nationalism had taken over and the arrogance of power emanating from the barrel of the gun blinded and deafened the leaderships to realise that nationalism, politicising culture and religion, could only lead to contradictions and armed conflicts. Both sides had the wherewithal to kill and be killed and the scene in the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka soon bacame targets of Tamil attacks or retaliations. The short period of 13 months before the outbreak of a new conflagration in June 1990 did not give the Tamils and the Sinhalese sufficient time to get used to each other once again.
There is, however, one aspect arising out of this turmoil which future social scientists will certainly not miss to take note. While the Tamils with their Hindu caste system and attitude towards their womenfolk who were always subservient to men for the sake of domestic peace as part of the culture which they claim to defend, the war between Jaffna and Colombo had eroded the caste system and had witnessed the emancipation of women, hitherto burdened with dowry system, now have emerged as fighters, equal to men, better known as "Freedom Birds". Caste and gender in social terms have become blurred. The lesson from all these is that when culture and religion are being politicised woe betides the pluralistic society. But the irony of it all is that the conflict had evolved and will continue to evolve new values in the very culture that one was prepared with his life to defend its orthodoxy. Let us hope and pray that soon good sense will prevail and peace will once again return to Sri Lanka. However, never shall we see the Hindu Tamil society as well as that of the Buddhist Sinhalese the same as before. The fighting had cast away some age old values. There are lessons to be learnt not only for the Buddhist Sinhalese or Hindu Tamils or Muslims and Christians in Sri Lanka but in other countries with similar pluralistic situation that culture and religion if politicised with the aim of hegemonism would only result in discordance and contradictions. And it is not necessary that the ideals so vehemently defended would come out the same at the end of the day. The process of contradictions would evolve new values and the savagery of ethnic and religious conflicts would certainly reorganise societal beliefs and adherences. Recently in a Scandinavian country well-known for its record of human rights, a political leader made the irresponsible remark that he would like the future skyline in his city without "minarets". This prompted the anti-Muslim bashing there. How easy it is to incite the doctrine of hate even when love is the religious and political doctrines of those majority. Love becomes exclusive among co-religionists only. Bosnia-Herzegovina is going through such a conflict with atrocities that would move the hardest of hearts. So also are the situations in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Central Asian Republics, Cyprus, Palestine, Kashmir, Burma, Tibet and in Northern Ireland and a few other areas. Human nature continues to defy the truism that human beings are composed of different tribes, race and ethnic groups with their own respective beliefs and cultures so that they could learn from each
other and know each other better to enable humans to live in harmony. What we have failed to see in all these areas where there are and had been conflicts of culture or religion emanating from either the desire for hegemonism or simply disrespectful of beliefs and value systems of others, the only result is one of instability and disaster. Is there an emerging of an international order? There is indeed a trend towards a global society when one considers such subjects as the degradation of the ecosystem with the depletion of oxygen, the green house effect, typhoons, locusts, diseases, deleterious drugs, information technology, piracies, terrorism, migration, refugees, international trade in goods, services and money - all these activities and many more transcend the current concept of borders. With respect to such subjects there is indeed a movement towards internationalism to meet their challenges. However, if one took the example of science and technology while science might cross borders in its quest for scientific truth therefore global, technology on the other hand, is very much governed by nationalism and therefore exclusivist in nature. There could not have been such advances in mathematics and medicine if the Arabs had not shared their knowledge with the rest of the world. If the ancient Chinese had been exclusivistic in their technology no modern occidental could have found the secret of a rocket. Now modern day technology is very much subjected to nationalism, so much so that a theory of intellectual property rights has emerged. Trade nationalism has spawned protectionism and blocism. This is also very much a part of the emerging international order. When Malaysia proposed the EAEC it was, as a result of the habit of mind of the West and industrialised countries, without examination, regarded it as a proposal for blocism. Now the US is saying that EAEC might subvert its economic plaything - APEC. Countries guided by commercial and trade nationalisms are in blinkers. They refuse to acknowledge that togetherness in EAEC is aimed at breaking down protectionism. While there is a trend towards a global society there is also an opposite trend of standing on the righteousness of one's own cultural, religious and other value systems. These become dangerous and menacing when they begin to colour the judgment of ruling elites and by them, politicised. Indeed it is a sure prescription for contradictions and conflicts bringing in their wake human degradation and untold sufferings. There are many reasons some old, some new, to this narrowmindedness. They are old because certain fundamental beliefs have
been ingrained in the value system that it had become exclusivist and self-righteous. The American Indians, more correctly the indigenes of America, were regarded by occidental Christian immigrants of all denominations as "savages". Irrespective of their denominational beliefs and culture the only right cultural and religious symbol for the immigrants was the Cross. The ardent and vehement Puritans who escaped from the religious tyrannies in Europe became themselves tyrants in the new - found territories where it is already peopled by those of a different value system. Mistaking their hospitality as a cultural trait to be sign of weakness those "savages" became fair game for exploitation. The strong codes of Puritan community was exclusively for Prutian white immigrants. There was little room for an indigene. Race became the prime factor and raison d'etre for separateness or apartheid. Since these indigenes did not look like nor had the attributes of Europeans they were regarded as belonging to a different race. Once the categorisation had taken place it was then easy to provide a value judgement on the indigenes as "inferior race" to distinguish them on the basis of physical differences, even if they had adopted the white man's culture and religion. There was a fixed identity because of looks and colour and it is this identity which became a yardstick to measure attributes. This prejudice against the blacks or those of different colour or physical features was not peculiar to white Christians in the so-called New World. It had also been recorded in the Islamic annals when someone, in the presence of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) referred with contempt to the black African by the name of Bilal who was an early convert and the first muezzin. The person was instantly chided by Muhammad (peace be upon him) who asked the arrogant fellow to lift his head and look and then he would know that he was hardly superior to a man of whatever colour and look, be it black or red, unless the man could surpass Bilal in good deeds. On the same question of colour and racial prejudice, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was reported to have said during his last pilgrimage to Mecca that a coloured man had no superiority over a white man, nor a white man over a coloured man, nor an Arab over a non-Arab, nor a non-Arab over an Arab except for righteousness. Colour prejudice is not new even if the different colours belonged to the same religion as the blacks in America some of whom might have been Muslims once. In ancient days there were little prejudices with regard to religion. Islam with its sense in rule of law and justice to non-Muslims did not
create any deep prejudice. Christianity suffered in Rome because it was imagined as posing a political challenge to the ruling class of the Roman Empire. And Christianity eventually came out the winner like a phoenix from the flame, but once a Holy Roman Empire was established, religion became a factor of power and exclusivistic hegemonism causing dissention and split among themselves. Christianity unlike Islam appeared in a place when already there was law and order in that part of the Roman Empire. It did not concern itself with laws and judiciaries since that belonged to Caesar and unto Caesar what was Caesar's. It only provided guidelines reflecting virtues and sense of fair play. Divine revelation played no part in law-making. The Sermon on the Mount became a personal matter. There was no religious hegemonism until the rise of the power of the Church. Prompted by the fear that power would corrupt religion, a society emerged with its polity of dichotomy between religion and secularism. Even today in universities which started as religious institutions while saying grace in the dining halls, the students are taught subjects in the spirit of secularism, thus losing the very essence of moral and ethical purposiveness as to why and wherefore one should pursue a discipline. Students today use their degrees only as a passport to seek an appointment with better income. There was a time when religion was not radically politicised. Jews, Christians and Muslims used to live peacefully and amicably in any areas. It was the series of crusades which started it all when power became the central issue. The crusaders on their way to Jerusalem took time to kill Jews and those they regarded as deviationists or heretics. Killing of Jews did not really cease until after the fall of Nazis. In the United States not until the end of the Second World War were Jews spared the humiliation and discrimination on the ground that they were Jews. Again it was politics which created the fears and wrath of European non-Muslims in Europe when the Ottoman Empire swept across until the gate of Vienna. Yet the spread of Islam was based on Koranic justice. Today, Muslims are still paying for the politicisation of religion through centuries of mind-conditioning in hate and bogyism programmes. Bosnia-Herzegovina is an example where the occidental mind-set works to the effect that an Islamic state in Europe would incline towards radicalism and terrorism therefore menacing to modern civilisation. Witnessing on the TV screen one could detect the discomfort of Western mass media when Arafat held out his hand in peace to Israel in Washington which the Western press branded as
only a kind of peace. Few among the Western mass media reported that Yitzak Rabin responded to Arafat only after being prompted by Clinton. The mind-set just cannot accept the demon was after all a dapper little Palestinian who had fought by all means for his homeland just as the Jews had fought the British for a homeland. Those who genuinely adhere to Islamic ways cannot accept prejudices in religion. When Muhammad (peace be upon him) was emphasising the different faiths and beliefs of the people of Mecca during the period of ignorance or jahiliah it was clearly revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him) that while there would be no compromise regarding monotheism (tawhid) the revelation included, "To you your religion and to me my religion." (Sura 109 - Rejection). The unbelievers were free to follow their faiths. The Messenger of God, Muhammad (peace be upon him) emerged in the most wild area of the world at the time when the people then used to bury their infant daughters alive in the sand to get rid of them. All Muhammad (peace be upon him), who was an illiterate and completely human, could do was no more than to reform the most basic laws and practices. The acceptance of monotheism (tawhid) as the main tenet was above all his other endeavours. Even the practice of pilgrimage to Mecca predated Islam which was made one of the tenets of the Faith. There was no force, no coercion on the people of Mecca and later Medina and everywhere else where there were Jews and Christians for them to embrace Islam. The story of the Koran in one hand and the sword in the other as a means of proselytising came much later when Islam had been identified with power and power with numbers. Therefore, it was not Islam that could be faulted but selfish men who use religion as a way of acquiring and staying in power or opposing the power. It is that kind of imparting the idea of religion, whatever may be the faith or denomination, be it Shia or Sunni or Catholicism or Puritanism or Orthodox Judaism which bred the emotion of prejudice once religion became associated with power. Likewise, in the human society is the role of a politicised culture as we just now observed in Sri Lanka. There was no effort to clearly understand the ways and motivations of others. To a Western mind generally what is not known is regarded as barbaric and it became a white man's burden to civilise those "savages". The reaction to such an attitude is a revolt against those inconsiderate proponents of cultures and value systems which they claim to be "genuine" and as "absolute truth".
The last Vienna Convention on Human Rights did give a general outline that values should be treated according to the diverse environments and beliefs. However, we still hear the insistence of powerful countries to render their values such as democracy and human rights according to their yardsticks as conditionalities for diplomatic, economic aid and trade relationships. Such an attitude is certain to create tensions since these emotive cultural values mean different things to different people. The tension would reach a dangerous point when a ganging-up should take place. There are enough people in the world today who regard the call of the West for Human Rights as hypocritical when they so blatantly ignore the debauchery, it had produced some of the worst examples of inept, corrupt, tyrannical governments. Perhaps, it is timely that there should be a world convention under the auspices of the UN to give meaning to the conclusions of the Vienna Convention and the UNCED Earth Summit Programmes for aid from the industrialised countries such as the US, Japan and EC. These aid offering countries should rewrite their foreign assistance policy and should limit its aims only to promoting sustainable development growth. This means that the aims of the policy should be directed against poverty and environmental degradation fully acknowledging the elements of ethics in the creation of wealth and its equitable distribution. After all, the axis of global affairs is no longer East-West but South-North in the emerging international order. Culture unadulterated as a factor of power is a uniting force. As a servant of politics, it is a basis for contradictions and tensions. Where cultural hegemonism is found in cultural pluralistic society the dominant culture will try to impose its will on the other weaker ones. In that situation the weaker ones would not just give way or absorb the stronger culture making it their own but would reject it, insisting on practising even clandestinely as in the former Soviet Union, what they regard as "unique" cultures of their own. Then, if there was coercion, the cultures would tend to explode rather than be diffused and there would be a loss of capacity of the pluralistic society to have shared sentiments and values. Just as secularisation leaves people without understanding of themselves and their sense of purposiveness, coercion based on its own moral order, based on selfproclaimed absolute righteousness will only result in emotional subjectivity among all concerned. Let us look at Malaysia which has all the elements of pluralism. Malaysia began with living for some time in compartmentalised
societies after independence. The cultures and religions of the Malaysian societies had come from very old civilisations of Asia intermixed with indigenous ways and beliefs. Over the many centuries, there had been a sharing of beliefs and rituals. However, when the new waves of immigrants brought by the British from China and India arrived in the 19th and early 20th centuries their respective cultures they brought with them and some of the symbols were hardly recognisable even unacceptable to the Malaysian culture which indeed had originated from them. The reason was that those cultures in the old countries had evolved and changed with time while those that came to Malaysia many centuries earlier had stood still and some ossified. Since the colonial masters had never allowed the races to mix culturally among the new arrivals and the indigenous people, the new immigrant cultures even if they had the same root as the ones claimed to be Malaysian never obtained acceptance. It was strange to see what was obviously a common and shared values, for example, the strong codes of community sanctions were claimed by each group as exclusively its own. The elitist leaders of that time like in Sri Lanka advocated "tolerance" to replace Pax Britannica as the power to prevent clashes. It worked for a while then exploded. After a serious clash between the Malays and the Chinese in 1969, leaders of all communities and political parties were resolved that such a traumatic incident should never be allowed to happen again. Parliament doors were closed for nearly two years and political parties during the period of the National Operations Council (NOC) were prohibited from indulging in any political activities. During that period community leaders put their heads together in a National Consultative Council (NCC) and reached a consensus that the country should have a vision of the future and a yardstick to measure thoughts and action in the actualisation of the vision. That was the background of the birth of Rukunegara which was promulgated by a Royal pronouncement as follows: "OUE NATION, MALAYSIA, being dedicated to achieving a greater unity of all her peoples; to maintaining a democratic way of life; to cerating a just society in which the wealth of the nation shall be equitably shared; to ensuring a liberal approach to her rich and diverse cultural traditions;
to building a progressive society which shall be oriented to modern science and technology." It is easy enough to understand the message above. They are expressions of a vision and a yearning. Basic to all is the need for achieving a greater national unity through political stability, a sine qua non for growth and development, towards creating (as envisioned in Rukunegara), a nation with social justice and equity, with a liberal approach towards the varied cultures, and not least, a modern and industrialised society. However, there was one difficulty. Everybody not only in Malaysia but all over the developing world wanted in varying degrees, the kind of society as envisioned in Rukunegara. For Malaysia, there had to be a common and acceptable yardstick by which thoughts and action of individuals, groups or the Government could be measured in actualising the desired objectives. If they are not up to the mark the society thus created may turn out to be something unintended or even undesirable. After long and serious deliberations, it was decided that the country as a whole should make a solemn undertaking that to realise the national objectives it had to be principled. And so the second part of the Rukunegara optomises the the steering rules for action towards the actualisation of the purposive resolution envisioning the society which all Malaysians desired. The five overarching standards for critical judging of thoughts and actions became enshrined in Rukunegara expressed as follows: We, her peoples, pledge our united efforts to attain these ends guided by these principles:Belief in god Loyalty to King and Country Upholding the Constitution Rule of Law Kesopanan dan Kesusilaan (translated into English Good behaviour and morality which is not quite precise.) The Rukunegara is therefore not merely the five principles nor is it something to be shouted once a year during Merdeka (Independence) celebrations nor something like an amulet to be hung round the neck or on the wall. It is a system with normative values to motivate ideas and action towards nation building. It was Rukunegara which inspired the formulation of the New Economic Policy (NEP) which in itself is not the end but one of the means to turn into reality the
society as envisioned in the first part of Rukunegara. The Rukunegara became a beacon as well as a guideline for societal engineering. How is a united society with modern science and technology to be created if the citizens of Malaysia as a consequence of history had existed in compartments based on the identification of race with vocations? How can a united society be achievable if poverty irrespective of race was still rampant and the gap with the rich was too wide? The NEP as inspired by Rukunegara is in fact composed of two measures with the single objective of realising national unity of the most enduring and durable kind among the people as well as regional integration. Malaysians are wedded to democracy and Parliament once again opened its doors in March 1971. However, Parliament took the drastic measure of amending the Constitution causing a dimunition of the freedom of speech of Members of Parliament and others because of their own awareness that in a country like Malaysia there should be a balance between the demands of idealism of Westminster type democracy and the limitations imposed by the local realities of present day life. This is a denial of absolutism. It will be noticed, in any case, that such unusually dramatic and seemingly fatuous measures were taken strictly and with care in accordance with the standards demanded by Rukunegara. Hence the best commentaries about Rukunegara was that there was no racial riots of any kind since 1970, and the NEP had produced during the twenty years a middle-class composed of all races who share common values in their corporate endeavours. Business was no longer done in the old style of making offers and acceptance scribbled in coded characters on the back of cigarette packets! On the issue of the other equally important prong of the NEP namely, the eradication of poverty irrespective of race, to take the mean monthly household income, for example, in Peninsula Malaysia in 1970 it was RM264 and by 1990 it had risen to RM1,163 while in Sabah from RM513 to RM1,148 and in Sarawak from RM427 to RM1,208. The more interesting development is that the bottom 40% of household income in Peninsula Malaysia has increased from RM76 in 1970 to RM421 in 1990 while in Sabah and Sarawak the increases were from RM68 to RM390 and RM74 to RM436 respectively. This showed that there was a faster and equitable rate for the bottom 40%. These figures speak for themselves regarding the NEP.
Foreign direct investment began to be viewed with all seriousness particularly in the manufacturing sector. It was during the Second Malaysia Plan of the NEP that the Government created with the cooperation of the State Governments, a number of Free Trade Zones. These measures resulted in rapid growth of the manufacturing sector. There were some negative effects of these foreign direct investments but on balance Malaysia benefitted from them. The manufacturing sector in 1987 had overtaken the agricultural sector contributing 22.5% to GDP while the agricultural sector was 21.8%. By 1989, the industrial sector's contribution to GDP was 25.5%. In January 1989, a National Economic Consultative Council was constituted with 150 members from all walks of life, rather reminiscent of the National Consultative Council of the NOC days. Government and opposition parties were fairly represented together with other interest groups. A number of the opposition members and some others, altogether nineteen, withdrew their participation but only after they had submitted their viewpoints orally and in writing which were fully considered. The deliberations took two years, characterised by honesty and intelligence, but more so motivated by their honest desire to continue pursuing the objectives of the Rukunegara which was freely invoked in the debates from time to time. I was privileged to be elected by the Council as its chairman which gave me the honour of being directly involved in the two plannings for processes of change, once in the preparation of the NEP and then this, with the aim of making a thorough assessment of the NEP and to make recommendations to the Government as to the future national economic policy post-NEP. After long debates with candour without rancour, the Council considered seriously all the views not only of the council members including those who withdrew but also written documents submitted by concerned citizens. It was truly a monumental task nevertheless a satisfying one for all concerned. The Report which contained recommendations embracing all aspects of societal developments was adopted by all members (less those nineteen) unanimously. It was then submitted to the Government through YAB the Perdana Menteri, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. The Government studied the Report thoroughly. In the Second Outline Perspective Plan (OPP2) covering the period 1991 to 2000 the bulk of the recommendations in the Report was reflected therein. The Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir went a step further by exhorting the people of Malaysia to aim for a fully industrialised and developed
society by the year 2020 now better known as Wawasan or Vision 2020. The Government found it necessary to project this idea of a time frame in order to fulfil the dedication envisioned in the Rukunegara. After 20 years of NEP now it is possible to think of industrialisation in full by the year 2020 with the present emphasis on small and medium industries for the rural areas. Above all as recommended in the NECC Report, the nation has positively accepted the concept of Bangsa Malaysia. At the time when Singapore was in Malaysia a much touted but premature idea of a Malaysian Malaysia was the cause of a great deal of controversy and unhappiness. It was clear that Rukunegara helped to evolve the idea of Bangsa Malaysia which can only mature with time and nurture through electicism. Now that the middle-class of the Malaysian nation is in place, locally accumulated capital is available in part and so is the technical know-how, the process towards the realisation of the society as envisioned in Rukunegara will become a natural process but each twist and turn has to be guided by the standards as laid down in Rukunegara. Now more so than ever in the societal restructuring Rukunegara standards would have to be articulated in such a way that they could truly relate to the generation which had no memory of the injustices committed by Western and Japanese colonialisms leading to racial acrimony. The Rukunegara must be understood in toto. While there is no doubt as to the clarity of the national dedication towards creating a society as envisioned perhaps the principles through which thoughts and action should be measured would require articulation even if it is repeating what we already know. The first, namely, "belief in God" and the fifth which is in Bahasa Malaysia "Kesopanan dan Kesusilaan" require special examination. With regard to the first, even if an individual is an atheist, it is not open to him in the context of Rukunegara to promote a movement that denies the belief in God. The very ideology of Marxism and the commuist party are by definition contrary to the first principle of Rukunegara. This Belief in God is consistent with the Constitution that has a religion of the state. And it is on the basis of the belief in God that the fifth principle "Kesopanan dan Kesusilaan" can be truly meaningful. Ethics and decorum are strongest when they are inspired by the belief in God. To believe in God is to love God. "Love God and do what you
will" simply means that any action on the basis of love of God would never deviate from ethical and moral conduct and decorum. The question that often arises is the valuational system. Since the religion of the Federation is Islam, the question is whether the valuational system for Malaysia should be publicly claimed as based on Islamic values. There are, inter alia, further questions as to how Muslims regard non-Muslims and vice-versa in their endeavours towards achieving Vision 2020 in the context of a united nation. The Constitutions of the Federation and the States as they stand in relation to Islam as the religion of the Federation and the states, had been accepted by all for over three decades. So is the guarantee of the freedom of worship. Party Islam (PAS) which controls the State of Kelantan had tried but never succeeded in circumventing the Federation Constitution in its quest to emplace religious hegemonism in that State. Through Rukunegara there grew understanding and respect for each other's cultures and religions glueing the pluralistic cultures and religions together in a positive way. Vision 2020 therefore does not mean only full industrialisation by the year 2020 realising the society as envisioned in Rukunegara but also its demand that Vision 2020 is also perfection in the Vision, in balance of spirit and thought, harmony in action and behaviour. No one class or creed or race should feel aggrieved or deprived. The Malaysian model may not apply universally but it serves the purpose of the people of Malaysia. However, there is no room for complacency. Life is a progress from change to change. Special efforts must be made to maintian communal relationships in constant repair. It is hoped that the Federation Government would organise a seminar among experts of the various religions and secular groups to together work out some values that would be overarching and applicable to all irrespective of creed or belief in keeping with the time. If some common values could be aggrouped to give a clearer meaning to the first and fifth principles of Rukunegara there would be less controversies arising out of suspicions in cultures and religions which might lead to serious acrimony. The conclusion should be presented to the people as a wellconsidered valuational system of ethics and morals chosen and accepted from various cultural and religious sources that will guide citizens in all their communal, private and public endeavours. Universities should each have a chair not for any particular religion but under one roof to study and understand all the major
religions in the country leading to mutual respect and a new overarching valuational system for all. What should be avoided is the public claim that a particular religion, creed or culture has dominance or worse the domination over others. Any particular religion, creed or culture claiming dominance or domination will render the valuational system as exclusive. Such an attitude is a sure prescription for divisiveness whereas the aim should be such as to conduce towards unity. Returning to a pluralistic society of the global order unless there is mutual understanding and with that a mutual respect of each other's symbols and rituals with affective reciprocity there would be no continuity in consciousness with regard to values and sentiments. The operative words are "mutual understanding and mutual respect". Tolerance is coexistence and therefore at best neutral. A neutral attitude towards cultures of others without the will and faculty of knowing, let alone the ability for electic fusion, could only result in people of diverse cultures and variegated sub-cultures seeking meaning to life on different planes. They will eventually meet but only in the confluence of hedonistic cesspool. There would be no common memory, sensibility or consciousness except FUN base on vulgar subculture of material possessions and gains as the ultimate aim in life, reducing the sacred to profanity and humans to self-infinitesimalism. Therefore, the challenge to humanity in the emerging international order is the imperatives of learning and understanding other cultures besides one's own and respecting them and under certain conditions the willingness to absorb values, norms and ethics of others, and ever ready to seek common semantics for the interpretation of those values. If these were done it is inevitable that a new norm would emerge on the basis of give and take within the context of common calculable interests in the world order. Without this process of evolving a common appreciation and mutual respect the new international order would not rear its head unblemished. What will emerge would be an international disorder. Tolerance alone will be very temporary and during the period of tolerance as we saw in Sri Lanka, international order would be undermined and subverted through coercion, deceit or distortion by power seekers. It has to be more positive than just "tolerance", if the international order was to emerge as something credible, massified and meaningful. When the new sensibility is simply based on immediacy of effect and unwillingness to accept public interest as
against private gains, when there are no common semantics of equity and justice, instability in the global society in all aspects would be highly probable. The question before us is whether we are prepared to admit our ignorance of each other's culture and religion, whether we are prepared to take measures to correct that ignorance by creating some consultative mechanisms beginning with one on a regional level and then between the North and South culminating in global exercise sincerely undertaken, fully conscious that "tolerance" alone in the global cultural pluralism would never abate deepening instability? The question is not based on who is right but what is for the world order and the whole of humanity. Or should we as a world society just be content to go through a global upheaval as a consequence of cultural and religious frictions, absent-mindedly in the spirit of "tolerance" allowed to erupt in all its fury, and the world society eventually re-emerging as a fossilised molten lava of infinitesimal human protozoa?
27
South-South Cooperation and South-North Axis: A Concept for the New World Order
he bipolar world of East-West rivalries had peoples scurrying for cover some by aligning with the West, some with the East and there were others courageous enough to be unaligned but sitting in their bunkers, not on the fence. The West was seemingly oblivious to the fact that communism was both an ideology and a method. Communism was making headway as an ideology among the bourgeois idealists and the proletariat of the West and the oppressed peoples everywhere. They were being won over not by guns but by an idea that was regarded as attractive. The Western military encirclement could not prevent the spread of communism. The West had no answer to the Marxian call for liberation from oppression except decolonisation. In dealing with the exploited and the hungry, there was no overarching ideology. The West could only offer, in addition to democracy of the Western kind, .the concept of capitalism with its free market system. Because of double standards in its practices and in some cases double entendre, Free Market was indeed a Flea Market Capitalism can be extremely exploitative hence the label neocolonialism. It was capitalism and industrial revolution of Europe which spawned communism having bred oligarchism, militarism, colonialism and imperialism. Although hubris would like to believe that the fall of the Berlin Wall meant that communism had been erased from the hearts of men who once adhered to the ideology, that presumption is incorrect. The seige of Parliament in Moscow recently is a strong reminder of this fact. True, China, North Korea and Vietnam are practising less
* Article prepared for "Jakarta Post", December 1993
South-South Cooperation and South-North Axis / 271
centrally controlled economy in varying degrees. There are signs that Cuba is beginning to relax somewhat. But, it does not mean that they had given up communism as an ideology; only the method is being revised. Communism, it would seem, is against the excessive exploitative nature of capitalism. For that reason the early exponents of Marxism decided that there should be a complete control of capital and production by the state. Their failure was that in their anxiety to distribute wealth, they forgot how to create it! Since this realisation, there has been a change in method and a revision for the role of the private sector and the public sector together in the process of wealth creation. If the excesses of capitalism would become intolerable, for example corruption, profiteering and nepotism, there might be further revisions or harshness to manage the problems. It is not envisaged that communism would revert to the completely centrally controlled Stalinist or Maoist methods to realise a socialist Utopia. This time, Neo-Communism or what the Chinese called the Socialist Market Economy will be guided by the lessons of their past failures and will maintain that the methods of wealth creation and distribution devoid of the ideals and ethics of socialism is simply diabolical. With regard to China, the situation for the West might be somewhat dicey. Now that the political myopia had spurned China and had decided that the Year 2000 Olympics would go to another place, the disappointment, clouded by perceptions of a beseiged mentality might express itself in many ways. The Hong Kong talk will take some doing. "Two systems, one country" is to be understood only in economics and not politics. Nuclear weapon tests may continue. School children in China are beginning to be encouraged to see "movies" which would put them back on the right track of socialist values. "Imperialist aggression" and losing the present and the future because of unbridled capitalism are conversational topics. Movies on the themes of the "Opium War" and the "Korean War" are being used as reminders about the evils of the West. Martial art (kusngfu) movies are decadent. Quick get-rich mentality must be stunted. If only the Olympics had been offered to China, between now and 2000 I am certain she would do everything possible to avoid a boycott. My surmise may sound ludicrous and such a Chinese attitude as an insanity, but China has a different perception of life and the world. For example, she detests the practice of garment companies in South China provinces for using Taipei or a third nation labelling origin for
export. China has the ardent belief that she would be doing a service to the poor of other countries by making available cheap goods. It is that kind of image which is important and not the quota reduction or the enhanced profits. Such is the difference in the concept of values. It is to be noted also that these companies are located in South China and much of the illegal transhipments are concerned with Taipei. Even if the priority motives of investors were profits and ancestral devotion, paranoids will conclude that there is a grand design in all these so-called foreign investments. Their worst fears that China is being subverted and subjected to neo-colonialism will be confirmed if foreign investments, on their own volition, did not reach the interior regions. High inflation and imbalance in distributive management could easily stir the memories of the old folks who participated in the Long March. Those others, when they were children, had heard first hand from their parents how China got rid of corrupting politics, exploitative capitalism, war-lordism, prostitution, gambling and foreign intrusions. When farmers and the interior regions now feel the pinch of spiralling prices, they would look askance at unbalanced growth. Scapegoats would be easy to find. There were people who sincerely believed that the communist move towards capitalism was inevitable except that the evolution would be slow. But, amongst staunch adherents of communism in those countries which had rejected communist governments, the apocalyptic vision of the dark world of exploitative capitalism with the consequent deprivation, hunger and indignity would incline them to bring about a change towards Neo-Communism faster than evolution. In Russia if the rural pressures contribute towards a massive movement which remembers the security of the old days and the loss of faith in Western capitalism, the situation there would dramatically alter. Neither Yeltsin nor Gorbachev could stop the tide because these men would be condemned as suckers in the Cold War. If the Westernpreferred Yeltsin had defended his position using the power of the gun, he had equated himself with his adversaries. Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and those other states which were once members of the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia, they are all Third World countries. Before the world begins to think once again of a confrontation this time a North-South one, God forbid, let us think of new relationships and strengthen them as means of preventing the old scourge of living in the Cold War, under a constant threat of it developing into a hot-war of nuclear holocaust. It must be remembered that some countries of the South have nuclear capability.
The approach, in my view, should be for visionary and like-minded leaders to work towards a two dimensional collaborative interaction. One is a South-South cooperation, and equally emphasised is the South-North axis. When the Berlin Wall was broken down there was euphoria. With the end of the East-West rivalry, there was hope of greater cooperation amongst nations towards global development. Part of the resources devoted to armaments could be made available for the benefit of global economy. Capital and know-how could be devoted towards the upliftment of under-development. However, the frustration of expectation in the South continued and seemed to be aggravated by the global trend towards a unipolar power-centred world of capitalism tending to create more and more inequity. Flows of trade and aid are now the subject of conditionalities, adversely affecting the lives of those in the South. The North is treating the South as its periphery, a sure prescription for a global cataclysm. The South, it seems, is useful only if it has market potentials or as steady sources of primary commodities. The South has little means of managing the negative twist and turn of global economy and force majeure. While there is a great deal of claim that the global community was one, it turns out to be a mere cliche. Unless there are attitudinal changes, the nineties promise a grim world. There will be little growth in the indebted nations and many of the South countries, in servicing their debts, have already become net exporters of capital to the North. The world economy has become extremely unpredictable because of the fluctuation in interest and exchange rates with growing uncertainty in capital markets. The North is desperately looking for ways and means to ensure that its growth impulses would remain strong. Hence the emergence of NAFTA, EC, the calling of an APEC summit, deviating from its original format where no such provision was made in its mechanism. There are contradictory trends in institutional changes such as the erosion of the GATT trading system. Among the South there are positive signs of increasing tendency towards privatisation and reliance on market forces. Some peoples of the South who are attempting to manage their developmental growth, fully confident that they could provide a better future for themselves, have begun to feel the heat of the Northern fiery stare. Many had become convinced, rightly or wrongly, that the North is fundamentally hostile towards them because of their successful endeavours in
development and therefore would be a competitor in the world market. Commentators brand them as "tigers" or "dragons". Tigers are an endangered species therefore protected, ferocious, living in the jungles as predatory animals or in zoos and circuses or stuffed as trophies. A dragon is of course a mythical animal. The terms are therefore not quite flattering but the South has accepted them as challenges. The misfortunes of some of the countries of the South cannot altogether be attributed to unfriendly factors coming from the North. There are other local reasons such as poor leadership and bad governance. There are also instances of shortage of human resources, lack of flexibility, cohesion and imaginative planning. Many of the developing countries have taken a leaf out of the socialist book of the Stalin era; and the net result is over-centralisation, with consequential inefficiency, corruption and oppression. The one disease which already is rampant in the under-developed country is AIDS: not the kind you are thinking of but, Acute Income Deficiency Syndrome. There are also a great deal of environmental degradation, diseases and ignorance and they continue unabated. There are problems of unmanaged growth of pupulation with very severe setbacks without the plan for job creation. There are many more flaws but with careful management, savings can be increased or attracted from overseas or locally for investments in basic economic infrastructures and for the modernisation of agriculture and in human resource training. Education is a priority. There are signs of a realisation among some countries of the South that they should no longer be otherwise than self-reliant and resilient with a human centred development. They have to cooperate more closely with one another. They have to know what they have and what they could do for each other. The south has to build its own potentials and to share them with each other with the aim of creating a solidarity and collective self-reliance and resilience. There is a real need to provide a programme for the increased flow of finance of which there is no dearth among the South in the context of South-South cooperation. Investments in China and Vietnam are examples. So also are exchanges in technology and know-how which could serve the mutuality of interest in the South. It is the building of solidarity among the South, as the ASEAN experiences have been proven to be dynamic and highly successful, in collective thought and action when attending a world forum or formulating new ideas. The formation of the G-15 would provide a new impetus in the cooperative endeavours among the South. The South Centre in Geneva would help
to raise the level of consciousness and linkages. The constituency for cooperation will include the professions, NGOs, the business communities and all the social groups enhancing through people-topeople contacts the mutual understanding and respect for one another's beliefs, cultures and religions. However, it is not sufficient for the South only to mobilise their potentials and resources in order to accelerate their growth. To multiply the impact of their domestic growth after a closer collaboration in collective self-reliance, it is important for the global community, of North and South, to relate the development and growth of an under-developed country with countries that are developed and industrialised. There are many important links between the North and the South. The essential point is not to cut those links but to transform them into one which would bring mutual benefit. The North also needs the South. The well-being of the North and the world stability depend on the eradication of rampant poverty which prompted the rise of all sorts of problems in the world. Witness the acts of terrorisms, lawlessness and illegal movements of people. The shores of the US are being bombarded by Cubans, Haitians and even people in their slow boats from China responding to the clarion call of the Statue of Liberty to the poor and the oppressed. Europe is being flooded by illegal immigrants, refugees and displaced persons from under-developed countries. The North therefore just cannot remain insulated form the woes of under-development in the South. Even for strictly economic reasons at the current rate of underdevelopment, the South is already a large export market for the North. A developing South would increase the demand of goods from the North, thereby accelerating growth and employment in the North. The vital need for collaborative action between the North and the South can best be illustrated by looking at global environment which poverty would degrade. For the sake of guaranteeing human health, the state of the ecosystem should be kept in balance and constant repair. This can only happen by promoting sustainable developmental programme towards eradication of poverty. Insecurity of life in poverty reduces the threshold of tolerance, breeding hopelessness, creating a culture of extremism or anarchy be it in the Americas, Asia, Africa or East and West Europe. It would seem that a North-South dialogue gained momentum only when the North felt threatened. For example, the rise in oil prices in
1973 was perceived by the North as a very serious threat to their economic well-being and lifestyle. A North-South dialogue was called and dialogues took place from 1974 to 1979 with resolutions admitting that economic injustice was as much a threat to world security and peace as were military and political tensions. The North and the South even reached agreement on the need for a regime of international intervention to stabilise commodity market with the backing of a Common Fund. There were heart-warming declarations in the form of the Charter of Economic Right and Duties of States, Convention on Multi-modal Transport, Agreement on Restrictive Business Practices, and even decisions to write off official debts of the poorest countries, and the formation of the Paris Club for the regular negotiations between the debtor South and creditor North. By 1979, when the fear of oil power had subsided, the 1974 initiative suffered disinterestedness. An effort was made in Cancun, Mexico in 1981 to find political support for a sustained process of North-South dialogue but failed to reach any agreement. At the last G-7 meeting in Tokyo, the Chairman of Non Aligned Movement (NAM), President Suharto, who now has taken the turn of representing the developing and under-developed world should have been invited to exchange thoughts with the view of achieving a new paradigm in global solidarity in an era of economic and ideological disarray. For G-7 and NAM, indeed for North and South, that occasion was a golden opportunity to work out the mechanism for a NorthSouth dialogue in the spirit of one world. Alas, hubristic attitude did override common sense and the world has to wait for another occasion. Both North and South cannot escape the need for a sustainable development-oriented international system. The system should provide for a framework of a rational, coherent and democratic management of international political and economic relations, to guarantee peace and human dignity. The system should include the support for a process of sustainable growth, the reform of the monetary system, and a world trading system fundamentally restructured, so that there would be no blocism; instead there would be multi-lateralism in trade, without discrimination to access of markets, in absolute support of GATT. An equitable sharing in the benefits of the revolutionary advances in science the technology would require an international regime. The South, of course, would have to catch up through training and education. The common aim of the South-North cooperation should be
to secure a strategy for sustainable development in the paradigm of a redefined notion of global interdependence, shared benefits and costs. Ethical creation of wealth and its equitable distribution is the watchword for sustainable development. The South-North axis will ensure that the globalisation trend would not be distorted by countries having tendencies to fortify their short-term economic self-interest, to the exclusion of others. With a North-South axis in place, mistakes could be avoided by developing countries in their industrialisation endeavours. In blissful ignorance an industry in a developing country may begin to manufacture certain items which the developed countries could object to arbitrarily. An item may have a dual purpose as there may be an ingredient which can also be regarded as offensive in its manufacture. For instance, the manufacture of electronic components which for all intents and purposes of the manufacturer' in a developing country were meant to be parts for colour TV, computer or radio, yet the same electronic components could also be used for sensitive equipments. The making of ink has an ingredient, I was told, which is basic in the manufacture of mustard gas, is another example. With a South-North cooperation and consultation, wastage and acrimony could be obviated. The ASEAN project which is East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC) has all the elements for an overarching global cooperation. With the exception of Japan, all Asia Pacific states are as yet developing, including China. In this proposed aggroupation, there is every opportunity for a South-South cooperation. China in any world forum would truly represent the under-developed East Asia countries. Japan as a member of EAEC will provide the best opportunity for cooperation between a developed country and developing ones. And when Japan attends a G-7 meeting, she could confidently claim that she represents the views of the Asia Pacific region. No one would then be inclined to oppose Japan to play a bigger role in global issues in which money is only one of the criteria. Japan then need no longer be shy to express her opinion. Not only Japan could wax her yen but she could also demonstrate her political will, with the support of all East Asia, in any cockpit of contention. A permanent seat in a remoulded Security Council will not be far-fetched. Furthermore, Japan in EAEC would have a ready-made constituency to help manage her economic woes which may come from structural weaknesses or undue pressures.
EAEC as proposed is a consultative forum reflecting a mechanism for a South-South and South-North togetherness, without intrusions, without hegemonism, where political transparency will be promoted. The greatest guarantee of peace in East Asia is the friendship and mutual trust between China and Japan. Peace, stability, functional and trade multi-lateralism are in a nutshell what EAEC is all about in the context of the new realities of the post Cold War era. Japan and China holding hands together in EAEC are the two faces of the same coin of East Asian leadership which will realise a new world order bringing in the virtual reality of South-South and South-North "togetherness", securing a world development strategy in the paradigm of a redefined notion of global interdependence. If we, the global communities, are to live well, we must begin to learn to live well together. Whether one is in the East, or West, or North, or South, we live in one world, sharing a common fate and destiny. As the Japanese would say, Unmei Kyodo Tai.
28 The United Nations in the Post-Cold War Era
he Cold War is a conflict between powers without a declaration of such a war and without armed forces involvement and without even the rupture in diplomatic relations contrary to the generally understood concept of belligerancy with its rules and legal implications. Proxies and surrogates may be used to fight a Hot War on their behalf but never themselves face to face. Nevertheless, propaganda, espionage and political actions are directed against, each other without any direct violence. Like the Hot War, it could be terminated if one side has achieved its objective at least minimally or reached a compromise. Many who regard the Cold War as over because they associate the Cold War with the demise of the USSE and the fall of the Berlin Wall or the arms race and Marshall Plan, but these were symptoms, or at best, methods of the Cold War. In that case it looked too much like a European phenomenon only. The Allies in the last World War were personified by Roosevelt, later Truman, Churchill and Stalin. After the fall of Germany, the Emperor of Japan personally had authorised the Japanese Supreme War Council to send Prince Konoye to the Soviet Union who would be requested to serve as mediator to end the war. This showed the naivete of the Japanese who had started a war in the Pacific without a proper plan as to how to end it and eventually had to seek the help of the wolf to take care of the lamb! The US by that time had already broken the Japanese communication secret code and knew exactly as to what was going on. The Japanese surrender was imminent even without the Fat Man and Little Boy. During that time US and UK on one side and USSR on the other had their respective post-war visions and agenda. The US and UK had gone through a successful industrial revolution. However, during the inter* Speech at the Military Staff College "Diners Club" on 23rd March 1994
war years they suffered an economic depression which was for them an excruciating experience. They were resolved that never again the dreadful depression should visit them to degrade their lifestyle and living standard. What it all meant in the context of that period was that an industrialised nation should always have as wide as possible a captive market and access to natural resources. In the case of the British she had her empire and would have been content to retain her colonies and empire after the War to sustain the metropolitan power. But Britain exhausted by the War in Europe and Asia was in no position to oppose the US concept of a hegemonic "universalism" in politics and trade. To the US, British colonialism and imperalism were rather delimiting, burdensome and odious. The other ally on the winning side was the USSR. In fact the metropolitan power was Russia which ruled the Soviet Union. Russia had her history in Europe. She had encountered the Mongols, the Turks, the Swedes, the Poles, the French, the Germans, the Japanese and even the small Central Asiatic powers. The Russians saw themselves as continuously being threatened and existing in a hostile world. That psychological factor conduced the people of Moscow to oust the Tzar and to adopt communism as a glue to hold together the Russian empire to be turned into a Soviet Union which would provide security for Russia. However, communist ideology based on experiences of the industrial Europe saw, in dilectical terms, that the industrial powers of Europe and America which had become colonial powers in Asia and Africa, would threaten the integrity and independence of Russia. Stalin at first realistically would be content if there were enough buffer states surrounding Russia to ensure her security. Stalin had the post-war vision of "spheres of influence". Even before the conclusion of the World War II, those allies were sleeping in the same bed and having different dreams. In their planning for the post-war era, each side had its own agenda, the US-UK on the side, the USSR on the other. One side was working towards "universalism" or free market for natural resources and their manufactured products and the other working towards the creation of buffer states under Moscow's "influence" around Russia for the purpose of Russian security. The USSR had in January 1945 requested for a RM6 billion loan. The US wanted to make the loan contingent upon the Soviet attitude towards the post-World War era so that its "spherism" at least would
The United Nations in the Post-Cold War Era / 281
not run counter to the US "universalism". When Truman became President after the death of Roosevelt in April 1945 he thought he could push with the "loan" as a carrot. However, he ended up with having a heated argument with Molotov over the question of Poland. Molotov refused to budge from the Soviet policy of "spherism". In May 1945 the US drastically reduced the lend-lease arrangement to the USSR seeing that the USSR was pursuing her policy of "spherism" by her intrusion into Romania and controlling the Romanian oil industry. The USSR loan request did not receive the approval from Truman until September 1945 subject to a number of conditionalities mainly centering on the Soviet presence in Eastern Europe and it had been reduced to RMl billion As a consequence, Stalin decided that the US was to be included in the list of potential enemies of Russia and that the so-called policy of "universalism" was no more that an anti-Soviet policy and that it was a disguise, as Stalin referred to, for "monopoly capitalism". Loan-aid as a leverage did not work at that time and the USSR regarded that US aid or loan was a tool of diplomacy; this led to the hostile policy of the Soviet Union towards the World Bank and the Fund which were dominated by US dollars, personnel and US economic principles. The US on the other hand was convinced that foreign aid could serve as a sound diplomatic weapon on countries lesser than the USSR. To that end the Marshall Plan was launched and as expected Stalin prevented Eastern European countries under his "spherism" from accepting. With the failure of loan aid to influence USSR, the US/UK alliance thought they had one more diplomatic leverage. It was the atomic weapon. When the two atomic bombs, were ready for use Japan had not as yet surrendered although her defeat was imminent. But Churchill observed that the historical fact remained, "and must be judged in the after time, that the decision whether or not to use the atomic bombs ... was never an issue". What therefore was the main issue in relation to the use of the two bombs if there was no military or strategic demand? After the defeat of Nazi Germany, Eastern Europe being the focal point for consideration, the USSR for the sake of Russian security, had insisted on a new frontier for Germany on the line of the Oder and Western Neisse which would remove the Russian disturbing fears of attacks through Poland twice committed by Germany in recent times. This, Moscow succeeded because both the UK and US did not want the USSR to be concerned with Japan and East Asia after the defeat of Japan as
USSR must be denied any claim to a greater share of control over China and Manchuria. The US with the agreement of Britain was given the sole control over Japan and East Asia. However, the USSR "spherism" over Eastern Europe and much of Germany was something unacceptable to "universalism" and must be frustrated; that could only be done by diplomatic pressures for which there had to be some leverage. Truman then decided to deploy his "master card" - the atom bomb to demonstrate its power to the USSR so that in any future diplomatic confrontation with the USSR over Eastern Europe and her policy of "spherism", she would be overawed by the might of the bomb and thereby allow herself to be dictated to. Secretary of State Brynes in April 1945 advised Truman that the atomic bomb would permit the US "to dictate our terms at the end of the war". The bomb was no longer mandatory to save lives of allied forces. With the atomic power in hand, Truman according to Churchill, "generally bossed the whole meeting" at Potsdam. Truman told Stalin during a break at the Potsdam Conference that the US had a weapon of unusual force. Stalin, without showing surprise, simply expressed his hope that the US would use the weapon against Japan. The dropping of Fat Man and Little Boy over the two Japanese cities, therefore was intended primarily to strengthen the Anglo-American alliance against the USSR in determining the new world order. If we followed this scenario carefully we cannot fail to see that the ovule of the Cold War was the wide difference in the visions of the allies with regard to the world post-war era. On one side fearing the economic depression which followed the end of the first World War Western industrialised societies had evolved a post-war policy of hegemonic "universalism" as anti US-UK alliance would brand it "neocolonialism" so that the world markets would be open to them as well as political systems and values which they understand and favour would be adopted everywhere. On the other side, the USSR, fearing the security of Russia would again be threatened, favoured a policy which eventually turned out to be a "sphere of hegemony" when Moscow advocated the spread of communism a la Stalin everywhere as enunciated by Zhdanov. It is difficult to see how the respective policies of the allies in World War II could be reconciled. Each side had begun, even before the war ended in Asia the game of rivalry with all its implications. Each side would be laying the rules of the game pretending as if they both agreed on the semantics of such concepts as democracy or human
rights inserted into the Charter of the United Nations which would be interpreted on the basis of Humpty Dumpty's principle. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things". "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master that's all." The frosty war at first was confined to personalities and direct participants with words exchanged in polite euphemisms. The Cold War exploded into the open after Churchill lost his job and went to Missouri (US) where he made his "iron curtain" address, in the presence of President Truman, at a public meeting at Fulton on 5th March 1946, accusing the USSR for having let down an iron curtain from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic. Churchill urged the use of the principles of the Charter of the UN, "supported by the whole strength of the English-speaking world and all its connections", to prevent any molestation by the Soviets. Churchill advocated that the doctrine of the balance of power was unsound since it had to work on narrow margins. Please note his reference to the exclusivism of the English-speaking world! Stalin on the 14th responded sharply that Churchill's speech as dangerous, "calculated to sow the seed of discord among the allied governments". Thus began an open war of words between the US/UK allies and the USSR, supported by the mass-media according to their respective affiliation, commitment or conviction. With that began the arms race with the upgrading of the development of nuclear capability and other diabolical weapons of mass destrution so formidable as to impose effective deterrents upon their employment. Both sides were in a state of preparedness as a sure guarantee of security, with the two most powerful groups each regarding itself as weak in the face of the other. It was a mutuality of madness, each side requiring the armament reduction game to be played according to its own rules leading only to a deadlock. The United Nations became an arena where the Cold War was being fought. In fact, there are two spots in this amphitheatre. One, the Security Council with veto power held by the Soviet Union, the United States, Britain, France and China being permanent members.
This veto power has made the Security Council the cemetery of good intentions, contrary to the concept of democracy. The other spot in this United Nations amphitheatre is the General Assembly and the various specialised agencies. Here each member of the Organisation and its agencies is free to express its own mind. Hence, members of UN became targets to be won over by each side of the Cold War, through financial aid, flattery, bribery, even blackmail. When one of its specialised agencies could not serve the purpose of one side that agency would suffer a boycott and deprived of funds etc. The noble concepts and high ideals contained in the Charter of the UN and of the Specialised Agencies were to serve as tools to chisel for the victors of the World War II the kind of world they respectively wanted. As part of the Cold War tactic, USSR walked out of the Berlin Control Council and set the stage for the Berlin blockade which was responded by the US/UK alliance in the great Berlin airlift and saved the West from expulsion from Berlin. The West then started to consolidate as a response to the various activities of the USSR by creating NATO and the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany to include the Western zone of Berlin for economic purposes giving signal to the USSR that any further expansion of her "spherism" would be resisted. However, US having no overarching ideology to combat communism could only resort to "containment". As the Cold War raged on, the arms race with the plan for the development of Strategic Defence Initiative became more intense. Each side regarded the arms build-up of the other was beyond defence but had an element of aggressive intent. It was also financially exhausting to both sides. The Korean War which was at once a hot and cold war did not see the use of the atomic weapon. Until today that peninsula remains divided. Once I went to Panmunjom and witnessed one of the greatest anomalies of the United Nations. On the UN side, the Chairman was always from the US troops. There was no rotation of its chairmanship. It could therefore hardly be regarded as forces belonging to the international community. On the North Korean side, the Chairman was always a North Korean but seated as his adviser was a Chinese officer from the Peoples Liberations Army. I found it hard to reconcile that China, then already a member of the Security Council, should continue to sit opposite the so-called forces of the UN. The scene was mind-boggling and the UN appeared completely out of place where I thought its raison d'etre and role could be made most effective.
Stalin was confident that the USSR could expand its sphere of hegemony by using the Cold War methods. He had tasted the fruit of his agreement with the US/UK alliance by discontinuing support for the Greek guerilla war. In return the USSR would have a free hand in Romania, Bulgaria and the Balkans. That concession by the US/UK alliance legitimated her "spherism". The Cold War also gave USSR the opportunity to instigate communist uprisings outside Europe in Burma, Indo-China, Malaya, Indonesia and the Philippines while in Japan and India communist parties were given support and encouragement. The Asian strategy ws worked out together between Stalin and Mao. That strategy suffered a severe setback when the USSR and China had serious ideological differences. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) came into being after some countries saw the danger of taking sides. For what it was worth N A M did help to blunt some of the edges of conflict even if NAM itself quite often became the target of the Cold Warriors of both sides on the basis of if you were not with me you were against me. The death of the Soviet Union can be interesting in post-mortem and there might be a number of causes, one of which could be attributed to financial exhaustion brought about by the arms race. But it was Gorbachev, in his Perestroika, which expressed the yearning of every Russian that Moscow should return to a European home as European power. That started the downtrend of the Soviet Union. Yeltsin sealed the fate of the USSR. Yet Yeltsin has not been able to bring about a real change in Russia because the US and the West including Japan has so far failed to give him support. If the USSR had become the vanquished in the Cold War why is Russia being treated so shabbily? The one explanation would be that Russia even without the USSR is still paranoid about her security and therefore is clinging to "spherism" as witnessed in the Japanese Northern Islands, in the Abkhaz uprising in Georgia, in the central Adriatic republics and in the Caucasus. Russian participation in Bosnia-Herzegovina under the UNPROFOR arrangement convinced many observers that it was motivated by the dire need for assurance of security for Russia through the concept of "sphere of influence". The chaotic and imbalanced development in Russia encouraged Zhirinovsky to exploit the misery and sense of insecurity of the Russian people. On three previous occassions when political balance of forces in Russia were upset - the end of the Crimean War, the defeat by the Japanese and the end of World War I - revolutions took place. The Russian people in another revolutionary mood may stand up supporting Zhirinovsky in the presidential election of 1996.
The Cold War is a war to remove whatever impediments in the way of those respective aims. Russia will continue to seek security through "sphere of influence" running counter to the concept of "universalism". Any obstacles to the "universalism" of the Agio-American alliance by Russia, Japan, China, Korea, Malaysia, Australia, France, Germany, or any regional cooperation would be the target of the continuing Cold War. That in my view is inevitable, even if the Cold War was given another name. It is in this context we shall continue to see the activities of the US-UK collusion to save their economies at home. The spectre of the depression is ever present. This ossified concept of preventing the recurrence of long lines of job seekers and food hunters at welfare kitchens will continue to be promoted in a kind of psychic zone among political leaders, the mass-media and educationists. The Cold War will visit those who stand in the way of the hegemonic "universalism" with all its fury without regard to conditions and sensivities no matter how absurd the actions may appear. The rules of the game will have been set and changed from time to time by the "universalists" unilaterally who will apply them at will in any form as exemplified by the super 301 or aid conditionalities or Spielberg's attitude towards the people of Manila who feel their cultural sensitivities are being violated by some scenes in Schindler's List, or the British sense of the freedom of the press or of speech which logically would render anyone free to shout "FirelFire!" in a packed theatre where there is none! Japan, China and North Korea will be subjected to the "universalist" Cold War. The Japanese Emperor had to eat imported rice, the Chinese will have to adhere to the foreign standards of human rights, sacrificing age-old traditions of communitarianism and to experience the strange ways of Hong Kond politics while North Korea, but not Israel, will have to expose her nuclear programme. I wonder if the Asian phase of the Cold War could be mitigated by mutual respect and mutually agreed standards including the sharing of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Negotiations would only be an exercise in propaganda which is part of the Cold War and there could be no meeting of mind if there was no common references but only unilateral standards of the hegemonic "universalism". Therefore, it serves little purpose for us to discuss the post-Cold War role of the UN. We can list out the major and other defects of the UN and its specialised agencies and propose modifications and repairs. The UN being the creature of the victors of the last World War it would not be allowed to change unless those changes suit them, whom
Churchill referred to as the English-speaking world and all its connections. Now that Russia ia hanging on the coat tail of the West and Moscow has become a European capital, Russia is given the position of the demised USSR in the Security Council as if she was one of the victors of World War II adding yet one more anomaly. All we could hope for is an independent minded Secretary General, tireless in his effort to steer the UN, the Security Council and all the specialised agencies through the rapids and tumults of an uncertain period caused by the monopoly of power. For so long as the "universalists" hold sway, the undemocratic veto in the Security Council would subsist; Russia will continue to squat in the Security Council as a permanent member; a Security Council-supported Desert Shield, by a sleight of hand, could become a Desert Storm; or the Security Council may suffer blindness in the face of such terrible acts of inhumanity like the rapes of Bosnia- Herzegovina. For us who believe in the UN and the idea that truly the whole world should be open, and we mean the whole world not only for the Churchillian English-speaking world and their ilks, we shall have to be wary that in supporting the UN we should not be aiding and abetting in a conspiracy for the creation of a hegemonic "universalism". We must be resolute in our endeavours to develop and simultaneously build our resilience through cooperation regionally and collaboration in the spirit of a global community, sensitive to each others conditions, cultures and customs. When USSR collapsed Marxism still lives and Russia still lives. Russia's pre-occupation will continue to be her own security. If she cannot get any satisfaction in that regard the Russian people may resort to other measures including national socialism or communism with a vengeance rejecting the errors of Leninism-Stalinism. After all China has devised her own brand of ideology coterminous with Marxism based on socialist market economy which is a form of socialistic distribution of wealth derived from capitalism supposedly devoid of its exploitative nature. China has also devised, through a kind of double-think, the concept of "one country two systems". Since the end of World War II, the Anglo-American alliance has found that the market for their products are still not as "universal" as they had wished. They look askance at EC, GATT, ASEAN, ZOFPAN, EAEC as obstacles to their designs. Fifty years have brought many changes and new competitors are emerging with higher productivity, better quality at competitive prices. This development they did not foresee in 1945. Their arrogance and obduracy made them unwilling to accept
reality. There will be a greater stress on "them versus us", and we of the growing economies will soon have to deny in GATT and other arenas fresh efforts to make our growth harder to achieve. China's entrance into GATT or her search for US/UK markets will be linked to her acceptance of the values and standards unilaterally established by the US/UK alliance. Even the EC is not happy with the US "numerical targets" approach against Japan since that would inevitably result in cutting down European market shares in Japan. It is a pity that the two score and nine years of the Cold War did not reveal the lesson that the unilateral imposition of "universalism" would only isolate its perpetrators in the international trading system. For Malaysia, we believe in the open market and free trade principles and not a flea market. However, we are developing our economy, political and social life on the basis of our own culture. If that culture is not understood but appear to be an impediment to the "universalists", then we are certain to be involved in the Cold War and subjected to Malaysia bashing. The challenge before us is that we should succeed in our vision 2020 to create a modern society without being dented by the Cold War. For ASEAN we believe in the nuclear weapons free zone and the zone of peace, freedom and neutrality as a contribution towards increasing the no-war theatre. ASEAN is also promoting the concept of EAEC as a regional consultative forum. The same ASEAN ideas should be extended to all areas where the sense of insecurity abounds as in the Balkans and West Asia. I do not believe that this anachronistic concept of hegemonistic "universalism" would defy change. It is up to us who believe in modernisation to show a new way through cooperative endeavours by individual, regional and global collaboration, by North-South interactions that the world shares the same fate and destiny.
29
Asia Pacific Leadership Increasing the Role of Youth
n addressing the subject of the role of youths, I have inclined my thought to the youths of the Asian side of the Pacific ocean. I would find myself in oppostion to the idea that it would be possible for anyone on this side of the ocean to influence the youths of the shores of the North American continent. One could detect that the youths of the other side of the Pacific ocean are creatures of a society that had experienced the cycle of the industrial revolution. The logic of that industrial revolution which had ended is now being interpreted as the logic of culture and politics. That by definition would not relate to the culture and politics of peoples who are just entering the epoch of their industrial revolution. Whereas for the Asian side I am more confident that the swelling interest in growth and discipline of the Asian Pacific would have ready ears. My only regret is that we have delimited ourselves to the Asia of the Pacific and not the geographical Asia which should embrace the Indian subcontinent and Myanmar. West Asia, or as the Westerner would refer to it as the Middle East, is a world of its own whose culture spreads to North Africa and I am quite comfortable not to include them although I am one of those who do not believe in exclusivism. I shall not endeavour to define "Youth" which may invite very prolonged discussion from the physical, mental to the philosophical view points. However, with the word "Leadership" I have my own difficulty. This is because of the dichotomy of my education which is Western and my cultural upbringing which is "Malay". When I speak in English which is not my language but the language through which I received my education, I think of the word "Leadership" as understood in the English Language which provides guidance by going in front or influence and control of the actions of the led and
* Paper presented on 24 August 1994
examples for them to follow. Such a leadership could be provided by one or group of persons. When I speak in Malay, the national language, I use the word "kepimpinan". The root word is "pimpin" which is the act of holding hands, when guiding or aiding a person, say in the dark or when crossing a somewhat rickety bridge. Quite often in the Malay society people walk holding hands merely as a sign of close friendship with no indication or suggestion of any odd inclination. I have seen in the town of Kuantan, two brothers of more than middle-aged who never walked together without holding each other's hand. And so when I use the word "kepimpinan", I refer to "Leadership" who is always with his people holding their hands in guidance. Whereas, when I speak in English, I find a different picture of men being guided by example or someone walking ahead or in advance showing the way. Since I am culturally non-Western I must confess that in talking about "leadership" my preference is the semantics of "kepimpinan" because I find it difficult to get outside myself and to don the cloak of the Western semantics which would very quickly betray my limitations in thought. The major part of my life has been involved in the concept of "kepimpinan" from which at this time of my life I am no longer able to disengage myself from something that had already been imbedded as part of my belief. I could envision a Malay "leadership" in the best tradition of the West walking alone in front of his flock as a guide or example and would continue to walk alone and the people behind him would lag behind, with the net result that leadership would be without followers. On the other hand should I conjure in my mind the Malay "leadership" in terms of "kepimpinan" I can see the people and the leadership moving forward hand-in-hand at a pace commonly shared by the leadership and the led. There would be no room for dictatorship or abandonment. Fate and destiny are being shared. Therefore, when I use the word "leadership" even as I speak in English please bear with me that the meaning which I carry in my head and heart is "kepimpinan". That is why in the beginning I had prefaced that I should confine my thought to the Asian shore of the Pacific because the "Leadership" as understood in Asia has a close proximity with "kepimpinan" as I understand it which might not be relevant or even understood in accordance with Western thoughts, which like myself are in their own "cultural and social cage" brought about by their own evolution of culture with great emphasis in individualism that has lost sight of the original communitarianism.
Asia Pacific Leadership Increasing the Role of Youth / 291
Whatever is the definition of "Youth" it is in the youth of today who will have the role of leaderhsip or "kepimpinan" of tomorrow. I notice when talking of "leadership" or "kepimpinan" people are quick to associate it with governmental or political relevance. Let me from the outset say that "kepimpinan" is not confined only in the context of government. Whatever may be the circumstances there is someone in a family or a group in a society that plays the role of "memimpin" and there will exist "leadership" or "kepimpinan". In the Confuscian society the role of the head of the family reaching to the apex in the form of the emperor in the Government is clear. After all the nasty things said by the West regarding the late Kim III Sung his death was genuinely mourned by his people because I think he was a genuine "pemimpin". The same thing could be said of Deng or Sihanouk. Of course if these gentlemen were to be analysed in the context of Western leadership, they could not appear as such on the computer screen. But in the minds and hearts of their people they are always there holding their hands, guiding them, sharing their pains, joys, fate and destiny. It is only when an Asian leader pulls away his hand from that of his flock that he will himself be walking alone towards the wilderness. I still feel very sad when I think of the late Dato' Onn who became a leader in the Western sense ending up in oblivion. He is still remembered but not his "kepimpinan"when his flock, UMNO, had other dreams. Now, since the youths of today would be the "pemimpin" of tomorrow you have asked me to share some of my thoughts with you as to how the role of youth could be increased. To escape that, I could easily seek refuge in my old age of seventy two and more by simply saying that I do not understand the present youths and therefore disqualify myself from making any suggestion. That I am certain you would not allow me to do, because you would say I was a youth once and certainly I should share some of my experiences in the hope that they would be of some value to upgrade the role of youth of today. Surely, you will say that I had my dreams and visions then. Even if they were nightmares or illusions you would like to know. I believe in your genuineness in requesting me to speak with you not with a view to revile or to mock. It is my belief in your spirit of inquiry that emboldens me to face you. I shall endeavour to suggest a few things provided you would accept that the gap of age would by its very nature evidence a difference in outlook and temperament. I like to think that no such schism exists but that would be presumptive if not unnatural since
our determinants are our circumstances and environment. It is precisely for these reasons that my suggestions or ideas might not naturally match with yours. No doubt in the course of the discussion, I shall betray a great deal of my own shortcomings and should you detect them, hopefully they would serve as some of the contributions albeit inadvertently or even negatively. Let me first explain what I think the youths of today are exposed to. The industrial revolution of Europe and America was first motivated by Christian values be they of Protestanism, Puritanism, Calvinism or Catholism. As the industrial revolution gained momentum mass production came to the fore. What was not available to the masses before, mass production made it possible for everyone to satisfy his or her desire. If at one time one drank from an earthen cup which was then a need, there was a desire to drink from a china cup. Industrial revolution made it possible to satisfy that desire through cheap mass production; that china cup once a desire has become a need and the next stage of desire would be a crystal glass. Today, who among the middle-earning group living in towns, sleep in rooms without air-conditioning which at one time the contraption was merely the object of desire. So are the refrigerators, radios and TVs or even the washing machines. These consumer goods through mass production have become available. Life is then transformed from the search for sustenance and need to one of progress from desire to desire. As the Western industiral revolution reached its dead-end, the impact on humans exposed to such a revolution has been tremendous. While the industrial revolution had as its motivating influence, the values of communitarianism as found in religion, mass production had created consumerism whose valuational system is one of individualism. No longer is the interest of the community paramount, "I" and "mine" have replaced "we" and "ours". This, in my view, is the unintended result of industrial revolution with the "leadership" mindlessly following the instinct of desire. The net result is that the logic of industrialisationism has become the new logic of culture, politics, values, morals etc. With electricity, songs are being written and sung following the twanging sounds of the electric guitar. The dance movements of Michael Jackson, the rap and so on are replicas or imitations of the movements of machine of the industrial revolution. As I said, industrial revolution has its own logic influencing the youths and culture and other values. The dangers as I see it is the
transference of these values on the youths of developing nations like ours in the Pacific area of Asia. After all, the values of the industrial revolution have created the ugly consumerists which, brought to its logical conclusion, would be hedonistic, pleasure and leisure loving, uncaring except for their own ego and individualism. It is this logic that is creating a brake in the progress of humans in the industrial society which is witnessing a creeping degradation. In our circumstances in the Pacific Asian region we have not as yet reached the summit of our industrialisation. Yet we are already exposed to the values based on the logic of the Western industrial revolution. If that logic is showing up the Western society as decadent then the transposition of that logic among our youths could only stultify our growth. Therefore, to prevent ourselves from falling backwards, I venture to suggest at least a couple of measures. Firstly, our youths should be encouraged to avoid aping the manifestations of the culture of the youths of the West. That culture is already devoid of the original moral and religious contents. Educational TV shows such as Bill Cosby's almost encourage living-in before marriage and how often do we see abdominable scenes on TV or cinema screen which was morally taboo to them before but tolerated now. At the stage of our industrialisation programme to imbibe the logic of the Western industrialisation as the logic of our culture is to court disaster for our own progress. Their culture and political values, their definition of human rights and labour laws could only stultify our growth. I can offer a very sinister interpretation as to why those values are being imposed on us. In the subconscious mind of the Industrialised West represented to the US and the UK since the end of World War II, there is a fear that our industrialisation programme, if successful, would only take away some of their markets. Therefore, according to the unwritten agenda, we must not be allowed to succeed in our industrialisation since that means the reduction of market which to the West means the loss of jobs, lowering of living standard and recession in their own societies. The depression of the 30s must not be allowed to recur. Countries like ours should be content with producing rubber and palm oil. Hence, there appears to be some improvement on the attitude of the US towards palm oil with the hopeful consequence that we would concentrate once again in palm oil production at the expense of our industrial vision and programme. The undesigned transposition of the culture whether social or political together with the designed position of social and political culture, such as the
Western concept of human rights, democracy, labour laws will all conduce towards the stultifying of our industrial growth. Our youths of the Pacific Asian including those of Japan should be concerned with these problems if they wished to enhance their role. Drug taking is very much the product of Western industrialised societies which are utterly distracted, largely confused and hopelessly looking at their future. Consumerism has consumed their moral fabric and their souls. Their culture has become superficial and vulgar based entirely on selfishness and materialism. If we should take Malaysia as an example where the population is youthful since about 50% are twenty-one and below, what kind of society would we have if 50% of those are drug addicts. Should the drug addicted youth of today assume the "leadership" whether of the nation, a business house or even a family, the Malaysian society would be governed by zombies. Our stringent law, against drug trafficking may appear harsh but we are not concerned with examplary measures. The punishment meted out is simply punitive. When I read in the papers that a doctor has been disposing drugs through a so-called medicinal mixture, I think the government should immediately initiate the promulgation of laws in Parliament to provide a severe punishment on such an unscrupulous person who had abused his oaths and the trust of the people in him. Some devices whether psychological or otherwise should be worked out to make our youths treat deletrious drugs with aversion just as a Muslim Malay eating his own meal would puke at the sight of pork. The market has to be destroyed if we were to free ourselves from this scourge. Likewise, our youths should be made aware that drugs-, sexual liberty or homosexuality will threaten them with that accursed AIDS. The second measure to increase the effectiveness of the role of youths would be in the realm of education. This one should cover both mental and physical. Intellectually, the youths should be equipped with the mental wherewithal to prepare him for his role as a "pemimpin" or a "leader" in whatever category he may find himself in life. His education is such that he should be able to face the future with a clear vision and with a hope that the world is his to own. He should be trained to be sensitive that the environment and the earth are for him and for his future generations. His education should promise him a world of certainty not of hopelessness, not of disappointment and not of isolation. He should be able to relate himself with others not only with his own environment but with other people as well. That sort of education should provide youths with a
lifestyle which cares and shares. The well-equipped youth is able to define and redefine his role which will also be able to grow with the growth of knowledge and the complexities of life. Knowledge is the engine of social growth and youths should be made to realise that knowledge and not wealth is the source of power. To increase the role of youths, the youths should know what is their role. The education system must be such that it provides for the youths a sense of purposiveness in education. Without this sense of purposiveness the youth will be in darkness as to his role whether in the family or at work. And how could the youth be able to increase his role, indeed how could anyone help the youth to increase his role if he did not realise that he should have a purpose in life. If we wanted to have youths different from those of the Western post-industrial age, then our youths must be so equipped that they will continuously grow up and not just grow old. Our youths should be given the kind of education which would provide for them a sense of purposiveness in life. Otherwise, they will just pursue a life of leisure and pleasure eventually as they grow frail with age they would not have the physiological as well as the psychological capacity to age gracefully. Instead they would be disgruntled and utterly dissatisfied with the life they have lived which would be empty and meaningless. They would have been chasing a will-o'-the-wisp, a shadow and an unreachable dream. Let me give a word of caution to those who have noble desire and design to increase the role of youth of today. We should not be too obsessed with the fear for the youths, basing our thoughts on the wrong assumption or conviction that the transformation of the future society is based entirely in our ability to control the moral formation of the young through religious rituals and dogmas. That sort of assumption would certainly breed the growth of extremism based not on what is right for the youths. I think such movements as the Jones family of Guyana or the Al-Arqam movement which started as reform groups providing service and solace and even new meaning to life soon sank into disaster or at best total stagnation. We must remember that every living thing changes. So is the society of our youths. A living plant continuously is in the process of change. It sheds its leaves, it blossoms, it grows branches. Only when it whithers and dies it will stop to change. But the change is silent and beauteous. Only a dead wood does not change and incapable of revitalisation. A sustainable society should be capable of and ready to change. Change means revolution, but the best kind of revolution, is that like the flower bed and the fruit tree is the silent one.
One other way of bringing about a social cohesion is for youths, male and female, to go through a period of service to the society. This is not the same as a national service where the male youths are given military training to kill.That would be self-defeating. I have in mind a programme in which youths are called up for a period of a year or two to work in farms or factories or such like institutions which will expose them to the real world of productive hard work. Such a project are not only educative in extolling lives, self-reliance and resilience but also it is self-supporting since its products would be saleable which will contribute towards the national economy. Through contacts and interactions in the projects the participating youths could develop a sense of togetherness particularly if they belong in different denominations and cultural groups. Through such programmes a society like that of Malaysia would gain much and many of its social malaise like drugs or loafing could be got rid of. Instead our youths would learn to live harmoniously, mutually respecting one another and generally will endeavour to live a purposeful life. We shall have a more healthy society which is ever ready to accept any challenge whether of economic advancement, moral upliftment or facing problems such as that of poverty. I am certain that a spell in such a service to the society will lower the level of personal desires which ultimately will have an overall effect on consumerism. The role of youths is to develop their own potentials. It is the responsibility of the society as a whole to assist in the development of those potentials. The future society should it face a failure, will project the guilt on its preceding society for not preparing their youths for their role. It will serve no purpose for us to provide a cascade of explanations as to why we had no thought for the future of our youths as if the "kepimpinan" has absent-mindedly eroded itself the experiences of youth. The present older generation cannot attribute the blame on bad parents or racism if the youths of today live a life of hopelessness, of confusion and distraction. The challenges before us is that of sustainability, dynamic growths the revitalisation and change. To ignore these challenges is to condemn our youths, to live a life of confusion, isolation and devoid of meaning. A programme for them may be expensive in terms of money which some nations in the Pacific Asia might not afford. Through the EAEC, we should shoulder this responsibility together because we of the present generation simply cannot afford not to.
30 Crafting The Future, Dismantling, Maintaining, Creating Lessons for South Africa
t would seem to me as I look back at my early life that the norm of our leadership has always been guided by the spirit of "togetherness". The motto as engraved in our national insignia is BERSATU BERTAMBAH MUTU which translated means, more or less if people were united their value would be enhanced. Each person has a value but there is value added in "togetherness". It was this spirit of "togetherness" which had motivated the thought and action of our leaders and people. During the inter-war years when the colonial power brought in immigrants, they were organised by the colonial government to regard themselves as temporary sojourners. Special departments in the colonial government were set up to ensure their separateness; they had separate schools; teachers, and priests brought from their respective motherlands. Because Britain recognised the sovereignty of the Malaya Sultans, Nine in all, only the Malays and non-Malays born in the states of the Sultans became the subjects of their respective rulers. Only those subjects had political rights limited though they were, since the Sultans had only the semblance of power. The British were the real masters. It was not at all surprising therefore that only subjects of the nine Sultans could think of their political future. However, Malaya then was not one country but nine Sultanates. The nationalist struggle at that time on the basis of "togetherness" was to create an independent Malay nation state. The Japanese occupation of my country from 1942 for 3 1/2 years fulfilled partly the dream of "togetherness" when the Japanese ignored the British myth of the sovereignty of the separate nine Sultanates and stitched them into a single administration.
* Speech delivered at the Institute of Personnel Management Annual Convention, Sun City, South Africa on 14 September 1994.
With the defeat of Japan, the British returned and managed to get the Sultans to surrender their powers and a single state in the form of a British colony was created in 1946, named The Malayan Union, which was not acceptable to the Malays. In resisting the Malayan Union native nationalists found "togetherness" in a new combined political movement composed of all Malay political societies known as the United Malay National Organisation (UMNO). Fortunately for them the British plan to give citizenships to the new immigrants, the main bone of contention, was treated with indifference by the very people who might have benefitted from the Malayan Union. This was because of the habit of non-involvement in local politics. Malayan Union was replaced by the Federation of Malaya. After the defeat of Malayan Union in February 1948, the struggle of UMNO which embraced the native political societies, was the quest for MEEDEKA or independence. However, the UMNO leadership decided in 1953 that unless there was "togetherness" with the other races MERDEKA would not be achievable. Even if it was achieved, there would be chaos because of ethnic rivalries. The Alliance Party was born combining the UMNO which was a native politcal movement, with the Malayan Chinese Association, which was originally formed as a welfare and friendly society. Soon it was joined by the Malayan Indian Congress whose orientation hitherto had been, as its name suggested, to India. It was this "togetherness" and the willingness on the part of the majority Malay political movement to share powers with the Chinese and Indian political parties which achieved for Malaya its MERDEKA (Independence) on 31 August 1957. Using the concept of winner takes all, the Malays and the bumiputeras as a community could then and even today win the right to rule, under our Parliamentary system. But Malaysian leadership prefers the sharing of power. For example, in our Parliament today there is only one member from a component party of the BN yet because that party represents a community, that member of Parliament is also a member of Cabinet. The spirit of "togetherness" moved the Alliance Government soon after independence to call for the formation of ASA - an Association of South East Asian States which was spurned by Sukarno of Indonesia. The idea of getting together of Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo with the other states of Malaya in the form of a Federation was another "togetherness" actualised in 1963. Brunei stayed out of the Malaysian Federation for reasons of her own.
Crafting The Future / 299
The formation of Malaysia marked the hostile confrontation of Indonesia against Malaysia from September 1963 to the middle of 1965. The subsequent leaders of Malaysia, led by the late Prime Minister Abdul Razak, and of Indonesia by President Suharto, were pledged never to allow such an undersirable situation to recur and the whole of South East Asia must be made free from incidences of confrontation. And so, it was the spirit of "togetherness" which motivated the leadership of both Malaysia and Indonesia to inspire the idea of ASEAN emerging from the ashes of confrontation. Just before the formation of Malaysia, proposed by the Philippines and supported by Indonesia the Maphilindo concept comprising Malaya (not Malaysia), the Philippines and Indonesia emerged. Indonesian support was intended to bring about the thwarting of the formation of Malaysia which also would be to the satisfaction of Philippines who had then been making a cartographic claim on North Borneo. Kuala Lumpur went along with Maphilindo unenthusiastically knowing well its hidden agenda of aborting the formation of Malaysia but worse still it smacked of racism. Singapore in 1965 had seperated from Malaysia and when ASEAN was formed, Singapore joined ASEAN and so did The Philippines and Thailand. When Brunei became independent, she too joined ASEAN. When the GATT Conference floundered at the end of 1990, Malaysia, proposed the East Asian "togetherness" which later became an ASEAN project known as East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC). The proposal was intended as a forum for countries of East Asia including Japan where matters of common concern could be discussed. It is extremely important for countries of East Asia that Japan and China should always have an opportunity and a forum to understand each others position and viewpoint. I have at length referred to the spirit of "togetherness" which influenced leaders of Malaysia and of South East Asia to cooperate colosely. It is this same spirit which moved the various policies for social and economic developments of members of Asean which taken together created the regional resilience. It was the spirit of "togetherness" in the form of the Alliance Party which achieved independence and democracy for the country. This Alliance as a party having won the elections had to devise a policy for the development of the society. What was found in Malaya in 1957 was a society clearly well- defined in the vocations of the people and their identification with their respective ethnic groups. It was apartheid of a kind left behind by the British. The natives having
been pushed by the colonial power into the agricultural subsistence economy, some in Malay Land Reservations while others in rural areas were clearly belonging to the lowest income group. The first task of the Alliance government was to correct the income differentials. An affirmative action was undertaken by which thousands of hectares of land were planted with rubber and oil palm and were distributed to the landless by the Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA). The "Majlis Amanah Rakyat" (MARA) an instrument originally created by the British as Rural Industrial Development Authority (RIDA) to help rural Malays produce saleable handicrafts became an important instrument for affirmative action to assist the rural Malays not just in handicrafts. By 1967, ten years after independence, the first phase of the development policy had succeeded. Malaysia became the world's biggest supplier of rubber and palm oil, and the income of the rural people had improved a great deal. However, the increase in rural income had increased the urban income manifold, and the urban rich, being merchants and businessmen, were Chinese while the labour in estates were identified as Indians. How could a nation survive when its society was so compartmentalised. It was soon decided that it was not enough to correct the income differentials. Such a measure would hardly be a adequate to level the playing field. Before remedial measures could be introduced, by May 1969 a conflagration erupted between the Malays and the Chinese. A state of emergency was declared and the King appointed a National Security Council to manage the country while the Parliament and the Cabinet were suspended. The National Security Council, better known as NSC, became the sole body as the legislative and executive authority. That was a painful period but it was also a period when the whole nation paused for a moment of self-examination. It was as if the nation had a seizure and it was a serious warning that for the nation to survive it had to practise some discipline and restraint. I was a member of that Council. We agonised days and nights to find the answer as to where we went wrong. Since 1957 we had a government which did not altogether dismantle the British system and removed all the British administrators in one fell swoop. When the government removed British personnel by giving them compensations they were replaced by qualified local people, not in one exercise of demolition but by removing and replacing them brick by brick. For many years after independence, Malaysia maintained
British officials like the Chief of the Armed Forces Staff, the Inspector General of Police, the Chief Justice, the Attorney General and many senior civil servants and members of technical services until they reached mandatory retirement age or that they chose to retire prematurely and be entitled to collect a handsome golden handshake. The continuity of administration was maintained by the independent Alliance government to its advantage. We never adopted the leftist policy although we were socialistic in our equitable distribution of wealth and we used the free market system to create wealth. We still do. We encouraged foreign investments and our growth continues to be phenomenal. We succeeded in defeating the communist insurgency through a war for the heart, mind and the stomach. The NOC, having made a thorough study of the situation, decided to return to democracy after slightly over twenty one months and through the National Consultative Council, the Rukunegara was evolved which provided the nation with a vision of the society. The Rukunegara reads as follows:DECLARATION OUR NATION, MALAYSIA, being dedicated to achieving a greater unity of all her peoples; to maintaining a democratic way of life; to creating a just society in which the wealth of tha nation shall be equitably shared; to ensuring a liberal approach to her rich and diverse cultural traditions; to building a progressive society which shall be oriented to modern science and technology; WE, her peoples, pledge our united efforts to attain these ends guided by these principles:BELIEF IN GOD LOYALTY TO KING AND COUNTRY UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION RULE OF LAW GOOD BEHAVIOUR AND MORALITY Malaysian leadership saw t h a t if the Western kind of confrontational democracy was going to work in Malaysia where
consensual arrangement had always been the order of the day, the opposition in Parliament should be minimised and public discussions on sensitive issues proscribed. The Alliance party had a pre-election coalition of three communal parties. Soon after the doors of Parliament were opened the Alliance Party in preparation for the next general elections began to invite as many political parties as possible to form again a coalition BEFORE elections. The idea was that in presenting a programme for the people, all the parties in the coalition should first meet in a closed door meeting where all differences could be sorted out without humiliating the leaderships in public. The coalition called itself the BARISAN NASIONAL (BN) or the National Front wihich selects its leader in a Council and each party has an equal representation. When the BN goes to the people, it goes as a single political party. It is not a coalition AFTER elections. The BN would put up candidates both for the Federation Parliament as well as the thirteen State Legislatures. At the moment, only one state is controlled by an opposition party, and the central government would have to be extremely diplomatic in trying to bring projects into an opposition controlled state since the state controls land, mines, forestry and some other important subjects. Our system of a Federal Government with such and residual powers held by the states is one of the most difficult systems of governments. After Parliament doors were once again opened, the government introduced an affirmative policy which had two broad objectives, namely, the eradication of poverty irrespective of race and secondly, to restructure society so that within twenty years, races would no longer be identifiable by their vocations. It was intended to bring the natives or bumiputras into the world of commerce and industry. However, the one objective never revealed publicly was the creation of a middle class composed of all races so that they would be able to cooperate and interact in a modern corporate economic atmosphere. The test of the success of the New Economic Policy (NEP) was proven by the fact that there had been no racial conflicts during the period from 1970 until now, and there was phenomenal growth with manageable inflation. The incidence of poverty irrespective of race has been greatly reduced and so also unemployment. The most glaring success was the growth of a new middle class among all races sharing common values and today, unlike twenty-five years ago, one could see the natives as entrepreneurs and managers having achieved international standard working together with the non-natives and
expatriates. The nation as guided by Rukunegara had moved towards modernity without much disturbance to the societal, moral and social fabric. In January 1989, a National Economic Consultative Council (NECC) was set up with the aim of creating a forum whereby people of different backgrounds and interests would be given an opportunity to put forth their views with respect to past policies, particularly the accomplishments of the NEP and to make recommendations for a new policy for the period post-1990. Groups including political parties sent their representatives besides invited individuals. Altogether the Council comprised 150 members who elected me as the Chairman. The spirit of "togetherness" was evident throughout the proceedings and in the Report. Maintaining the national objective of national unity Prime Minister Mahathir has presented to the people the postNEP plan for realising modernisation known as Vision 2020. Perhaps I should mention a little about affirmative actions. It was started by the British in 1948 with doubtful intentions. As a result of treaties with the Malay Sultans affirmed from time to time there was a Special Position of the Malays and this was reflected in the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 which became the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya, a British protectorate. The British High Commissioner administering the Federation of Malaya was made responsible for safeguarding the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of other communities. The safeguards referred to four subjects namely; 1. Malay Land Reservations. Since land had always been under the control of the state (Sultanate) the alienation of land to Malays in Malay Reservations had always been exercised by the Ruler-inCouncil. The Ruler-in-Council in each state had the power to permit a non-Malay to acquire a piece of land in the Reservation but the power was very rarely exercised. 2. Quotas for admission to the Public Services. They did not apply to all services but notably only to the Malayan Civil Service. Until 1953 only British subjects of European descent and Malays were admitted into the Malayan Civil Service. After that the general rule was that not more than one quarter of new entrants would be non-Malays. In certain service under the quota arrangement his promotion or otherwise no longer was governed by quota.
There were also quotas in respect of the issuing of licenses or permits for the operation of certain businesses for example road haulage and passenger vehicles for hire. This affirmative action was regarded by the British as a measure of encouraging Malays to be involved in business; 4. Preference was given to Malays in the offer of scholarships and other educational assistance. This policy was to make it possible for Malays to obtain higher education since non-Malays particularly Chinese had the money to go for higher education either locally or abroad. In practice the recepients of such scholarships were drawn from the children of the Malay gentries. It was difficult for the child of an ordinary Malay, like myself, to obtain scholarships other than by open competition with the rest of the communities. When we became independent in 1957 the laws and policies enabling the aforesaid affirmative actions continued and since 1970 affirmative actions were taken under the NEP. Policies of affirmative actions were first debated behind closed doors among Barisan Nasional leaders and after an agreement or consensus had been achieved they would become part of the responsibility of the BN Government. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the King was provided in the Constitution with the special responsibility of safeguarding the special position of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. His Majesty has also the responsibility of safeguarding the legitimate interests of other communities. The main reason for the general acceptance of these affirmative laws and policies was that it was evident to all that they serve as the insurance for the well-being of the nation. In any case the arrangement would in due course be unnecessary after a strong common middle-class with common values has been nurtured and the incidence of poverty greatly reduced. The trend is very encouraging. The quota system for entry into the civil service continued to be practised while MARA has been extended in its functions to loan capital and to train Malay and natives in petty trading and in small businesses. The Authority opened vocational schools, provided scholarships to children of rural population and established all over the country the Institute of Technology which teaches the natives such subjects ranging from secretarial and commercial education, to engineering and law.
3.
Another affirmative action was the formation of the Federal Agricultural Marketing Authority which takes care of the Marketing of rural agricultural produce. Malaysian vegetable growers are often preyed upon by unscrupulous middlemen. So are fishermen who are now protected by a similar body. One of the objectives of the restructuring of society was the creation of a Malay and native business community. The target was that thirty percent of the commercial and business community would comprise Malays and natives. The long-term programme was concentrated on the education of rural children of Malays and natives. Many of those in business and board rooms today are children of rural folks. They have become the middle-class and would not return to replace their parents. Instead the Government has plans to corporatise the lands of the rural people who might be too old or infirm to work on their lands. Instead they would have shares equivalent to the value of their lands which could be made productive. The Government also has set up business and investment companies which would at first be run by Malay civil servants seconded to the companies and after these companies had made progress a management buy-over scheme is provided for them with facilities for funds. State Governments also have their State Economic Development Corporations (SEDC) which go into joint ventures with the private sector. There is a notable Government company which has many tentacles with the objective of assisting in the creation of a Malay and native business community. It works in many ways. It has been recognised that the networking between Malays and Chinese is one of the ways to achieve the objective. Very often Chinese businessmen are exclusivistic, dealing only with their own respective clan. The Government enterprise called the National Trading Company in short PERNAS had opened in several towns its wholesale shops. In a particular instance in one little town there was already one wholesale shop belonging to a Chinese who had refused to do business other than with Chinese of his choice less still a Malay whom he never trusted. At first glance the PERNAS shop would appear to be set up in order to kill the Chinese business. That would have been an unfair and inequitable arrangement and contrary to Rukunegara. However, in this case some Malays who had started into the retail business in hardware had petitioned the Government that the PERNAS shop in their town should be closed down since it was then found to be selling
goods at about 1% dearer than the Chinese wholesale shop. These Malays were now patronising the Chinese wholesaler shop at reduced prices. The net result was that the Malay retailers were now in business networking with the Chinese wholeseller who is giving them credits and trust. Eventually the PEENAS shop was closed. If it was closed too early the relationship between the Chinese and Malay commercial communities would have been disrupted. There is no doubt that affirmative action is necessary if societal engineering was the object of the exercise. This inevitably means that the Government has a critical role which must be decisive and purposeful. In the Malaysian experiences there are four Government interventions in business: 1. To provide essential services which do not take profit into consideration; 2. To provide certain public services for which it is expected that the enterprises would pay for themselves after a launching grant; 3. To provide certain public services motivated by profit but undertaken by the Government because there might be reluctance on the part of the business sector to pioneer in the enterprise due to heavy capitalisation or high risk; 4. Government intervention in business transactions, marketing and providing services to the business community through its local and overseas institutions including making representations to foreign Governments in certain instances. The Government is also expected to enter into investments or other trade guarantee agreements with foreign powers. In the Malaysian experiences (2) and (3) are now being privatised. (1) for example, hospitals, will continue to be run by the Government although private hospitals are encouraged to operate. With regard to (4) the Government's role will increase with the increase in industrialisation. In order to ensure the success of the Government's role in affirmative actions, the Government, whether Federal or the State, has always to maintian its efficiency and transparency. There is an independent Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) which has brought to book senior officials and politicians. Today one Chief Minister of a state is under investigation. The principle of accountability has always been maintained. The Government's stress has always been on Education
which should be relevant to the need of time. The development of human resources irrespective of race in order to provide full and suitable employment was important towards the creation of prosperity and thereby racial harmony. There has always been an emphasis on cooperation between the private sector and the government sector. The private sector role in development continues to be an important factor. The Government has always emphasised on multi-ethnic residential areas as a measure towards national unity. Private developers have shown cooperation in the sale of properties. The government is also encouraging South-South and South-North economic cooperation. While the old British quota system is still in use for the entry into the civil service, there have been and are very senior officials in all branches including the diplomatic service, the police and the armed forces, from all ethnic groups. There is an independent Public Services Commission as well as Commissions for the Police and the Armed Services. The Malaysian High Commissioner in South Africa is a Malaysian of Chinese origin. Those are some of the Malaysian experiences. It would be presumptive for me to offer any ideas to South Africa based on these experiences. The only element that I could suggest as common between the two countries is that they are both peopled by humans. If problems are the results of wrong relationships between men and men, then perhaps the only matter which South Africa and Malaysia should never relent is the endeavour to keep the good relationship between men and men in our respective countries in constant repair. That seems to me to be the challenge common to both of us.
37
In Search For a New Order in the Post-Cold War Era
he topic of this session in the context of its premise there is an assumption that the Cold War is over. The term Cold War is generally understood as a conflict between powers and their respective allies using all means short of any direct armed forces involvement, even without the rupture of diplomatic relations contrary to all generally accepted international law of belligerency. But is the Cold War over? Yes, if one associates it only with the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain. The Cold War phenomenon started from the time of Potsdam, between Truman and Stalin. The agenda of any American President past and present is that no market should be closed to US industrial products in any part of the World. This attitude is to ensure that the spectre of the depression of the 30s must not be allowed to re-emerge. The exclusivism of the British Imperial Preference, not the Empire, went against the grain of US trade "universalism". That was and still is the American agenda. However, the Soviet Union, the other ally in the last World War, had as its main anxiety not trade but the security of Moscow since it had suffered aggressions throughout history by the Mongols, the Turks, the Swedes, the Poles, the French, the Germans, and the small central Asiatic Powers. Even the Japanese had defeated her navy. To the Russians the whole world was hostile. This FEAR psychosis brought about the successful communist revolution in Russia which provided a sense of well-being and security through the creation of the Soviet Union. After Potsdam, having experienced the horrendous German aggression, that same highly charged sense of insecurity impelled Stalin and Soviet leaders to regard the US policy of "universalism" as anti-Soviet and "monopoly capitalism" and drew a
* "Message From Japan: In Search of the Construction of an Order for a New International Cooperation" Symposium organised by Association for Promotion of International Cooperation, Tokyo, 7 - 9th November 1994.
New Order in the Post-Cold War Era / 309
line dividing Europe, referred to by Churchill as the Iron Curtain which became an impediment to the US policy of "universalism" but a comfort to the Soviet insecurity syndrome. With the Iron Curtain tattered and the US thought they had won the Cold War she found that the world market was not as yet captive in "universalism" because newly industrialised countries were emerging. During the exercise of bringing down the Iron Curtain, Japan was given every encouragement to industrialise in order to prove, in the context of the Cold War, that the free market system was superior to communism The Asian Tigers emerged and many more cubs in Asia are showing their heads. All these require a piece of the world market which means that with their competitive edge the US economy will be in jeopardy. Hence the US turned on the Cold War against her friends and allies, using selected issues depending on the country concerned with the sole objective of slowing down their industrialisation programme. Japan is continuously being bashed, China is attacked regarding Tienanmen Square, Malaysia on Labour Laws, Singapore for the caning of an American delinquent, Indonesia on Tim-Tim; South and North Korea and Taiwan are subjected to all sorts of pressures which are aimed to stultify the industrial growth of competitors. Even Australia is being noted for her high pollution of the environment. Trade relations are being subjected to irrelevant non-trade issues. With the demise of the Soviet Union no longer was there a single issue and it also indicated that the Cold War had ended only as a US vs USSR phenomenon. It is still raging in Asia. The Old Order is still very much in place together with its instruments. The search for a New Order will be an exercise in futility unless the point is clearly understood that the US extolling the virtues of free trade, only if it was free to the US. Witness recently, trade protectionists in America won the Congressional support to postpone the vote on global trade accord to the end of the year. The President of the United States is helplessly stripped of his "fast track" authority in trade agreement negotiation. The Old Order, characterised by the US-USSR equilibrium, has changed to a DISORDER with the disappearance of the equilibrium. If the search for a New Order is in earnest then Japan will have to open up and play her rightful role in the Asian togetherness which will provide a new equilibrium. Without a new equilibrium, which will be the main feature of the New Order, a bewildered world will be subjected to a credit-card Pax Americana with its unilateralism as the so-called "New Order".
32 Leadership, Development, Evolution of Culture: The Malaysian Experience
ome time in 1981 Dr. Mahathir, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, urged his countrymen to Look East There was a very good reason for that. It was clear to him and to many of his colleagues that Japan was becoming an important factor in the economy of the world. She was booming and blossoming economically and technologically. Japanese culture, it would then appear, could maximally drive people towards high achievement. There was then hope that Japan would help to lead Malaysia into modernisation and to learn from her mistakes in the spirit of the Fukuda Doctrine of people-topeople and heart-to-heart relations. Japan was taken as the role model of a country whose people had always yearned for modernity. As early as the 6th century the Japanese people had gone into China to borrow knowledge in philosophy and technology. China was then acknowledged as a nation with modern thoughts and knowhow such as Buddhism which came from India, Taoism, Confucianism, the techniques of shipbuilding and navigation. And the characteristic of the Japanese people then and now is that they wanted the latest and the best. After a period of learning and emulating for about three hundred years the Japanese began to integrate those which they brought from outside into their indigenous culture and knowledge. In fact in the process which took several centuries many ideas were rejected by the powerfully entrenched groups even if their number was small. For instance, the land owners would not accept the Chinese model of administration in land control and taxation. Even the teachings of Buddha and that of Tao were Nipponised into Shintoism. The Japanese had by then acquired a new and confident way a life by
* Text of Speech for Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Memorial Lecture Organised by Indian Council for Cultural Relations, New Delhi, India on 12th January 1995.
Leadership, Development, Evolution of Culture / 311
which they felt they could manage and resolve any of their problems. By that time their official, cultural and religious visits to China and Korea had ceased but Chinese thoughts and philosophy had remained until today as seen in Japanese writings and the use of Chinese classical written characters. The Japanese desire for modernisation, noticing the new European industiral revolution, decided to transport Japan away from the medieval Chinese influences and to be a part of the Western modernism with its so-called new knowledge in science and technology. This started the process of westernisation during the Meiji period. Like the period of learning from China, official missions were sent to Europe with special attention to Britain and Germany. These missions brought back ideas of Western governance and military knowledge. Their previous interactive experiences with China and Korea had made the Japanese accept the notion that the outside world had superior knowledge and values. Because of the progress of the West which was enhanced by the industrial revolution the Japanese wanted a short cut to their modernisation. They became obsessed with the idea of emulation or as some would say "aping". Even the dress of their cabinet ministers were changed from the clumsy kimono to the ridiculous striped pants and top hats! This sort of attitude inevitably produced its own internal contradictions. By the late 19th century two schools of thoughts had emerged. One wanted the Japanese society to be completely modernised by advocating a total acceptance of Western values and changing the pattern of behaviour of the Japanese in accordance with the western culture which they regarded as universal. The other trend of thought opposing the complete change to Western culture advocated the retention of what had become traditional Japanese values without which Japan would be faced with decline and eventual disaster. Western ways should be assimilated only if they suited local conditions and aspirations. In this group of thoughts the influences of landed gentries and militarists were evident and they held sway until her defeat in 1945 Western Industrial revolution needed resources and markets. The net result was that colonialism was not only justifiable but regarded as respectable. It was whiteman's burden. Such stories as King Solomon's Mine would embed in the minds of the non-Western world that a handful of whites could be superior to the blacks. Tarzan, the child of an English lord, brought up by a monkey could control nations of blacks and animals even if it is ridiculous to imagine that all kinds
of animals would respond to a single yodelling holler of a whiteman hanging to some jungle vines. Colonialism in China and Japan came in the form of unequal treaties and extra-territorialities. The humiliation meted out by Europeans to the various Japanese missions visiting Europe left a bad taste in the mouths of those who experienced it; but that made the Japanese all the more determined to prove that they were not inferior to any European power. It did not take long for the Japanese ruling elite to begin to understand that the Western industrial revolution had espoused colonialism. Self-confidence had created for the Japanese a high degree of nationalism with the jingoistic culture of arrogance. Japan imagined she had reached that level of parity with the west, particularly when she was appointed as trustees of former German colonies in the Pacific after the First World War. The question that came to the mind of the ruling elites was, if Japan had an Emperor, a hierarchical barons and knights, an industrial programme which included weapon manufacture, a navy which had defeated the Tsar's, an island of traders off a great continent like Britain then should not Japan be entitled to have colonies. Japan having decided to join the ranks of the Western industrialised and modern nations felt justified in aping the West in colonialism and imperialism. Because of that Japan went into a colonial adventure in Korea, Manchuria and China including Taiwan just as Western imperialists had gone into South East Asia, South Asia and Africa. However, Western industrial nations would not accept the idea that any other than the Anglo-Saxons or Europeans had rights to appropriate other lands. Japan, being regarded by the Western industrial countries as a little nasty nation of bespectacled upstart shorties devouring parts of China, Manchuria and Korea, had to be treated with contempt and hostility and their activities thwarted. War Plan Orange which was a US strategy to defeat Japan had been devised and revised since 1897. Having felt the heat of the West led by the US, Japan had to decide whether to expand to the north taking as much of Siberia from the Soviet Union or down south ejecting the British, French, the Dutch, Portuguese and the Americans from the area. To occupy Siberia was to engage in the occupation of a piece of real estate of an independent nation. That would not be colonialism but a conquest with long drawn conflicts to retain it. China was an independent nation but the behaviour of the West in China had convinced the Japanese that China was not independent and therefore fair game. The US who had
given the appearance of wanting to leave the Philippines to the Philippinos would not be too concerned with South East Asia, the Japanese must have surmised; and since Britain, Holland, France and Portugal would in the reckoning of the Japanese be inevitably under the heels of Nazi Germany, Japan decided to go to the South to replace the French in Indo-China even if the Vichy Government was there, the British and the Dutch with Portugal in South East Asia. The Japanese thought she saw the advantages in the southern direction, firstly, it was an area where the natural resources like oil, rubber or tin were in abundance for her industrial and war machines and secondly, if the Japanese could hold out long enough the West would be tired of a colonial war and abandon their colonies to the Japanese. It was as part of the colonial war tactic that a certain Fujiwara was sent to South East Asia to organise fifth columns with a false promise that the colonies would be free with the ejection of Western colonialists. The Japanese Military Government had no plan to liberate South East Asia but rather to replace Western colonialists with the Japanese kind as witnessed in Taiwan, Manchuria and Korea. I would like to recall the Potsdam meeting in 1945 which to me was the real starting point of the Cold War which was a conflict between the US and the USSR without a declaration of war, and without direct armed forces involvement, and without even the rupture of diplomatic relations contrary to the normal practice and rules of belligerency. However, what was the Cold War all about? On the side of the US and her closest ally then Britain by virtue of their Anglo-Saxon connexion, which Churchill referred to as the English-speaking world, represented the industrialised nations which had experienced an extremely adverse situation during the economic depression of the inter-war years. The long queues of unemployed at welfare food kitchens must not be allowed to revisit the two industrialised world. This catastrophy could only be avoided if the products of the industrialised nations would have access to all markets in the world universally unhindered and unrestricted. This has now become a silent agenda. At that time after the destruction of Germany and devastation in France these two, US and UK, could not imagine that other nations too could be industrialised. For want of a better word, I shall refer to this as the approach of "universalism". The other ally in the World War II was the Soviet Union. Her capital was Moscow and the definitive nation was Russia. Russia had
a history of being attacked by the Mongols, the Turks, the Swedes, the Poles, the French and the Germans. Moscow had to encounter even small Asiatic nations and Japan. To the Russians the world had always been against her. It was this psychological factor which accepted the communist revolution after the First World War creating the USSR in order to make Russia safe. The Soviet Union was no more no less a country with surrounding colonial buffer states. This may explain the Russian attitude over the Japanese northern territories, the stern action in Georgia and the latest in Chechnya. In other words the Russian main obsession had always been and will always be "security" and her behaviour will always be determined by this factor. Stalin saw in the Truman's "universalism" a threat to the national security of Russia. In pursuance of the policy of ensuring the security of Russia, USSR was able to control the whole of Eastern Europe. I would call it the policy of "spherism" and such a policy certainly would run counter to the policy of "universalism". To Stalin loan aid with conditionalities was a tool of the universalists to destroy the spherists and vice versa universalists saw in the policy of "spherism" as something restricting the freedom of "universalism". Indeed loan and aid became tools used by both sides in the US and USSR Cold War. I have mentioned a little about Japan. Japan's post-war programme had been dictated by the victors. Her northern territories were taken by Moscow and retained until today by Russia for reason of security. However, the US while requiring Japan to strictly observe the US-Japan Security Agreement and Article 9 of the Constitution had encouraged the economic rehabilitation of Japan. Since her defence posture and therefore its financing were subject to the constitutional control, Japan had a free hand in economic development which in essence was contradicting the US policy of "universalism". Japan's industrial success must be predicated upon the availability of market. However, in terms of the Cold War whose main objective was the demolishing of the iron curtain there was better value in the propaganda war, if through the so-called US free market and democratic programmes, Japan had prospered tremendously compared to the communist-controlled countries. Taiwan and South Korea were similarly viewed. The question of market availability could be dealt with later after the defeat of "spherism" of the USSR. After all Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, in the mind of US policy makers, were her clients and could be manipulated. As the industrial revolution became intense with R&D and dynamic
marketing and networking, Japan became a world class economic power. This time, unlike the previous changes that had taken place in her history of modernisation, Japan did not have the burden of choicemaking, since her political and economic well-being were dictated by an outside power in a victor-vanquished relationship. Japan became what she is today by using the jujitsu stratagem of taking advantage of the Cold War and Article Nine of the US-imposed Constitution. Since Japan began to enjoy the fruit of the success in the industrial development and marketing there have emerged strong evidences that some of the old values are yielding to new. For instance, the scandal arising out of the practice of ex-post facto loss coverage and rigged trading in the securities market reflected the new values of intolerance of a modernised Japan towards such practices. Should we look hard at Japan we would notice that there have been changes in some of those areas where once it was thought would be unchangeable. Let us look at the family system. There is today a very high incidence of the nuclear family. It has become rather rare to see two or three generations living together under one roof or an "ie". Of course it may be argued that this trend towards the nuclear family had started some time ago yet it was clear that the move happened as Japan began to industrialise and modernise; and particularly more evident after the war when Japan accelerated her industrialisation and modernisation programmes in her pursuit for a status to be acceptable by the West. With the outgoing of the family system particularly in the urban areas there developed such trends as liberalised marriages, pre-marital living together, and new attitudes towards inheritance. As ageing is becoming an acute problem in Japan (Female 79 years; male 73.5 years) the caring of the aged has shifted to government and welfare organisations from their children who no longer consider that their aged parents are their responsibility. After all, they did not choose to come to this world, they might argue. The nuclear families in urban areas living in apartments like rabbit-hutches have the problems of relating to each other and, without the guidance of their parents, parents in nuclear families find difficulties in how to raise their children in the traditional Japanese way, particularly so when both parents have to work. The only source of parental education is the television which quite often portray Western ways or the irrelevant revival of very old ways which to the young modern Japanese are only sources of amusement and entertainment. Industrial revolution and modernisation according to
Western style had changed the formalities of marriages and divorces. Divorces today are initiated, not only by men, but, women are also known to sue for divorces because of the rising consciousness of their rights and role. Modernisation of Japan with equal opportunities for qualitative education, work and wages for women has the effect of changing the role of women who no longer feel wedded to traditions. Women in rural areas have values and needs no different from their sisters in the urban areas. There are undeniably, some women in rural or urban areas who still hang on to the old ways because they find security and comfort offered by the traditional role of women. The success of the Japanese industrialisation and westernisation programme to a large measure initially was due to their traditional value system in work ethics and workplace loyalty, which was a kind of interlocking web of obligations placing communitarian values high in group endeavours. Under that system there was little labour mobility and all problems would be resolved together laterally. Since Japan has been received into the club of G-7 and with changing paradigms in labour relations and technology the tradition that brought success to Japan is no longer being talked about a great deal. There are Japanese today whose number is dwindling with age who consider that since changes are inevitable it would be sufficient if they should be well-managed, hopefully, without upsetting too much the values of the past. It is an attitude of resignation: shikataga nai! I have mentioned about the Look East policy of Malaysia. The purpose was not to copy blindly what Japan was doing which brought her economic success. It was to observe the various ways and acts which the Japanese have adopted in the context of their own tradition and legacies. Malaysia has been able to absorb a great deal of Japanese finance and technology. Malaysia admires Japan for becoming a creditor nation and at the same time has been able to resist the desire of being a hegemonic power. Yet generally Malaysia loathes Japan's willingness to be cowed for so long as a vanquished nation. Malaysia wants Japan to stand up tall with Asia as her constituency in the face of new challenges. The Japanese Government in deference to the feeling of the US, has not as yet given support to EAEC. Recently I attended a seminar in Tokyo attended by no less than former Prime Minister Nakasone, former US Secretary of State Baker of the USA and former Prime Minister of Australia Bob Hawke which aimed to find a role for Asia and Japan in the new world order. I was appalled to find Japan, perhaps in a fit of absentmindedness, or is it a freudian slip, to regard herself to be outside Asia. Such a
situation to me is one of the consequences of the recent industrial revolution which made Japan western rather than remaining Asian. Japan is in Asia only in terms of geography. Malaysia also loathes the distortion by Japan of her history during the colonial period. Among other things one important factor should be remembered by developing nations which, like Malaysia, wish to be fully industrialised and modernised from rural and agricultural societies. It is the impact of industrialisation on values and their systems. When the industrial revolution of the West started it was then driven by the values of the pre-industrial period which was basically religious of whatever denominations and therefore communitarian in nature. Communitarianism was also the driving force in Japan. Industrialisation created mass-production which spawned individualism because what was not available before to the masses, mass production had made it possible for most people to satisfy their desires. What was once an object of desire, like a china cup when most people had to drink from an earthen ware, had then become a necessity. Let us look at the air-conditioner or a word processing machine.They were once objects of desire now they have become part of necessity. When mass products of industrialisation become available at affordable prices, life becomes a progress from desire to desire; no longer necessity but desire is the mother of invention. The habit of seeking to satisfy wants develop consumerism. With that the value system changes from one of communitarianism to individualism. "I" and "mine" replace "we" and "ours". The society becomes less and less caring. One TV/Cinema advertisement demonstrates this development very clearly where a filmlet showed a child holding a bottle of drink, which is the object of the advertisement, tells his little friend who has asked him for some of the drink that he could have, yes, but just a little. I had always thought children should be taught through such commercial advertisements, to be generous and caring by offering the delicious drink to his friend who should not indulge in the begging syndrome. This little filmlet, a simple advertising gimmick, was a commentary on the Western society impacted by industrialisation which made the little drama quite acceptable as a norm. What is causing concern is that the logic of industrialisation instinctively is being transferred to become the logic of culture, politics and morals. With electricity songs are being written and sung following the new twanging sounds of the guitar while Michael Jackson and rap music are being aped by young people of the
undeveloped and developing countries who have not as yet gone through the phase of industrialisation, as if the dance movements were the most beautiful although they reflect the ugly grinding movements of the industrial machines. The danger is the transference of those values to the fertile hearts and minds of those who are seeking to achieve modernisation. It is the new valuational system of consumerism and individualism which are becoming the in-thing in the developing world even if these values now retard growth in the industrialised world. I mentioned Japan only to show that so many errant activities have become evident; these activities are the diseases of the modern Western world. "Look East" includes looking into such abberrations when measured against the old values of communitarianism. Japan's official development aid programmes contain almost the same conditionalities as imposed by Western industrialised countries on developing peoples. Human rights are to the West values of the individuals whereas in the pre-industrialised Third World rights and their correlative duties belong to the family, to the community indeed to the nation itself. Brought to its logical conclusion the impact of Western industrial revolution will be hedonism, pleasure and leisure loving, uncaring except for their own ego and individualistic desires even if the modes of acquiring their wants are at the expense of the community. Greed replaces need and nothing is enough. Because of the shifting values brought about by industrialisation all arguments between the developed community and the developing one for instance on the subject of Human Rights, would be circular without a common reference and therefore futile. Potsdam as I said just now was where the Cold War began when at first only political personalities exchanged sarcasms in polite euphemisms. It exploded into the open when Churchill, having lost his job, went to Missouri (US) where he made his "iron curtain" speech in the presence of Truman in March 1946. Stalin openly regarded the speech as dangerous calculated to sow the seed of discord among the allies. The mass-media began to play their roles according to their affiliation and commitment. Contentious subjects were highlighted which made possible in the West the emergence of MacCarthyism. The nuclear arms race started with no side seriously wanting to deploy them but that nuclear arms should serve as deterrence. It was a mutuality of madness with the arms reduction game played according to each player's own rule. The United Nations Organisation,
the Security Council and specialised agencies became tools as well as arenas in the Cold War game. It was the wisdom of the East like that of Panditji which brought some sanity by organising the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Since the Cold War was propagandistically verbal in parts semantics were thrown to the wind and words like Democracy and Human Rights in the Charter of the UN were interpreted on the basis of Humpty Dumpty's Principle in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass":"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone," it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master that's all." And so the Cold War raged on which began with no other reason than to break the "iron curtain" so that the US/UK alliance could freely exercise its "universalism" for the acquisition of natural resources and market. Everything else would be subordinated to winning the Cold War. The Post War industrialisation in Japan, and in South Korea, Taiwan and others who join the ranks of the newly industrialised countries (NIC) would be dealt with at an appropriate time after the iron curtain has been lifted. After all these NIC's were only little Tigers, endangered species whose home should be in the wild or the zoos. If they were dragons then they are only mythical. The terms tigers and dragons were the concoction of the west to flatter and desensitise the developing communities which eventually would succumb to the lure of the dependency syndrome. What began in Potsdam as the Cold War eventually came to an end with the collapse of the USSR and the Berlin Wall. The West again led the chorus that the Cold War was over. Is it? Ye, if it was only a US/USSR confrontational phenomenon. The champions of "universalism" could now turn their attention to those who dared to industrialise without using the odious term "Cold War". The success of industrialisation must be dampenend by any and all means including the mass-media so that the products of the newly industrialised or industrialising communities could not be competitive or efficient or even marketable. These are tactics of cold warriors.
The valuational system impacted by the Western industrialisation would be conveniently used to stultify growth of the newly industrialised or industrialising countries. To each a formidable problem is posed for confrontation without regard to the differences in the level of modernisation or in cultural values. Unilateral action is being threatened like the "numerical targets" approach against Japan, a loyal client, - even at the expense of the Europeans who would inevitably suffer market denials when the European market shares in Japan would be cut down. A trade war with China is looming large because of trade conditionalities related to Human Rights as defined by the West. Malaysia may have to look at her labour laws and policies or else there would be foreign-fanned labour problems. Singapore's attitude towards caning American delinquents would be a festering issue and Indonesia's alleged human rights record in Tim Tim would be an area for political action to slow down her growth. Even post-apartheid South Africa might be queried regarding her nuclear capability and arms production. And so on, and so forth. In this game of market monopoly no one is a friend or an ally not even the European Community. Any community which goes into industrialisation would have to find a market niche and it could be found only with a great deal of difficulty for so long as "universalism" holds the power. The Cold War without calling it as such will continue to rage as the next phase between the universalists which are governed by individualism fashioned by the logic of mindless industrial revolution and others who are considered to be pinching their markets. Let us not be lulled into thinking that the Cold War in its global context is over. Planners for industrial development therefore would have to be wary of the bristling problems that await every move which promises success, and to be prepared with ready responses. One of the ways to obviate problems is to avoid being led up the garden path into blindly accepting that the Cold War is over and accepting cultural semantics of the industrialised universalists and then be subjected to their logic which would stultify growth. The industrialised people's logic in culture already is serving as a brake to their growth what with such selfish attitude towards leisure and pleasure. If communities who are developing towards industrialisation are influenced by such logic they too will suffer slow or minus growth. It was this realisation which motivated Malaysian leaders from the late Tunku, ably assisted by his late deputy Tun Razak who later became Prime Minister, succeeded by the late Tun Husain and now Prime Minister Dr
Mahathir to think of modernisation in terms of communitarianism and national unity and resilience as a contribution towards regional unity and resilience and thereby hopefully towards global unity and resilience. ASEAN which also is projecting the concept of East Asian Economic Caucus (EAEC) is a product of such process of thought. It is timely that we should start thinking of an Asian economic caucus. I have served these four gentlemen in various capacities including the job of a minister responsible for planning and revising economic policies. We inherited a monumental problem of racial separateness from colonial master when we achieved independence in August 1957. This was compounded by external support for the communist insurgency whose organisation was characterised by and identified with a single racial group which was not indigenous. The Cold War made life very difficult. Yet the leadership from the time of the late Tunku until today kept on steadfastly to their sight on the target of modernisation. Each leader, though different in style of action, has been principled, consistent, transparent and forthright in dealing with their own constituencies as well as foreign friends and foes alike. India may recall it was the Tunku who was the first to openly condemn China for her intrusion into the unilaterally claimed area in India; the Tunku also organised a fund raised nationally in support of India. I found in Malaysian leadership a number of points which I shall mention very briefly. They believe in consensual democracy and sharing of power. Hence, it was the Alliance Party composed of the United Malay National Organisation (UMNO) the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) and the Malayan India Congress (MIC) which together shared responsibilities and powers to achieve independence and run the government. In the context of confrontational democracy of the Western kind there was no need for such an alliance or the sharing or power. UMNO alone could have sufficient majority to run the country with the others in opposition. That, however, could never bring about national unity without which there could be no stability which is a sine qua non for development. Confrontational democracy is not conducive to national unity; in our case our people would never understand why their leaders are being publically insulted and public political demondstrations are sure to invite violence. The other point is that the leadership united in their consensual approach evolved policies which could be maximally effective if they were pragmatic and not wedded to any of the ideological programmes which are often idealised on Western logic and therefore irrelevant. However, the late Tunku as the first Prime Minister quite rightly
thought that immediately on attaining independence no drastic change could take place. Priority was given by the Tunku's administration to the establishment of stability and security and the decolonisation of the British Borneo territories. This could be achieved only through a political programme for national unity. The late Tunku's cabinet gave their best endeavours to ensuring that the various communities were united and they came out with the programme for the correction of income differentials between the rural and urban people. When this programme had achieved some measure of success the unintended result came to the fore. The rural natives became restless and evidently wanted more, because what they could not see before was now staring in their faces. There was a clash between the urban and rural people. Since the economic division was on racial lines, it had appeared to all intent and purpose as a clash between the rural Malays and urban Chinese. It was like a seizure and the country had a short break from parliamentary democracy when the government was run by a small National Operations Council (NOC) which was both a legislative as well as an executive mechanism. Tun Abdul Razak was appointed by the King the chairman and I one of its members. It took the NOC twenty one months to produce new political and economic programmes. Since national unity was paramount the political strategy was the broadening of the Alliance Party to include all the major parties who were then in opposition. Except for one major party all others accepted the concept and joined to form the Barisan Nasional (National Front). Parliament doors were opened but certain freedoms were curtailed when sensitive issues like race and religions could not at all be critically discussed in public by one race or a religious group against another. It was during the period of NOC when two major ideas were conceptualised. One was that the people must have a common vision openly declared of what they want and its realisation should be measured against nationally accepted norms. That is Rukunegara which is divided into two parts and is still in vogue today. The first envisions the Malaysian society as united, democratic, creating wealth through the free market system and the equitable distribution of wealth, with a liberal approach towards the diverse cultures and their manifestations and it should be a society which would be progressive and equipped with modern science and technology. That was the society as envisioned for Malaysia and so declared. However, in the various plans and programmes for the actualisation of the vision all thoughts
and actions should be measured according to following principles namely Belief in God, Loyalty to King and Country, Respect for the Sovereignty of the Constitution and the Rule of Laws of the Land and finally, plans and actions to be taken should be decorous and respectful of traditional beliefs and customs. All these apply equally to government as well as the private sectors of all ethnic and religious communities. The King announced the Rukunegara from the throne. Once the public had begun to have a shared vision, the other major idea, The New Economic Policy (NEP) was launched in Parliament and acceptd by the public. It had a simple two-pronged concept with a life span of twenty years of eradication of poverty irrespective of race and the restructuring of society so as to obliterate the identification of race with economic functions. The whole exercise was to be accomplished in the context of Rukunegara so that it would not become an excuse for robbing Peter to pay Paul. The policy was a success. The incidence of poverty, except in one of the states, had actually decreased. Taking the peninsula as an example the overall incidence of poverty has been reduced from 49.2% in 1970 to about 17% twenty years later for a target of 16%. Inflation has been held down and there has been an intensive management of the economy to ensure a degree of protection and safeguard given to consumers. There had been a phenomenally steady investment and growth and during the period of the NEP and until now there has never been a single incidence of a racial clash or riot. Before the end of the NEP period of twenty years the government in keeping with the traditional spirit of togetherness established a National Economic Consultative Council (NECC) whereby people of different backgrounds, interests including opposition political parties academics and journalists were given the opportunity to put forth their views with respect to the accomplishment of the NEP and to make recommendations for a new policy after 1990. The members of the Council were not appointed by the government except certain individuals; organisations, political societies, unions and other national bodies were invited to nominate their respective representatives. The Council comprised of 150 members and I was elected by them to the chair. It took us just over a year to complete the report and recommendations. In line with the Rukunegara which provides the nation with a shared vision the economic and social development policies post-1990 aim to actualise Malaysia as a modern and industrialised nation by the year 2020. This is the main emphasis of Prime Minister Dr.
Mahathir who not only think of a target date but also provides in Vision 2020 a concept of a perfect balanced vision characterising the need for balanced growth and equity so that success would not be at the expense of national unity. Dr. Mahathir also believes that in societal engineering both the government and the private sector have a joint role which is now popularly referred to as "Malaysia Incorporated". The Malaysian leadership, I guess, until the accomplishment of 2020 will have to be guided by values of the pre-industrialisation age in Rukunegara. The period of the NEP had produced the kind of human resources which are technically capable and culturally inclined towards communitarianism in a multi-ethnic and multireligious society. The NEP had produced a common middle class with a shared value system in a corporate world. One can now see in the business and public sectors young men and women discussing their common projects completely blind to race, religion and sex - a sight which was extremely rare before 1970. From the human resource development programme more and more of this group of people will emerge and the country is now all agog and sanguine at the prospect of modernisation although it is some twenty five years away. Taken together with Dr. Mahathir's Vision 2020, the process of managed growth with equitable distribution creating the Malaysian man or woman who shares and cares for one another would have to take more than sixty years. In terms of societal engineering the Malaysian leadership has recognised the need to make haste slowly and with extreme caution. Dr. Mahathir has always been very concerned with the problem of industrial development and market availability. Hence he travels widely with flocks of businessmen in his entourage and makes his crusade very transparent and candid that the future for developing industrialised nations depend on mutually beneficial cooperation between South and South, the easy transfer of knowledge and technology as well as capital in the genuine spirit of cooperation between the South and North, and above all a mutuality of understanding regarding the various valuational systems without which there would be potential clashes. It was his initiative which brought about the South Commission, the G-15 of South Governments, the ASEAN sponsored East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC). The traditional concept of leadership in Malaysia could be traced to the root word PIMPIN in KEPIMPINAN (leadership). The word "leader"
in the western sense is a drover or someone who walks in front or influentially exhorts others to act in a certain way. The native word has an element of walking hand- in-hand which means the leader and the led are linked together. One of our leaders who broke this tradition by adopting the Western concept of leadership found himself alone without a constituency. The traditional leader in a long house or a small vilage is known as "tuai rumah" or "Ketua". The root word is "tua" which relates to old age and therefore experience. But the traditional leader elected from among these members of "tuai rumah" or "Ketua" who need not be old but experienced is a Penghulu whose root word is "hulu" meaning head. So the head is not only experienced but must also possesses cerebral capacity. The Philippinos who in fact belong to the Malay stock ethnically refer to their President as "Pangulo" which is the same word as Penghulu. The question before Malaysians is that whether this concept of leadership who is always together holding hands with the people would change with shifting values. And if the shift took place before its time the question arises whether the nation could achieve its main objective of industrialisation and modernisation by 2020. Realising this and other factors such as the Western industrialised value system discussed just now Dr Mahathir and his colleague forming the Malaysian leadership is tirelessly reminding the people to retain their present values even if they were progressing towards industrialised modernism. Seeing the various governmental and party programmes I detect a real sense of apprehension. There are plenty of debates at the moment but arguments tend to be circular. For instance, the suggestion which emphasises the singular use of English for acquiring knowledge in science and technology in order to achieve early result in modernisation is hotly being opposed by those who believe that the national language has been so developed that for example those who study physics in the national language are at par with those who study it abroad purely in English. Such groups are concerned with the purposiveness of education, the need to study the history and philosophy of mathematics, science and technology so that students would imbibe a sense of pride in knowing that a great deal of knowledge had come from the east. Eastern science, and knowledge in logic and technology have been westernised so much so that we have failed to recognise that in Delhi we have the "Jantar Mantar" where it has become a place for some people to relax and chew betel leaves or "pan".
The main worry these groups have is that books in English are all published by powerful publishing houses of the Western industrialised world. They know that many books are published in India but how many of these publishers have their network of market in the rest of the world. What it amounts to is that the powerful people of the world control our mind if the reliance is solely on Western published books. It is true that knowledge is power and I may add that it is equally true that power determines what knowledge should the world have. Hence we get into a situation where intellectual property has become a commodity. Nobody before the age of so-called "universalism" ever thought of such knowledge as mathematics or medicine or astronomy or philosophy when transferred to the west should be subject to intellectual property rights. The process towards modernisation through industrialisation would expose all Malaysians to the problem of changing values. Some Malaysians may decide to completely emulate the Western industrial revolution mindlessly and to accept the logic of the revolution to be part of the universal human ethos and norms rendering it as acceptable, for instance, unwed motherhood. Other groups may wish to critically absorb those values and reject which are regarded as too obnoxious or bizarre to the senses. And there would be others who believe that there is the option of security in proven practices, which means that modernisation and industrialisation should take place and yet are retained the pre-industrial values. This is considered to be the true path by adherents of orthodoxies or fundamentalisms. To this group the news of the Cola War using Indian beauties is not only ludicrous but hideously obnoxious. Nevertheless, the maintenance of pre-industrial values in the process of industrialisation would require a real plan of action and not merely placebos. The main question before the developing world which is aware of the problem of shifting and conflicting values, is that whether the developing and industrialising countries wish to drift along with the Western industrialised nations with their post-industrial values or should there be measures to deny the impact of industrialisation and modernisation on traditional values. Or should the superficial values be adopted like dressing and eating habits yet retain fundamental values in communitarianism where everyone feels he or she shares a common fate and destiny. I cannot see the West going back to their valuational system of the pre- industrial period. And equally, I cannot envision that the whole
world would be industrialised or even modernised. Black Africa is now being neglected and marginalised. The pre-industrial values will subsist for a long time. Then, I wonder, would there be a dichotomy which makes nonsense the concept of a global village which presupposes shared values? The biggest challenge before us as I see it is how to make the variegation of valuational systems, norms and beliefs co-exist in peace denying the oracle that future clashes would be between differing civilisations.
33 Development and Cultural Evolution
ost of the developed countries while enjoying the fruits of modernisation through industrialisation have had their valuational systems so changed that they no longer recognise those values which they once held dear during the pre-industrial era. Many examples could be cited in Europe, America, and Asia; and Japan could be made a good case study which has seen changes in values from the time the Japanese decided to be modernised in the nineteenth century, culminating in the present day Post-Pacific War period. It was during the Post-War Constitution that she had an opportunity, without having to bear extra expensive costs, like defence, to seek full industrialisation as envisioned during the interwar years, in order to keep up with the modernised West. One of the disastrous consequences which visited Japan was when she decided to be the Britain of the East. During the early period of Western industrial revolution colonialism or imperialism was regarded as respectable. It was a white man's burden to civilise the native through colonialism. To facilitate exploitations, natives were exposed to stories like Tarzan and Apeman, King Solomon's Mine and many tales of Hindu and Muslim princes and peasants who could only survive by the grace of the White Raj and his Pax Britannica. And Japan, as the emerging industrial power in the best tradition of that time in the quest to be Britain of the East, planned to construct a Japanese hegemonic sphere. This she intended to do by removing all the colonial powers in East and South East Asia the British, the Dutch, the Americans, the French and the Portuguese and replacing them by Pax Japonica. That was what the Pacific War all about. By all reckoning a Berlin/Tokyo axis attack on the eastern flank of the Soviet Union would have assisted Hitler in Eastern Europe.
* Text of Speech delivered at Pakistan Society of Development Economists (PSDE) Dinner held in Islamabad, Pakistan on 19th April 1995.
Development and Cultural Evolution / 329
However, an attack on the Soviet Union would be an act of aggression and not strictly in the spirit of acquiring territories in the context of colonialism. If Japan had assisted Hitler by attacking the real estate of the Soviet Union history might be different today. With the fall of Europe to the Nazis and, if there had been no attack on Pearl Harbour, the colonial powers would tire themselves and could easily by dislodged later. However, the impact of industrialisation on Japanese cultural valuational system did not incline her to gain territories which formed part of another power. Thus Siberia was spared. In the case of China because the Western colonial power had treated her as subject to colonialism Japan felt justified in her China colonial ventures. A song of praise by any school of thought that the Japanese Dai Toa Senso (The Great East Asia War) was a war of liberation for colonial peoples is an amphigoric balderdash. It was a war intended to change masters. Industrialisation and modernisation had evolved for Japan changes in her valuational system and one can discern very little difference in the present approach to life between Japan and the West. It is not that Japan has become Western but her values and that of the industrialised West by and large have merged. For example because of the US disapproval of EAEC Japan too followed suit. The Japanese conditionalities for ODA programme are more or less based on the US model which reflect the logic of a people whose cultural values had been impacted by industrialisation. Since Japan began her modernisation the trend in the style of living had been towards the nuclear family. The "ie" system of living together, two or three generations under one extended roof is now a rarity and with that there has developed, attitudes not dissimilar with that of the developed West towards liberalised marriage and divorce, pre-marital living together and unwed mothers, homosexuality and the uncaring of the aged. Yet, should we trace the success stories of all those so-called modern societies which arose out of advanced industrial development we would find that they started their endeavours using certain core values and ethics as found in all pre-industrial societies based on their religious beliefs of whatever denomination or established ways of life. They were communitarian in character. During the beginning of industrialisation there was little labour mobility, and all problems were resolved laterally with workplace loyalty, in a kind of web of interlocking obligations, placing communitarian values high in group endeavours.
I have mentioned Japan because her great strides and changes had taken place quite recently. If one spoke to a Japanese of my age i.e. above seventy, they would simply lament over the changes and express the hope that these changes, being inevitable, would be well managed without upsetting too much certain values of the past. They will be somewhat vague as to what they want, though they will be quite definite on what they do not want. There is an attitude of resignation. I think, the same attitude could be found among all peoples of the new industrial dragons which flash their financial and economic success but, for sure, their societies suffered febrile hiccups and societal cold-sweat as they experienced changes brought about by the impact of industrialisation on culture and values. What is true of Japan and all the Western industrialised and developed countries as I said just now is that at the beginning they were all driven and highly motivated by pre-industrial valuational system. All pre-industrial valuational system whether that of Islam, Christianity, Hinduism or of Confucianism or whatever are communitarian in nature. As industrialisation progressed, transforming subsistence agriculture to industry, mass production took place. With mass production goods not available to the masses before, became available and affordable. Desires could then be satisfied. What was once an object of desire had become a necessity like the China cup, air conditioner, or word processor. No longer necessity but desire has become the mother of invention. Life soon changed from the meeting of needs to the quest for the gratification of desires. Advertising gimmicks clearly reflect this. A food product becomes an object of desire being offered as an option and no longer as simply a necessity. And children in advertising filmlets would show this "want" or even "greed" syndrome. And as the society progresses with industrialisation the old values of communitarianism which brought them success gradually are being replaced by consumerism and individualism with selfishness and interioritism as core values. High ideals like HUMAN RIGHTS or DEMOCRACY came to be interpreted in the context of satisfying individualism instead of communitarianism. The logic of industrialisation then becomes the logic of culture, politics and morals. It becomes logical for vast amounts of money to be expanded to organise elections in the name of democracy yet little importance is attached to the usefulness of governments demoractically formed which should serve the community. A government becomes merely a punching bag. Industrialisation has
made men regard that the important thing in democracy is the right for the individual to vote or be voted and to condemn the government even without justification. Democracy becomes an end and its arenas the Parliaments are reduced to be circus rings for performing antics. According to the industrialised nations democracy should be characterised by confrontations without which it is no democracy. A government without opposition, even if so fairly returned by the voters, would not be classified as democratic. In the hands of manipulative politicians democratic freedom could be transformed into license to destroy democracy. It was this realisation and that confrontations would not permit the achievement of independence, progress and development which inclined the Malaysian leadership since the late Tunku Abdul Rahman to leave a political legacy of power-sharing. The consensual democracy in communitarianism which brought those developed countries the success they now enjoy is forgotten and communitarianism becomes just a word of the past, devoid of meaning and purpose. "I" and not "we" become the most important element brought about by industrialisation. The same logic makes the "I" so supreme that a woman exercising her absolute right of "I" would without shame of inhibition produce an illegitimate child and likewise the legitimsiation of consenting adults in the practice of homosexuality. Let us imagine a nation composed of illegitimate brats and sodomites. Aged parents no longer are the responsibility of their children who claim they did not choose to come to this world, and to boot, they say that parent must have enjoyed their role in procreation! The industrial revolution of the West and later followed by Japan, had brought about a different life-style with its own ethos and norms. It must be admitted that there are people today in those developed countries who alhor the valuational system of the modern industrial age and would wish to return to the' old communitarian values. However, the forces at work are so formidably strong that so far the only thing which could happen is the emergence of spiritual or secular groupings or deviant movements which produce strange and extremist philosophies some with terroristic activities or suicidal tendencies reflecting life without hope. These groupings whether religious or secular are reaching out to satisfy the emptiness of the community spirit which has been drained out by industrialisation. Marx and later Lenin and Stalin had anticipated the negative impact of industrialisation which would conduce men to exploit men.
The economic determinism would take men materialistic, consumeristic, selfishly individualistic. Since Marx was a Jew brought up in the ambience of the industrial revolution of European Christendoms, he tried to retain the pre-industrial valuational system of communitarianism as he understood it. He found the revealed Books of Judaism and Christianity, like hallucinogenic substances would only serve to opiate humans. Marx tried to find the answer by creating an ideology which would distribute wealth among men equitably as mandated in communitarianism. However, what the Marxist ideology failed to do was to instruct as to how to create wealth for the equitable distribution. The ideology was tried for some sixty years among several peoples, notably the former Soviet Union. It failed miserably because communitarianism would require men together to create wealth and together enjoy it. Wealth cannot be distributed equitably if wealth was not created. Robin-Hoodism, the communist method of distributing wealth is simply robbing Peter, the prosperous of his wealth and giving it to Paul, the pauper. In short since no wealth was created, the distribution eventually was not that of wealth but poverty. As an ideology communism miserably failed since the time of Stalin when he once declared, perhaps absentmindedly, that the Soviet Union had attained communism which implied the withering away of laws and regulations and indeed of the state itself. But the contrary then was very evident; there were more than before communism laws and regulations and the communist government did not wither away, but became stronger and excessively oppressive. As for its method, since communism was both an ideology and a method, the only way communism could control people was to deploy totalitarianism and the practice of the dictatorship. Communism was far from being consensual or communitarian. Marx and Lenin had now become fallen idols and communism a failed response to the negative impact of industrialisation of the human way of life. One could be persuaded to the view that industrialisation and modernisation would inevitably destroy the core elements of the preindustrial valuation system of communitarianism. However, the people of Malaysia did not accept that it would be "inevitable" if there was a will to find a way to achieve full industrialisation and modernism without the destruction of the core values of communitarianism. That, of course, presupposes an agreement that several pre-industrial core values which are worth preserving should be kept in constant repair.
Development and Cultured Evolution / 333
The current and immediate problem of the developing world and clearly seen by Malaysians is not that there is no realisation that the core of the communitarian valuational system should be preserved while seeking modernisation but that while we are at the stage of commencing industrialisation, our people are already being imposed upon and exposed to the manifestations of the values of individualism - the product of industrialisation. Individualism with its selfishness and greed makes men and women hedonistic, placing high in priority leisure and pleasure. Core values such as honesty and hardwork, caring and sharing are strange to them. There is a danger that the imposition of and exposure to the values of the developed peoples, growth in the developing world would consequentially be retarded. Cultural manifestations of the modern industrial people, follow closely the sounds and movements of industries. The guitar is electrified and the singing voice has to follow its twanging tremolo. Dance movements are replicas of the movement of the machines. Dress even though expensive has to look shabby and tattered. What, therefore, will happen to the programme for modernisation if at this stage our people have begun to imbibe those values of paramountcy in hedonistic leisure and pleasure? When individual right replaces community right in importance, when democracy is confrontational with acrimonious hindrances to the process for human progress, when the spirit of "togetherness" is absent, in the circumstances, surely development would be in jeopardy. There is another aspect of industrialisation in this age of competition for market-share which has to be reckoned with seriously by developing countries. Industrialisation would mean substituting agriculture with manufacture which would imply industrial wage earning employment. The Cold War which was started in Potsdam in 1945 was to ensure that the depression of the inter-war era causing serious unemployment in England and the US would not recur. The Cold War was started with the aim of ensuring a worldwide market for industrial products without the iron or bamboo curtains. With the availability of market employment is assured. After the collapse of the Berlin Wall there emerges a new threat to the concept of the universal market. The industrialisation of the developing world would also need market and would certainly encroach into the markets of the developed world. The Cold War which is over between Washington and Moscow would in such circumstances certainly descend on such usurping and subversive developing countries. Development assistances are already bristling with conditionalities aimed at
making industrialisation progress slow. Development assistances would seem to be easier if they were accepted with the aim of improving the supply of natural resources. A success in industrialisation means the people who were once subsistence farmers have been transformed into wage earners. Perhaps even their lands are being developed into industrial estates. Some are left to lie fallow or even neglected. Should the industrialisation programme of the Third World obtain a niche in the world market all would be well. However, if the market was denied to them then there would be unemployment with adverse economic and social problems. Developing countries, it would seem to me, while pursuing a programme for industrialisation should also have a very clear plan that there is room for agriculture to continue and to be upgraded to modern methods and improved produce. In times of adversity we cannot chew microchips. We would need potato chips. There was once a raging debate in my country among national planners. It was a question whether the planning should bring about modernisation through industrialisation at the total expense of agriculture. According to some people since industrialisation might negatively impact on culture, and the best form of culture is agriculture, the national aim should be limited to modernisation of agriculture. Eventually there was consensus that the societal engineering would aim to create a united people as envisioned in Rukunegara and now more definitely refined as "Vision 2020". "Vision 2020" indicates that by the year 2020 Malaysia would be modernised. "2020" does not only specify the time frame but also stipulates that the modernisation through industrial and agricultural programmes should not be implemented otherwise by thought and action in a balanced manner as in a perfect ophthalmic vision. The Malaysian situation is such that there are a variety of ethnic and cultural adherents living in different parts of the country with differing degrees of socio-economic standards. Ethnically and regionwise, the playing field has to be levelled and no attempt should be allowed to shift the goal posts! Unless a balanced approach is made there would be no national unity, without which there would not be any sustainable growth and development. Inspired by the ancient adage "Bersatu Bertambah Mutu", (roughly translated, the value of humans is enhanced through their unity) the government - a product of power-sharing arrangement in the form of Barisan Nasional with the scale as its symbol, has included the concept of "Malaysia Incorporated" as one of the instruments for the
realisation of Vision 2020. The Federal Government as well as the governments of the component states of the Federation of Malaysia are moving forward, hand-in-hand with the private sector, in the ambience of the free market system towards 2020. The key words are "total development" and not just industrialisation. Should developing countries consider that there is merit in retaining some of the core values of pre-industrialisation the first thing to do would be to determine what constitutes those core values. The problem is complex and compounded in countries with multiethnic and multi-cultural population particularly when their respective cultures are ancient and well-tested. Continuous and constant dialogues are imperative. Having decided on these values by consensus the planning and action programmes should include the inculcation of those values in all endeavours. Students and others should be made to understand the purposiveness of education, the history of knowledge so that they will appreciate that knowledge did not solely originate in or the monopoly of the present developed countries. The sciences of medicine, mathematics, astronomy and many more, are products of the minds of Eastern people who never claimed any intellectual property rights since knowledge should belong to all and sundry. The retention of communitarian values in the process of industrialisation in our country, say country X, may make country X into an island amidst others who by their mindless industrialisation no longer practice communitarianism as a way of life. If country X should become a role model then newly emergent developed countries would practice a valuational system which is no longer acceptable by those who have been mindlessly developed before them with scant attention to the impact of industrialisation on valuational systems. They certainly would quarrel, for instance, on the semantics of Human Rights without a common reference which would render it a quarrel without end. There would be a dichotomy in valuational system which would be reflected as a dichotomy in civilisation making a global village an impossibility. A village pre-supposes a common and shared values among the inhabitants of the village. The situation would get more complicated when the marginalised backward peoples are taken into consideration. They have value systems of the primitive kind as found before the advent of religions and ways of life. Anxieties and concerns have been expressed by many people, some of those are from the developed world, that the present trend in
development emphasising only on industrialisation would impact negatively on cultural and valuation system. Since advancement is measured by the progress in industrial development many countries now plunge into industrialisation without really preparing for its impact on the evolution of culture. To be concerned with the problem is but only the beginning. The next stage is close consultations and exchanges of experiences between and among both the developed and the developing peoples. One world with differing peoples and beliefs living in peace and prosperity, will need not just industrialisation but total development, and a renaissance of the Cardova kind, where the seeking of knowledge and the strengthening of cultural values are regarded as supreme human endeavours. In a world of divergent peoples what is needed is not the hegemonic idea of globalisation based on domination of the strong over the weak, through force or intimidatory methods or powerful propaganda. A system of values imposed on the weak may create an impression of peace and tranquality; but it is fragile - even false. The globe is peopled by many with differing beliefs and colours, although they may wear the same styled jeans or hair cut or uncut; or dance in the same way to the same music. Wearing the same style of dress or haircut will not erase prejudices. To avoid acrimony arising from prejudices and misunderstanding arising out of cultural differences, tolerance is not enough, since tolerance has a threshold. What is needed is a deliberate action programme for accepting these differences and understanding them which would serve as the basis for mutual respect. Without this mutuality of respect for one another and his valuational system it is not likely that peace will abound. The challange for all of us is, whether we regard ourselves as the North or the South, East or West, First World, Second World of Third World, is that in "togetherness", we should seek that mutually reinforcing programme for actions in the quest for a just peace and prosperity, based on the appreciative comprehension of each other's values and their systems leading to mutual respect. Knowledge and information technology have men split the atom. They should also unite mankind. We are all in the same global boat sharing a common fate and destiny.
34 United Nations Fifty Years - Political Perspective
ifty years after the birth of the United Nations (UN), the present Secretary General has made a pathetic plea to the world in a speech to Rotary International in October this year that UN was so short of money that it might have to close shop. How could the UN act on any of the decisions when it has not been given the wherewithal to act effectively. Not less than seventy member states default on their dues amounting to US$3.7 billion. The previous Secretary General made a similar appeal when he referred to UN as belonging to all members. Just as the failure to support the League of Nations, the failure to support the UN would bring the same fate which would haunt the future of mankind. To add to all the various commitments the UN Compensation Commission is obliged and has agreed to pay US$8.2 million to about 2,100 claimants who have proved serious injury or death of a close relative due to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. People who were forced to flee Kuwait - Iraq numbering about 200,000 are entitled to US$771 million in compensation. But where is the money to come from besides its irrationality as a UN burden? Therefore, when we hear heartrending stories of refugees and displaced persons in Africa, Asia and the Balkans, we often wonder why the UNHCR officials were making such a fuss of being under-supplied and having to pay bribes to their good deeds. UN can do no more than what provisions are available to them from members. The story of UN is not all about failures. Many specialised agencies have over the years provided excellent services to humanity, some in dramatic ways but mostly in the quiet still of the forests and desert, taking care of health, children, education, agriculture, pests, environment, some in close collaboration with NGOs.
Paper presented at MRSC-IKD International Conference "The UN at Fifty - Time for Change" held in Kuala Lumpur on 3 November 1995
I have been following with interest the role of UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) with its headquarters in Bangkok and I know how difficult it is for its officials to face the challenges before them. My heart aches when I hear stories of helplessness and frustrations. And I rejoice when they are compensated by some successes, qualified they might be, like the provision of pumps for drinking water. Stories of that kind never get published since the media do not find them sensational enough although their impact could be far-reaching in human terms. It is the selective nature of the reportage that the UN gets a distorted picture of itself and the unwarranted demoralisation of the majority of people who receive the electronic or printed news services. With the end of the Moscow-Washington Cold War, many of these specialised agencies have lost their usefulness in terms of the Cold War and with a waning or conditional support the specialised agencies too had gradually become marginalised, e.g. UNICEF in Cambodia is rarely heard of. It is a pity that some years ago before the collapse of the Berlin Wall the US withdrew its membership of UNESCO and impaired it somehow. Without the East-West rivalry how beneficial it would have been in the world of education if the US could, through UNESCO, play a role. After all the hope for the future lies in the field of fundamental education. The UN was inaugurated in San Francisco fifty years ago with the victors of World War II together with some others pledging their determination to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and affirming their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth in the human person and equal rights of human irrespective of gender and of people large and small. They were committed to unite their strength to maintain international peace and security and that armed forces should not be used, save in the common interest. UN was also determined to promote social progress and better standard of life in larger freedom employing international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples. The UN was to be the centre for harmonising the actions of nations in the attainment of peace and security. Clearly, UN when it was established had two main functions. The main task was political and security in preventing and removal of threats to peace. It also was to bring about, by peaceful means, the settlement of international disputes. The solving of international economic or social or humanitarian problems was the second task but in this field the UN has not been attracting too much attention.
United Nations Fifty Years / 339
I have already expressed by opinion at the Military Staff College, Kuala Lumpur, on the role of UN after the collapse of the Berlin Wall more than a year ago, I see no reason to alter my views. In my view, the United Nations Organisation during the fifties and sixties was able to function as envisioned at the time of its inauguration. UN had met with success everywhere and its presence felt whenever there was an international dispute be it in Kashmir, Sinai, Palestine, the Congo or Cyprus. Even now there are still areas wheren UN could be very effective, for example organising democratic elections. Malaysia herself was beholder to the UN when the Secretary General (U Thant) was requested to reaffirm the wishes of the people of Sabah and Sarawak to enable Jakarta and Manila to welcome and recognise Malaysia in 1963. The UN Malaysia Mission led by Michaelmore, a special representative of U Thant, reported that Malaysia had been the issue in the elections in North Boreno and Sarawak which were freely and impartially held. That was a difficult job well done. While recognising the extremely good work done by the UN, not only in the political but more so in the economic, humanitarian arenas, one could not help wondering if the UN had not kept up with the times. It is this which conduced the Prime Minister Mahathir to mention in Catagena recently at NAM and elsewhere before and after. Looking at Bosnia-Herzegovina the Prime Minister expressed not only his but the frustrations of the world, including that of the US Senate and Congress. The Prime Minister lamented that in Bosnia more than three years of butcheries, rape and rampage by Serbs were tolerated while the UN and NATO argued as to who had the higher authority to act. Judging from the way the UNPROFOR was mandated which was only to escort aid supplies without power to use ... if blocked. The present UN and Security Council could not longer be entrusted with the task of forestalling such tragedies. I am inclined to the view that UN has been blind to the question of justice and is quite impotent to deal with the question of the threat or breach of peace. Has UN outlived its usefulness and therefore should be disbanded? No one would answer that in the affirmative as if UN had to be ditched into the bin of history. All that needs to be done is the refurbishing of the Organisation to render it relevant to the need of time. An Organisation of the like of UN is much needed and if today there was no UN, the world community has to invent one.
The problem is how to make the present UN work in accordance with the need of time. The present UN is the creature of a thought process of 1945 as held by the euphoric victors after a world war. It was the winners who thought of the structure of the UN including the Security Council loaded to their advantages. They based their logic on the then dominant pattern as if that status would subsist forever and the five power which were the victors of the war. They were not prepared to share power with other members on the basis of one nation one vote in the Security Council. Since the victors were soon divided into two camps in another kind of war - the Cold War - the Security Council, the General Assembly and all the Specialised Agencies became battle-grounds and the rule of the veto became convenient and useful to both sides of the cold-warring factions at the expense of the rest of the world. For so long as power and unelightened self-interest were supported by guns and guantlets and arrangement would be convenient when might was right. There has, however, been in the last 25 years a changed paradigm and the new measure of power is money. Now the memberships have included the vanquished and some have become giants financially and economically. Yet the Security Council is behaving as if it was still in the first twenty-five years of its life. Furthermore when the world is getting really serious about issues of fundamental liberty and democracy the veto right has obsolutely become a contradiction. In fact, members of Security Council have not lost their right to preach democracy and certainly rich members have no business to include the process of democratisation as a condition for aid and trade. It is this out-moded practice which paralysed the Security Council into a political coma. If the world organisation is composed only of the victors of the last war, I can understand but could never agree to the logic in the undemocratic practice of veto. Even then, I would question the presence of Russia sitting together with the US, UK, China and France. After all, Russia was not in the team as we all understood it.lt was the Soviet Union not Russia although Russia was a component state of that union. And so was Ukraine and Belarus this is the kind of anomaly which UN has been burdened with as much as China continuing to be seated as advisor in the side of North Korea in Panamunjom after Communist China had replaced Nationalist China in UN. If the determining factor which constitute a rightful place as a permanent member of the Security Council, then a nation, victor or
vanquished of the last war which now has the wherewithal to be regarded as a modern power, then Japan and Germany have better claim than Russian to be included as permanent members. Nevertheless, the principle of veto must be banished to provide the UN with respectability and indeed the credibility to "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of NATIONS, LARGE
AND SMALL".
Reading some of the speeches at the UN Fifty years anniversary, nearly everyone mentioned the need to reform the Security Council. Some also spoke of the need for the developing nations to be represented in the Security Council. Certainly all that is needed and more. Democracy should be seen in action in the UN. It was strange to hear in the assembly of UN, Clinton and Yeltsin, were arguing, not about the defects or shortcomings of the Security Council and how to remedy them, but about whether the Russian troops should or not be under NATO command in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We are indeed back to where we were just before the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Perhaps the fate of Bosnia-Herzegovina might have been different today if the rivalry between Moscow and Washington was still in place. Ironically, Bosnia-Herzegovina might still be saved if Moscow and Washington were at daggers again. Anyway in respect of those two members of the Security Council, it was not to UN they went but New York's Hyde Park to ponder on the problems of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It showed how little faith they had in the Security Council in which they have veto powers. It is therefore clear that the UN and the Security Council can be or do no more than what the members want them to be or do. As mentioned earlier, the less spectacular successes of the UN are important; however, even in those areas there is need for reform. The world with its diverse cultures and differences in economic and social standards is not yet a global village but in many areas, such as the problems of the management of national disasters, migration, drugs, terrorism and other negative matters which transcend borders there is a need for better coordination with data and early warning sytems and personnel, in particular to prevent a breach of the peace. As I have suggested, it might be useful to consider at least regionally early warning system to prevent a serious breach of the peace and stability. Related to this, a regional aggroupation such as ASEAN should consider the formation of a modest-sized peacekeeping force with political advisers attached and observer groups. Right now, the UN being overburdened would certainly welcome such an arrangement to which powers could be delegated to.
Let not the kind or UNPROPFOR be designed by the Security Council again. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, the standing joke is that the letter "s" should be included after UN to stand for SELF. I cannot help reflecting on the Security Council and the absurd decision it took on Bosnia-Herzegovina when the arms embargo was imposed on a member state of UN when attacked by another country. As a member, the Charter is clear that Bosnia-Herzegovina has the right to defend herself and to make an alliance for self-defence. But in the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina this was not to be. Instead UNPROFOR was established and despatched to Bosnia Herzegovina to ensure the supply of humanitarian aid reaching the few designated towns. To demonstrate the absurdity of the situation in respect of the mandated towns, let us imagine that Malaysia is undergoing the same experience. Only Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Seremban, Kuching and Kota Kinabalu are designated towns and Malaysia is not permitted to import arms and the wherewithal to defend her borders. Nor will Malaysia be allowed to form a defensive alliance. Yet the UN will not defend her. The situation would indeed be grim for Malaysia and the people living in the country. Nevertheless, in a nutshell, the world still needs a United Nations Organisation. It should have not only an effective General Secretariat with the right resources, both human and money but also a Security Council that is capable of preventing the breach of international peace, the control of nuclear disarmament, drug trafficking, peace-keeping, the promotion of human rights and democracy and not least the response to international humanitarian emergencies transcending borders. It is definitely a futile exercise to defend today the structure and functions of UN as designed fifty years ago. Even the specialised agencies have to face challenges very different from the time when they were constituted and many reports have been written about them. The Secretariat General itself would have to come under scrutiny, not by learned bodies or institutes such as the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation or the International Development Cooperation of the four Nordic Countries, whose reports usually find their way to collect dust in archives or libraries but the General Assembly itself could resolve to take appropriate measures to render UN to be effective and relevant to the needs of time. In particular the permanent members of the Security Council should have the will and guts to implement resolutions, no matter how disadvantageous they may be in respect of certain members. If UN is to continue in its present form and function it could certainly grow to be less and less relevant and what may be
worse is that it would cause so many international problems that instead of playing the role in the promotion and perservation of peace, it might lead nations to war against each other. In December 1991, the General Assembly made a resolution with very comprehensive guiding principles to strengthen the coordination of humanitarian assistance of UN but it is not at all transparent if there has been a will and clear political vision to implement the Resolution (A/46/182)). There have been many studies relating to UN Reforms. Not too long ago the four Nordic countries sponsored a study on the role of UN and the UN Economic and Social Fields. Other than the results of the project have been published into three books and there are excellent proposal, it is not known if the so-called leaders of UN have the will to implement its recommendations. Although I have, myself, made suggestions but I recognise that it is equally futile to make ad hoc proposals to patch things here and there. The UN requires a complete overhaul if it was to serve mankind effectively . Otherwise is would continue to be a tool by some power which does not deserve to be in the position of wielding so much authority as the veto. It is worthwhile that the General Assembly should collect and collate those proposals for UN reforms made by heads of Governments at the 50th Anniversary and to turn them into a single overall remedial approach with an undertaking by all Governments that UN would be so refurbished and strongly supported. Never again UN should be so used as in the Kuwait when Desert Shield could by manipulation become Desert Storm. Never again UN should be defeated as in Somalia. Never again UN should be a tool for whatever motives as in BosniaHerzegovina when the Security Council showed its helplessness and in a fit of crude stupidity indirectly supported ethnic cleansing by insisting that a full member of the UN should be deprived of the right of self-defence. Eventually, it is UN which suffers humiliation and frustrations. Never must the most respectable agency of UN - namely the International Court of Justice suffer impotency at the altar of political expediency, when war criminals could not be produced before it as in Nuremburg when the victors could rope in the war criminals among the vanquished. In the present situation to show how outmoded is the UN there would be no victors nor vanquished but dead people perpetrated by war criminals free and at large because those criminals have become important nuts and bolts in the wheel of political history.
We have just concluded fifty years of the life of the UN which impacted on the lives of countries and people. Countries and people will have many, many more fifty years to come. If UN is to be regarded as a living thing and not a mere tool than it has to grow as all living things do. Growth means change. A tree without growth is a dead wood which can become wooden goods or left to be floatsomes as driftwoods. The challenge before us is how to help nurture the growth of UN or we shall have on our shoulders just a piece of organisational carcass whose deterioration would emit such putrid air that humans who once extolled the organisation would be suffocated by it. That is not an inheritance we, of this generation, should leave to the generation of the future. If the original designers of UN did not envisage a different world in less than fifty years, then we of this generation conscious of the continuing paradigm shift should in the revitalising of UN have provisions to keep the world body in constant repair, and in selfupdating so as to be always relevant to the need of time and challenges.
35
Some Thoughts on Politics and Government in the Next Millennium
he one thing I am certain of the next millennium is my uncertainty. A millennium is much too long to gaze into. Even a century is long enough. As far as I know every government, every empire and kingdom had never lasted as long as a millennium. What anyone could try to envision, at best, is a three decade future. Knowledge and sciences are changing so very fast that one just cannot imagine the picture of the future that far off as a millennium. The last millennium had heen a slow process in the beginning. However, towards the second half things began to speed-up, what with steam engines, trains, automobiles, electricity, computer - all these happened on top of one another. The last decade saw the tremedous revolution in information technology denying the beliefs of the last few centuries that people could be isolated by being organised into states. State boundaries are now porous and no people could be kept from knowing as to what is happening to their neighbours and even those far afield. The Vietnam War was seen in the parlours of homes where summary executions like that which happened in My Lai nauseated witnesses in far away places. It is correct that we should begin to rethingk about ourselves. While the future cannot be based on the dominant pattern of today, the recent past had told us that change is inevitable and comes swiftly. The challenge before us is whether the change could be engineered according to the pattern which we desire or shoudl we allow the process of change to take its own course, determining the kind of paradigm in which we have to exist or to survive. If the process of change was unengineered and the consequences unenvisioned, or rather unknown would humans live in fear of that
* Paper delivered at the Barisan Nasional Seminar 1996, held in Kucing, 3-5 April 1996
unknown? What will that fear bring about when nothing springs to mind as to how the fear of the unknown could be allayed? The elements that would make up this fear are varied and many depending on the society and the environmet. The fear may be brounght about by unemployment, rampant incurable diseases like HIV, shortage of food due to lack of agricultural land or caused bay population explosion. The distruction of the ozone layer is a very serious matter. Human unorganised would be chaotic and in a state of panic in fear of calamities. Any of these negative elements and many more would cause concern and calamity. Human beings are sociable creatures. They cannot truly survive without interacting with their fellow humans. Perhaps a few could and even enjoy eremitism but that is the exception. The rule is that humans would seek association with other humans; they may break into subgroups or tribes but the concept exists in their being aggrouped. A quarrel or even a war is a manifestation of interaction albeit negatively. Interactions require regimes. When people begin to organise themselves that act of organising requires a regime. To determine these regimes humans would seek consensus or hegemony through a mechanism or a government. If the mechanism was in the form of a democratic government there usually would be some regulatory arrangements to bring about a change of the mechanism. When change could not be affected by the established rules the people or a person managing the mechanism or government would be forcibly removed. There was a time in the history of Europe and Asia when assassinations were a method of bringing about change without anyone taking offence except the people affected by the change and their supporters. Even today the process of changed by force is still being practised as witnessed in the recent assassination of Yitzak Rabin. However, change by bullets in now becoming the exception since the introduction of the ballot boxes. As I unterstand it the definitation of politics is the human efforts to achieve and maintain power. Because of the speedy paradigmatic changes taking place it seems imperative that there should be a constant review of the ways and means of continuing these competitive efforts so as to be relevant. I think the role of politics or human efforts to capture and maintain power will continue into the next millennium. However I shall not hazard a guess as to how long the present known practices would endure. That I believe must depend a great deal on whether the future promises the efficacy of the
Some Thoughts on Politics and Government / 347
ballot boxes or the bullets to bring about changes in the power struggle. Power per se is of little value; it is only a means to an end. It becomes extremely valuable when accompanied by influence which per se is of considerable value. Power shared endures. It seems to me that if humans continue to be exclusively selfish the next century will centainly be a world divided would be so great as to create hopelessness and despair among the marginalised HAVENOTS. The HAVES would possess all the technology to create and control wealth and its undue distribution managed only by a few humans depending on one source of power-ELECTRICTY. This will tempt the HAVENOTS to defeat the HAVES by destroying the technologies and the few people who run them and electricity the source of energy or power. Indeed, the destruction would be aimed at obliterating knowledge which is the power of the HAVES. When I think of the mass murders in Cambodia perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge they strongly suggest to me that Pol Pot had been unable to cope with the challenges of the modern time since his experience were limited to that of a HAVENOT in an inequitable colonial territory and industrialising world. The only solution to him in the darkness of his thought was to obliterate those who could contribute towards kowledge with which he would always be unfamiliar. Genocide is aimed to cleanse the society of those who could contribute towards the creation of a HAVES society. History is full of such stories. The Mongols who were unable to cope with the modernity of that time went on a rampage destroying books and sources of science and knowledge in Baghdad and other centres of civilisation. The Pol Pots and the Mongols were regarded as barbarians but in essence they were the HAVENOTS. Mao, Nehru and Sukarno and many African leaders could only understand the problems of their peoples by bringing back the conditions with which they were familiar, These leaders who were able to demolish colonialism could not be societal reconstruction engineers. Mao's cultural revolution was to keep the wheel of revolution always turning never silently and from the country side representing the HAVENOTS. Sukarno also believed in the noisy unending revolution. The necessary rethinking is to consider a number of issues which may be germane to our future well-being. The best way is to imagine ourselves to be in the year 2020 and to examine whether the present concept of states and governments would be still relevant. If you ask me, I think, both states and government would continue to subsist and be relevant although there are today many prophets who say that
both government and states would wither away as Marxists once predicted. For the best part of the next century in order to meet the new challenges government and states if they were not there would have to be invented. Otherwise there would be an absence of mechanisms or authorities to organise preventive or corrective measures and these measures could only be effective if they were given specific territorial jurisdiction to apply them. What is most necessary is positive cooperation not mere coexistence. Without cooperation there would not be existence, coexistence which was once fashionable as insular existence without caring should now read cooperative existence with the spirit of caring and sharing. States of territorial definition and mechanism for governance are both necessary and essential for the management of the world for a long time to come. There are of course adjustments to be made and old beliefs discarded. Boundaries of a state would be more porous and subject to transmigration, information technology, shifting of atmospheric elements brought about by global-warning or pollution. The concept of knowledge and its transferbility would have to be revised and there should be a global approach towards many of these subjects so that there would not be negative gaps subsisting in some parts of the globe. The impotence and irrelevence of states and government would make UNO or any international or regional organisations to evaporate and without governments there would not be any interactivities. Humans would be unorganised and in a state of chaos. There would be no meaningful interaction and that chaotic atmosphere would invite the barbarians or the HAVENOTS to take over power and provide a sort of governance. Politics or the effortts to achieve and maintain power both nationally and internationally would have to undergo revision. All political issues will have to be re-examined to rid them of the elements of hypocrisy in such matters as human rights and budgetting for employment or defence or energy when the real motive is undue profitability for the few. Even the style of politicking would have to change. No longer money politics should be allowed in the pursuit of local power and hegemonic aids in international relations like ODA with conditionalities should be frowned upon. To show how decadent politics in confrontational democracy have become let us just look at the way power is being pursued during elections. By the time a person has gone through the primaries in the political party elections he is so dented and dirtied that no longer is
he worth voting for as the head of a government. And during elections policies get distorted and real issues set aside which might affect the image of the candidate. Politicians and politics are now trapped in an imaginary reality of their own making according to their limited experiences. Neither Mao nor Stalin nor Sukarno should be blamed for their shortcomings. The ideological stances of the present politicians are just as illusory as they are unreal. The old Marxists called for socialisation and centralisation, the present politicians call for liberalisation, deregulation or privatision; they are both right because they are the products of the industrial revolution. But the next decades, centuries and millennium men may no longer be concerned with the industrial revolution. There is a new civilisation emerging which will make nonsence of what present people hold dear in their rhetorics. What politics and governments of our time should be concerned with on the long term fate of the world is not in context of gaining popularity in a five year to five year elections. They should be concerned with fighting against resistence to change and with the kind of alternatives which should meet the new challenges in the coming years. Some of these questions relate to population explosion and demographic changes, migration and labour mobility and deleterious drugs. With better health services there would be less infant mortality and more old-aged people who need helath care and caring welfare. With more mouths to feed, politics and government should be concerned with food security. It would indeed be very serious if there was a shortage of food in the world. The position of supply should be improved so also must be the efficacy and equity of distribution with its transportation. The problem of food sufficiency should be a serious matter for all Malaysians so that we could be a positive contributor to the well being of our fellowmen, not just Malaysians. We should study the amount of land that would be suitable to grow food which should be of the improved variety as a result of biotechnology. A food productions plan with its R & D should be devised without sacrificing our desire to industrialise. Governments should also be concerned with the balancing of budget and the minimisation of debts so that posterity would not be over burdened with them. All these require a hard look at our human resource and its capability. To meet the requirements of the future we certainly need the kind of education for technology and its innovations. Educatios here includes training and retraining for people who might be redundant in one job so that it would be less painful and more flexible
in any mobility or changes. Education at any level should have a purposiveness beyond the aim of higher wages and social status: likewise the industrial and manufacturing culture should not be purely to increase productivity. Everyone at every level through education should be conscious of his or her responsibility to the human race irrespective of gender, excercising rights and correlative duties as if the world is not made up of states. Yet states and governments there must be. This means that nationalism with it's solidarity against imperialism, colonialism or hegemonism will continue but in solidarity with patrioritsm, this time directed to the positive management of the future. It is through states that international cooperation should be encouraged which means that state institutions and government should be strengthened, made more effective, transparent and incorruptable. There should develop a new consciousness of active cooperation without any distinction between the North and South which is a term denoting the HAVES and the HAVENOTS. The South should work closely with the South as well as with the North. The South Centre in Geneva should be well-supported by both North an South as a think-tank for economic and social development in due proportation. Malaysian leadership nationally as well as internationally has always advocted the principle of positive togetherness and the sharing of power. This should always characterise the Malaysian polity as a culture. Dr. Mahathir's thoughts are reflections of this principle. It was in this spirit which Malaysia had proposed the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) and the ASEAN supported proposal of East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC). Both instances are intended towards the creation of a better world with it's positive cooperation for peace. While big powers discuss to reduce the risk pf war by reducing armaments we advocate the increasing of zones of peace until one day these zones could be stitched together to form a single zone of peace while the big powers would have reduced their deadly weaponaries. The whole of Asia, indeed the world, would find comfort and peace of mind in China and Japan sharing positive thoughts on the basis of common and shared ideals in EAEC. In the spirit of cooperative coexistence a party could render agreeably any disagreement in the presence of EAEC friends who absolutely understand the meaning of face. A close look at the EAEC will divulge the aim of peace in this region of East Asia beginning as an economic causus. Everyone in this region is extremely aware that peace could be assured if there was postive
Some Thoughts on Polities and Government / 351
cooperation in one club of East Asians where China and Japan could belong and interact with the rest of East Asia. This is not a matter for suspicion but for the sake of world peace should be encouraged. Peace cannot be assured by name calling and public chastisement or sending aricraft carriers. Those days are over. Malaysian, ASEAN or East Asian leadership should never lose heart in the quest for peace for Asia. Peace has to be nurtured and kept in constant repair. No rethinking is needed in this direction, only resolve and determination. The coming years would no longer be a period of industrial revolution but of technological revolution. The speed by which technology changes is phenomenal now that there is a breaktrough in information technology. Virtual Reality will soon be real enough and if our children are educated in the same culture as that of the industrial revolution then the year 2020 would be our industrial age when those who are industrialised today would be miles away in a different age altogether. As Malaysia enters the next millennium some attention should be paid now as to the impact of industralisation on culture and values. They must surely change unless deliberate efforts are being made to preserve them. Like all societies including those of the Western World and the Japanese, they began in pre-industrial days with communitarianism as an ideal. Indeed this cultural norms is found in all religions and beliefs because all religions are preindustrial. However, industrialisation makes humans into consumerist animals. What was once a desirable object as a result of industrialisation the object has become available which in turn becomes a necessity. How many of the people used to aircorn could now sleep in rooms without aircon. In other words, what was once the object of desire has become a need. The satisfaction of that desire changes humans into sonsumerist animals. Desire and not necessity becomes the mother of innovation and consequently desire rules the motivation of man. He begins to think a great deal of and for himself and the satisfaction of his desire. Consequently communitarianism takes a backseat if not abandoned altogether. Individualism rules the day. Selfishness or "I" takes over while communitarianism or "we" ceases to be of any importance. When this attitude takes control of one's life then the most important thing is that which relates to his or her satisfaction alone. That satisfaction is regarded a person's right. Homosexuality, child-bearing without marriage, homosexual and lesbian marriages are some examples of individual rights which have crept into the life
of the industrialised society. Even the Japanese with their steadfast attitude towards the "uniqueness" of the Japanese culture is not immune from the change brought about by the impact of industrialisation. The "right" when it becomes a group attitude is then translated into municipal law, legalising those activities which were once frowned upon when those societies were preindustrial. These rights are then given the name of human rights stretching the meaning of fundamental human rights, and soon the new attitude becomes a new way and belief which finds a home in the culture. It then becomes an ideology which creeps into the politics of international relations. The failure to recognise it becomes opprobrious and those who do not subscribe to it would be subject to unilateral action. Today we see it being practised by industrialised world in the preindustrial developing peoples. It is now one of the conditionalities of ODA. Yet if examined in historical terms those peoples from the industrialised world which extol their present "human rights" were worse offenders before they became industrialised. Therefore, the comtradiction is not between Eastern and Western values but between values of pre-industrial society and industrialised society. These freedoms and rights brought about by industrialisation at the expense of communitarianism would certainly render drugs and HIV invincible and unmanageable reminiscent of stories of Sodom and Gomorrah, Noah's Ark and the Great Flood and the Black Death which potentially may shrink the 'technology civilisition' into oblivion. In this regard the question for us and our leadership is as we merrily gallop towards industrialisation are we going into the future in a fit of absent-mindedness or fully conscious as to the impact of industrialisation on our society. Are we prepared to discard some of our archaic values and if so should we not make a study and a public choice as to the core values to be nurtured by the society through education or conditioning of habits? Dr. Mahathir Mohamad in his book The Challenge (Pelanduk Publications 1986) wrote that the system of values must not be allowed to change in a casual manner according to the fancy of any individual. Only those with training and authority should play the significant role in selecting and shaping new values which are considered as vital in deciding the fate of a society. Any casual approach towards changing the system of values would only lead to undesirable consequences. Related to this is another question whether Malaysia if successful in retaining core values could she exist in splendidi insularity or if she became a model for all developing
countries. Would not she be contributing towards a global dichotomy in values which might result in a contradiction or clash of values as differing cultures had hitherto tended to do? Then what happens to those who are marginalised and underdeveloped, will they remain in their ignorance and anachronistic beliefs and in isolation as a third people of the globe. Will they not rise in rebellion against the tyranny of technology and new knowledge and the winner takes all democracy. These are some of my thoughts regarding the elements and factors which might serve as determinants in our decision to ride into the future. Leadership I believe will continue for some time to be based on on the semantics of 'KEPIMPINAN' with the root word 'PIMPIN' except on our age I like to think of a tandem with someone holding the lead handlebar directing the route according to a chart that has been agreed to by all the peddlers before the start of the exciting journey into the future, when no one leads and everyone follows in a forward movement in cooperational togethermess. Our quality is enhanced because of our unity as in our national motto "BERSATU BERTAMBAH MUTU". When men have succeeded to split the atom they must now concentrate their efforts at uniting mankind.
36
The Forum 1992: East Asian Economic Development and Japan's Role
r. Okazaki in his keynote speech commenced with a number of points that did not measure up to facts when he was refering to ASEAN and the Asian regional cooperation. He spoke of "ASEAN was again reunited by an anti-communist policy posture" as if there was a period when ASEAN was fractured. Then Mr. Okazaki ventured into history which at best was speculative. He claimed that "ASEAN is also a product of political and military changes in the post-war South East Asia region". The ignoring the outcome of the ASEAN Summit in Singapore which definitely was upbeat with regard to regionalism and ASEAN efficacy, Mr. Okazaki blithely remarked that, "the present prosperity and bright future prospect minimize the necessity for economic regionalism". Let me put ASEAN in its historical perspective in order not to be misled by any other surmise. The story of ASEAN begins this way. The formation of Malaysia had, for whatever reasons received the disapprobation of President Sukarno of Indonesia. From September 1963, Sukarno had declared a state of confrontation or "konfrontasi" as he called it against Malaysia. There were armed attacks on Malaysia but of little consequence. The propaganda war, however, was raging and the peoples of Indonesia and Malaysia were thoroughly confused. I was tasked by the late Tun Abdul Razak who was then Deputy Prime Minister to seek ways and means of ending "konfrontasi". Special political action was initiated and credible contact was firmly established. The Indonesian side was led by the late General (Tan Sri) Ali Moertopo assisted most ably by General (Tan Sri) Benny Moerdani,
Comment on Keynote Speech at the abovementioned Forum held in Singapore on Friday 23 October 1992.
The Forum 1992 / 355
the present Minister of Defence. He, with a cover job in Bangkok, played a very important role as the communication and operational link since "konfrontasi" had ruptured diplomatic ties. Ali Moertopo's team was responsible and answerable to no one else, none other than the present President of Indonesia, General Suharto. Both Tun Abdul Razak and General Suharto were of one mind that "konfrontasi" must cease and never be allowed to happen again nor must it happen between neighbouring countries of South East Asia. Accordingly, these objectives became the terms of reference for our mission. Ali Moertopo and I dug deeply into our common cultural heritage and we found that instinctively whenever there was a sense of insecurity the tendecy was to get together- "BERKAMPUNG" from which the word "village" was derived. I had a secret meeting in Bangkok with the late Adam Malik, a Minister in Sukarno's cabinet and a Foreign Minister in Suharto's cabinet. Adam Malik also concluded that the fear he has was not the communist expansion but that which both Tun Razak. and General Suharto were concerned with namely that countries of South East Asia would be at loggerheads and "konfrontasi" would become the order of the day. The possibility was real since the East-West rivalry war pulling and pushing nations to take sides. The element of fear was present but not the fear of communism. It was the fear that countries of South East Asia would be split assunder in chaos and used as pawns in the cold war. ASEAN never showed any anti-communist posture. Years later, when ASEAN opposed Vietnam it was not because of her adherence to communism but her act of aggression against and interference in the internal affairs of Kampuchea. Ali Moertopo and I after several meetings in Bangkok and other capitals agreed that in presenting the concept of reconciliation and the idea of a regional cooperative organisation to our respective masters, emphasis should be made that for political problems to be effectively managed, leaders at all levels and in all sectors should constantly be exposed through personal meetings with each other. We recommended that inter-state problems should not be aired openly no matter how small. If they were border problems they should be dealt with locally through mechanisms or an apparatus which would be serve to obviate the matter from becoming a diplomatic boil due to undue publicity. If there were border uncertainties they were to be surveyed together or together developed for mutual benefit. If the areas defied survey or development like gullies and gorges they should be left alone for the time being.
We were recommending a special kind of relationship conscious of the fact that the modern separate state entities were the product of colonial designs which had left a number of thorny residues particularly in relations to borders. Ali Moertopo and I stressed that streams, sea and straits were not borders that separeted peoples rather they were bridges that united them. This was self-evident in the South East Asian region in which relatives were found on each side of the border be it a stream, strait or the sea. This unity and togetherness must never be governed by a sense of exlusiveness. (This concept of ASEAN entente was well demonstrated in later years by Thailand and Malaysia when there was an overlapping claim in an area in the the EEZ; the difficulty was overcome by both sides agreeing to the creation of a Joint Development Authority for the area concerned on the principles of "drinking water from the same well". Incidentally, the Agreement was signed by the Prime Ministers of Thailand and Malaysia, two friends, during a meal at a kway teow (noodle) shop in front of the University of Chiengmai, Thailand, without the fuss and pomp which usually accompanied such an occasion.) In order that words did not become enshrined and ossified in written agreement, Ali Moertopo and I strongly suggested that a regional organisation should be established but it should not be a creature of a formal treaty, rather a solemn Declaration of a commitment based on the indigenous spirit of faith in "togetherness" (BERKAMPUNG). And we proposed that the regional organisation should be established after the brotherly relationship between Indonesia and Malaysia had been resumed so that together Indonesia and Malaysia would serve as the mainstay of ASEAN. We also suggested that for the organisation to have a chance of success, its political function should be low-profiled. Stress should be put on its economic character to avoid burdening the organisation with having to deal with political issues in the press which very often were grave diggers for good efforts. Malaysia and Indonesia were reconciled. Sukarno had died and was succeeded by Suharto. It was in 1967 two years after the end of "konfrontasi", and with a great deal of behind the scene diplomatic activities and arguments on the form of words of the Declaration, including the nomenclature of the organisation which was resolved by Adam Malik, ASEAN rose from the ashes of "konfrontasi" on August 8 in Bangkok. ASEAN arose out of the ashes of konfrontasi to ensure a konfrontasi-less future for countries of South East Asia. The
cooperative need far outweighed the competitive desire; efforts and thoughts were constantly directed towards problem management, towards togetherness, towards stability without which there could be no sustainable economic, social and political development, the basic ingredients for peace. I have attended many seminars and symposiums all over the world including Japan discussing about Japan and her commitment. In the Institute of Strategic and International Studies, Malaysia, of which I am a Distinguised Fellow, we have a Centre for Japan Studies. Inevitably I find that a Japanese like Mr. Okazaki would make claims on Japanese contributions and strategies to the changing world in the arenas of Overseas Development Aid (ODA), direct investments and trade. Depending on the presenter, the order would be different but I shall be the first to agree that these are important elements of equal priority to countries like members of ASEAN which has a lot of catching-up to do. In her commitment to the world without East-West rivarly the impression Japan gives is that she is completely oblivious to the dimension of her relationship with China which is of paramount importance in the context of peace and stability in the Asian region. South East Asia was a single entity but it was broken up by Western colonialism. I must admit Japanese colonialism recognised the situation and tried to partly mend the situation by an arrangement whereby the island of Sumatra and the Peninsula was administered from Syonanto-this island of Singapore. Because of historical and cultural reasons among us in South East Asia perticularly the Malay world is a natural tendency towards togetherness particularly in times of need. Our native word is BERKAMPUNG. Various attempts were made towards this togetherness like ASA and Maphilindo. The Japanese Military Administration of the South agreed with Sukarno, Hatta and Ibrahim Yaacob that the Peninsula Malaya, Singapore and the present island now called Indonesia should be one single entity but the situation then did not permit the actualisation of that scheme. ASEAN is the manifestation of the spirit of BERKAMPUNG. When the GATT system became eroded and Uruguay Round floundered in late 1990 the idea of togetherness once again came to the fore. This time, it was to invite the whole of East Asia to be together in an East Asian Economic Causus (EAEC). The dangers of a unipolar power were looming large. Bilateral relations would only fall prey to the designs of the unipolar power.
Togetherness was the obvious response. Asian stability is paramount without which there could be no sustainable development, even if the Japanese strategies of ODA, investments and trade were fully applied. Without development there could be no peace. The key issue for all strategic calculations for the maintenance of stability in Asia is the Sino-Japanese relationship. When discussing with individual Japanese, he or she is quick to admit the Sino-Japan relationship must be the cornerstone of Japanese policy. Yet in public, most Japanese would harp on what Mr. Baker said about US interest in Asia. This is then tortuously translated into a "concensus that the United States should stay". Of course if the US had decided she should stay in her own interest nobody would want to or be able to deny her. APEC is extolled as the mechanism for US presence in, Asia. But US is involved with NAFTA which eventually will extend from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. Australia or New Zealand might be included in NAFTA even if that appeared absurd. US and Australia have their differences with EC. The Apec bus will be a convenient vehicle for US and Australia when pitted against EC or other groupings such as SARC. The small nations in APEC will be mere pawns in an Asia divided. China has a great deal of basic problems with the US such as the semantics of h u m a n rights and democracy. After the Singapore Summit in January this year, ASEAN is applying its mind seriously to the proposed East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC). There was a great deal of negative reactions when it was first mooted in December 1990 as the Uruguay Round floundered and was beginning to look as if it was becoming a bore. With the imminent emergence of the two giant blocs NAFTA and EC and the erosion of GATT there were serious anxieties among ASEAN. Bloc practices might go well beyond regional freeing of tariffs into such areas as nontariff barriers and services and disseminating unilateral trade sanctions based on some absurd conditionalities and outmoded shibboleths. There was real concern that there would be increased protectionism and a break-up of the mutli-trading system. It stands to reason that ASEAN and countries of East Asia which are developing towards industrialisation should cooperate and consult with each other on macro economic policies and work together in international negotiations and voice their, i n t e r e s t s forcefully everywhere. There are some quarters for reasons of their own argued that EAEC without the US would not serve any purpose and might not even be actualised as if unaware that Western Europe had its own
economic community without the US. Supporters of EAEC felt that East Asia would be more comfortable with Japan in an East Asia Caucus. ASEAN itself is a caucus in APEC, G-7 and other international organisations including the UN and its specialised agencies. ASEAN shall also be a causus within the proposed EAEC. There was suspicion that the proposed EAEC was some kind of acceptance of Japanaese hegemony. Others feared that China with her Security Council veto power and nuclear capability in EAEC and together with the economic power of Japan, EAEC would indeed become a rival to the US or EC. The one dimension of EAEC which has not been discussed much is the question of the maintenance of peace and stability in East Asia. After World War II there were enough eminent Europeanists like Schuman and Monet who believed that peace could be better served in West Europe through Franco-German cordiality. The coal and steel community was started with that motivation. For East Asia, the SinoJapanese cordiality is imperative. Should China and Japan be at loggerheads, the countrirs of ASEAN would be dangerously affected. The Communist Parties of South East Asia are creatures of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Except for those in Laos and Vietnam all the subversive communist parties including Khmer Rouge of Kampuchea are still loyal to CPC even if they were dormant or inactive. Should China, for example, in her conflict with Japan find that the Malaysian Government was neutral, she might surmise, because of big Japanese investments, Malaysia was in fact siding with Japan. In the circumstances, China may be tempted throungh her International Liaison Department, a wing of the CPC, to revive subversive activities in Malaysia using the Communist Party of Malaya. On the other hand if Japan could not influence Malaysia to stand against China, she might conclude that Malaysians of Chinese origin are influencing Malaysia to side with China. Japan may take to arm-twisting or even subvert the economy of the country through her gigantic investments. Let it not be forgotten in South East Asia the population make-up is such that the potential for instability is ever present. A Sino-Japanese strife is sure to cause upset in East Asia. Many in South East Asia have doubts as to the ability and willingness of the United States to manage the Sino-Japanese relation if it turned sour. The US has thus far not shown much deftness in dealing with China or Japan. Even with those differences she has with Japan there is a common belief that in a Sino-Japan conflict scenario the US, because of her internal politics and other
considerations, would side the Japanese against China. That would be a disaster for East Asia. An open statement by Mr. Qian Quichen, China's Foreign Minister made to the Foreign Policy Association, New York a few days ago said that the US and China were in danger of entering a new era of confrontation and poor relations. Mr. Qian referred to the US sale of fighter jets to Taiwan as openly reneging, "on its own commitment to an international agreement, how can it be trusted". These are harsh words indeed but I believe they were uttered in candour and good faith as a friend of the Bush administration to register a sore point. If there was malevolence, it would not have been delivered in New York. In all probability according to her culture, China would not at all have uttered a word to reveal her mind. Her silence would be shrieking her contempt. However, in no uncertain terms at the CPC Congress which began on Monday 12th October 1992, China has warned that capitalist style economics do not compromise the power of political rule of the Communist Party. Besides the issues of Sino-Japanese relations as paramount in the economic and security equatations of South East Asia, the role of EAEC as a forum for consultation and reconciliation transcends borders in matters such as programmes for action for the safety of the environment and ecology, for the security of humans against piracies, against AIDS and deleterious drugs and to manage in manners that are enlightened such problems as mass migrations, refugees and displaced persons. The least EAEC could do, would be to provide a safety valve for the discussions of grievances at its consultative forum. Even Mr, Nakasone, former Prime Minister of Japan, saw merit in the principle that peace and stability in Asia was the common responsibility of China and Japan according to a statement he made during his latest visit to China. I believe that the present world trend would conduce nations of East Asia towards instinctive listening to their cultural drums of "togetherness". The "cool" reaction of the Japanese Government to EAEC may follow the "warm" response of the Japanese business community. I am further inclined to believe that South Asia would eventually find its way into this Caucus. That indeed would be a splendid development. The responsibility for peace in this region of Asia rests with the peoples of the region. China has sent some positive signals when she established relations with South Korea boosting the prospects for an improved relation between the north and south of the Korean
peninsula. A forum for consultation and reconciliation could address all those old and new problems including the Russo-Japanese dispute over the northen islands, a hangover of World War Two. An East Asia which coheres can be the pacifier for the more troubled emotions of fear, insecurity and hopelessness as well as help solve intra-Asia problems. The Security Council with China backed by all Asia could be the initiator in the pacific settlement of disputes. Likewise, Japan with economic collaborative roles in North-South and South-South relations, consciouc of East Asian backing she will always have, could truly be an Asian and not merely a Japanese power. East Asia may now face what she once experienced during the European industrial revolution when powerful forces from Europe visited Asia with all the ugliness of colonialism by deciding to join the march towards becoming an industrial power. But that made Japan a more hideous militaristic and colonialist power behaving in mimicry as the Britain of the East, searching for natural resources and markets in Korea, Manchuria, China, and might even have gone into Siberia if she had not been stopped at Halba river (MongoliaManchuria border 1939). Japan eventually came down to South East Asia leaving a trail of rapes and rampages which Japanese children learn in their history books today as mere "incidents". In the pursuit of being "one of them" Japan became not a partner but a rival of the West in all aspects of endeavours. Since the beginning of Meiji, Japan has yearned to be accepted and respected by the West. History has shown that Japan could never achieve that unless she is first accepted and respected by Asians. Her strategy should be aimed at gaining that through coming to terms with her own recent history. China and East Asia will provide her with that opportunity through the proposed EAEC. * This time East Asia must draw lessons from its own experiences. The East Asian togetherness is imperative. Old suspicions and prejudices among East Asians should be resolved through the new awareness and the solutions lie in getting together, to know each other better through consultation, collectively and bilaterally, and to be aware of each other's hopes and fears in order that they may be taken care of. Indeed, there are scars among East Asians which were the results of wounds inflicted on each other and there are bitter historical experiences which were caused by creatures of historical determinants. They should be corrected. But without an attempt at togetherness, there will be no balm to soothe the sore.
East Asian togetherness will open up new areas of economic and commercial cooperation, provide continuous exposure of its members and people to people contacts which eventually will develop an Asian habit of mind. Such a cooperative measure can help to defend an open global system and against protectionism influencing nations and blocs to strictly adhere to GATT principles and practices. In this East Asian venture Japan, being Asian, has a special responsibility towards Asia because of her economic, industrial and financial standing. Japan also, since MacArthur, has a special tie with the US in political, economic and trade relations. That special tie, because of age and the world political and economic evolution may tend to be somewhat obsolescent needing repair and adjustment. For Japan, the Asian togetherness providing a bigger base and backing will strengthen further that special tie with the US on an even keel. The important issues is not about Japan's ability to say "no" to the US but her readiness to say "yes" to East Asia. East Asia, with lingering nightmares of Japanese colonial militarism, will be more comfortable with Japan as a true partner in the East Asian cooperative venture than a Japan that feels beleagured and isolated as in the late thirties. In a fit of national hubris, " 'NO' to ieru Nippon" may become a choice, reverting to Japan's old idea of "Hakko Ichiu", which eventually became the hyper-hypocritical "Daitoa Kyoeiken". EAEC with China and Japan, influential in their respective roles, can be the beginning of an East Asia as the pacifier for the more turbulent emotions. It is this commitment that East Asians want to hear from Japan and what are her strategies in the context of a world without East-West rivalries. Trade, aid and investments without such commitments and strategies would be state vinegared wine in a new plastic bottle! Among the plants that are commonly found in Asia is the "take". In all cultures of Asia, particularly of East and South East Asia, the bamboo plays a notable role. It is used for building of shelter, for carrying water, for passing food from the cup to the mouth, as percussion of wind instrument of melodius music; its shoots and maw are food for humans and animals; it serves as rafts and means of transportation; it supports the weak and the aged as walking staff. It decorates homes and villages in important ceremonies; it fills those magical stories, songs and poems with its enchanting splendour; it inspires artists by its imple beauty. It serves as board on which words of wisdom were once written for posterity. It forms subjects of wise sayings and parables.
That gift of God lusciously growing in clusers teaches us yet one more lesson, that the plant by nature does not grow alone or singly. It always grows in cluster with the tallest stooping in humility. Together no wind can devastate the cluster. A bamboo tree standing alone will be a broken reed by a simple gust. The gushing of winds are now everywhere and the monopolar cyclone is brewing. Let us not wait for a threatening disaster before looking for friends and shelter. Let us follow the sound of the cultural chimes of our hearts and heed our great teacher and benefactor, the bamboo by getting ourselves now in a protective cluster, each tree an individual yet together, sharing a common fate and destiny in the true spirit of Unmei Kyodo Tai.
37
Tenth Regiment
he Chinese and Indian communites brought in by the British in the inter-war years were not allowed to participate in Malayan life nor be closely associated with the political development of the Straits Settlements (SS), Federated Malay States (FMS) and Unfederated Malay States (UFMS). Naturally, the attention of the Chinese was turned to China and Indians India. In the case of the Chinese, the political and economic development of China became their concern and China's leadership also made the Nanyang Chinese their concern including education. As the Kuomingtang (KMT) sent their activist and agents so did the Communist Party of China (CCP) which started to create communist cells usually built around educational institutions and labour unions in the towns as well as estates. What started as branch activities of the CCP soon become the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). The CPM therefore is a creature of the CCP. Although the KMT and CPM were contradicting each other they sought to bear their influences on the local Chinese; But because of the Japanese intrusion in China the KMT and CPM followed the trend of KMT and CCP anti Japanese collaboration in China, they too were united in Malaya participating in various anti-Japanese activities such as collecting funds and recruiting volunteers to fight in China for the freedom of China from Japan. The communist activists except a few that came from the Dutch East Indies never touched the Malay community since they felt they should not as a result of the taboo placed by the colonial powers. When the Japanese war came to Malaya, the British, on the eve of the capitulation of Singapore (part of Malaya) formed Dalforce who were volunteers, the bulk of whom were Chinese CCP sympathisers or supporters. This eventually, after the fall of Singapore, became the
Article written in August 1992.
Tenth Regiment / 365
Malayan Peoples's Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA) with its Min Yuen and front organisations under the leadership of the CPM. During the Japanese occupation, some attempts were made to recruit Malays but there was no success since the Japanese treated the Chinese and Malays differently. The Chinese being nationals of China were treated as enemies and anti-establishment activities were subject to such punishment as death by head-chopping or mass killing. Malays on the other hand were treated as subject people or "mules" of colonialism. As such they were treated differently but no less harshly as labour to build the infamous death railways in Thailand and Burma where thousands perished from sickness and malnutrition. The difference in treatment left a dichotomy making the Chinese side to treat the Malays with suspicion and distrust therefore and be excluded in anti-Japanaese activities. Furthermore, the hard life in the jungles as experienced by the MPAJA particularly on the question of food did not attract the Muslim Malays who despite their diversity preferred to go hungry than to eat "haram" food. In any case, ideology communism was not attractive to the Muslim Malays. Likewise, the Indians too as subject people of the British were treated by the Japanese as "mules" and made to do harsh labour incurring casualities by the thousands. Those who were politically conscious but conscious of Indian politics were armed by the Japanese through Chandra Bose together with nationalist Indians in the defeated British Army who surrendered to the Japanese Command forming the Indian National Army (INA). The INA was sent to Burma to be the gun-fodder in the sincere belief that they were fighting a war to liberate Mother India. Their slogans were Jai Hind, Chalao Delhi. The MPAJA therefore could not get any Indian support to take up arms against the Japanese together with them since the Indians believed that the Japanese was helping the Indians to liberate India. The Indians too were treated with suspicion. The CPM therefore remained a Chinese organisations supported by civilian Chinese to fight the Japanese because Japan had intruded into Mother China. After the Japanese surrender the MPAJA was officially demobilised but the CPM was still active maintaining their line with CCP which was struggling for supremacy over the KMT in China. The Central Committee of the CPM in line with the policy of CCP and the Cominform, since CCP was still honeymooning with the Soviet Communist Party, planned for an armed struggle based on anticolonialism. While in China the fight was against the "colonial
puppet" KMT regime, in Malaya the target was the British colonial administration and the feudal Malays. It was decided by the Central Committee of CCP egged on by the "Chinese line" to wage a guerilla struggle with the support of political agitations and the creation of industrial unrests. It soon became obvious that the so-called demobilisation was only "offical" whereas in fact the MPAJA still retained the bulk of its personnel and arms. The CPM infiltrated the Trade Union movements and it could be said that in 1947 all trade unions legally registered about 300 in all were well and truly infiltrated. The CPM was able to organise strikes in tin mines and rubbers estates. However the interesting phenomenon was that all these activities were rampant in mines and estates belonging to Chinese who were regarded by the CPM as enemies just as the CCP regarded the capitalists and bourgeoisie in China as enemies. As a result of a worldwide consiparcy inspired by the Youth Wing of the Cominform, there was simultaneous armed uprising all over Asia but the one led by the CPM and its Cental Committee General Secretary Chin Peng lasted the longest. On June 16 1948, British Malaya declared a state of emergency. The CPM achieved a certain measure of success during the early days due to the lack of imagination and preparation of the British Administration thus encouraging the Central Committee to consider their armed struggle as correct. It took a bit of time for the British Administration to consult other opinions particularly of the Malays in fighting the communist insurgency. By that time, Malay nationalism was on a rise brought about by MacMicheal's Malayan Union which the Malays opposed but in part it was supported by CPM united front political organisation. The Malays organised in a popular movement the UMNO together with their Sultans opted for fighting the communist insurgency on the side of the colonial government. At the same time they were to struggle for independence not by armed methods but by oral persuasion. There were some Malay nationalists who felt that the oral persuasion was not good enough. They preferred an armed struggle the only language they thought the British colonialists would understand. The Malay Resistance Movement (Wataniah) had faithfully surrendered their arms in 1945 and had been demobilised. They resolved they would work through UMNO and their rulers first to achieve the removal of Malayan Union (Hidup Melayu) then to the remove the Federation of Malaya Constitution of 1948 and thereby achieve independence (Merdeka).
By the time the CPM had called for armed strunggle it had begun to realise that without the support of Malays it would be extremely difficult to win. The strunggle had to be given a multiracial popular colour. The Indians too had to be included in their strunggle. There were a few Indians who had imbided the communist ideology and they had been infiltrated into some of the trade union movements whose membership were predominantly Indians. Ganapathy who was captured and hanged for possession of illegal arms in 1949 had been one of the Indian leaders. But this did not mean there was a great deal of support from the Indian community as a whole. Ganapathy was a trade unionist tainted red. Indians were more concerned with their own position vis-a-vis post-war Malaya. For the first time they became aware that an independent India would not have them back and that their fate and future depended on their demeanor in being good inhabitants. That made it clear to them that to support the CPM would place them in jeopardy. Therefore the CPM was in a quandry since they in their new struggle had to be shown as multiracial and popular. They did their level best to recruit Malays when there was a great deal of disaffection towards the British Government. A few Malays sympathetic to the anti-colonial cause and had probably read works in some Fabian socialism, Dutch East Indies in their struggle for freedom were contacted and made made party members. Some of those were directed to work among the Malays in the open including the press and seats of higher learning and political parties. Of them, three Malays, Musa Ahmad, Abdullah CD, Wahi Annuar, were commanded to propose ways and means to persuade the Malays into joining the rank and file of the armed struggle of the CPM. At a jungle meeting in the vicinity of Kerdau, Pahang attended by Musa Ahmad, Abdullah CD and Wahi Annuar, the Secretary General Chin Peng wanted a regiment solely comprising Malays in the Malayan People Liberatation Army (MPLA). He told them that the CPM had formed thus far a number of regiments but they were manned entirely by Chinese with a sprinkling of Indians and Malays. Chin Peng appointed Abdullah CD as the military commander of the proposed Malay Regiment while Wahi Annuar the Deputy. Musa Ahmad, an ideologue, was appointed as the political cadre of the Regiment. These three Malays who were card-carrying Party members proposed that the regiment should be named the TENTH Regiment as
a selling point to the Malays whose Islamic faith they all knew, as they were themselves Malays, would be influenced by the religious connotation. The formation of the regiment for Malays was 10 Dzulhijjah coinciding with Hari Raya Haji. The figure 10 had no relevance whether in the order of importance or size. Chin Peng agreed to the nomenclature. There were other points raised by the three Malays for Chin Peng's consideration. They wanted the 10th Regiment to be free to recruit Malays from all over Malaya including Singapore and to place those groups or whatever military units they would be called under the command of the 10th Regiment. They should be allowed to wear songkok as their fighting gear and to have the kind of ranks which the Malays were used to see in the British Malay Regiment, the Malayan Volunteer Force, the Malay Resistence Movement (Wataniah from Pahang) and also the Malayan Police Force. With songkok and the rank identification, they could then with pride claim that the 10th Regiment was a fighting unit the mirror image of what the colonial authorities had and then they would claim to be truly nationalists fighting an armed struggle. The songkok would symbolise the Islamic character of the struggle since to Malays the songkok was the symbol of Islam. Because of the fixation in the Peninsula that a Malay was always a Muslim, the 10th Regiment should have both a Malay and Islamic identity. The 10th Regiment leaders also requested that no CPM combatant units or regiment should contact the Malays except the 10th Regiment. All these requests were obvious to Chin Peng that the Malay leaders wanted to use the CPM fighting organisation to organise a truly Malay anti-colonial armed movement to fight the British. Chin Peng suspected that when the 10th Regiment became strong enough to have its own identity the Chinese side would be discarded. It must be remembered that there were a considerable number of Malays who from the time of Fujiwara Kikan (A Japanese military subsversive organisation) were ready to take up arms against the British. Not all agreed with those who were struggling against colonialism using the pen or the pulpit. To them an opportunity to be armed should not be missed. Chin Peng's suspicions were therefore not unfounded. The Malay leaders might ideologically be communist or Marxists and some of them could be Trotskyists but they were Malay nationalists first and communist or Islam second. Communism is both
an ideology and a method. Those Nationalists reject the ideology but support the method and in this case armed struggle. They had no intention of sharing power with the Chinese since Chinese because of historical reasons as expalined ealier were still regarded as those with political claims only in China and not in Malaya. They also had the idea of a Melayu Raya - a concept that would make the territories known as Indonesia and Malaya as one, the home of a single nation. During the inter-war years some Malay nationalists had sought from the Fujiwara Kikan, assistance to fight the British, and to their dismay the Japanese reneged on their words. Now they would find a new opportunity through the CPM which is the creation of CCP to seek aid from communist China since the CCP has seized power in China. The KMT government in the inter-war years untill they were ousted by the CCP had an understanding with the British colonial government that Chinese in Malaya could be repatriated to China. These Malay nationalist believed that the CCP in power would continue the repatriation of Chinese. On the ouster of KMT the British government was indeed actively negotiating for the continuance of that understanding with Communist China. The Malay nationalists who were collaborating with the communist had hoped they alone could inherit the success of the communist insurgency against the British colonial government and achieve independence through armed struggle. But CCP had other plans. The CCP had the idea of a struggle against British colonialism and to spread its hegemony in this region. The CPM being its creature would have to play its dutiful role in Malaya to lead the country through to independence was through to independence. The new independent government would naturally be a tool in this design. To pursue that design the Chinese community in Malaya and Singapore would be used and should not be repatriated to China. Therefore quite naturally, the requests made by the Malay communist leaders were not acceptable to Chin Peng and the Central Committee. Chin Peng also had by that time become aware that the CCP would not agree with the British government to inherit the KMT understanding on the question of repatriation of Chinese from Malaya to China. This meant that Chinese in Malaya should dig in under the umbrella of CPM which owed allegiance to CCP. The colonial government in Malaya was starting to grapple with the monummental problem of the displaced Chinese who had become squatters and therefore by definition were on the wrong side of the law. They were then easily infuenced or intimidated by the CPM into supporting the armed struggle against the colonial government.
The three Malay communist leaders were desperately keen to seize the opportunity of getting arms. They knew that a number of Malay nationalists particularly in Pahang were ready to take up arms against the Bristish. The three swallowed their pride and bowed to the refusal of Chin Peng to their request but one namely that the Regiment should be called tha Tenth. (If was learnt later that the Regiment defied the prohibition of the use of songkok and ranks. Ahmad Salleh who later surrendered claimed to hold the rank of Captain when he was appointed by CPM as HQ Company Commander.) The announcement for the 10th Regiment was made in a camp in the vicinity of Kerdau, in the district of Temerloh, Pahang on the 21st May 1949. The inauguration was officiated by one Haji Hashim; he was in fact a Chinese ranking member of CPM masquerading as a Malay. By September 1949 as a result of an intensive recruitment exercise about 400 Malays from Temerloh district joined the Regiment. The structure of the Senior Command was as follows: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. Commander/Political Commissar-Abdullah CD Deputy Commander-Wahi Annuar Regimental Political Officer-Musa Ahmad Supplies Officer-Musa Ahmad HQ Company Commander-Ahmad Salleh HQ Company Political Officer-Abu Samah Women Section Leader-Zainab Mahmud (wife of Musa Ahmad)
The regiment had five platoons each with a commander, assistant commander and a political officer. Some of the political officers were Chinese using Malay names and spoke excellent Malay in the local dialect. By the end of 1949, as a result of Security Force presure and Chin Peng's adherence CCP'S concept of "liberated areas" the 10th Regiment was ordered to move to a Liberated Area in the North. This turned out to be Gua Musang in Ulu Kelantan. Only those with arms, therefore 200 personnel, started their long march from Lubuk Kawah with an CPM Chinese guide. The Regiment was harassed by the Security Forces and lost many of their fighting men. The rest tried to retreat to Kerdau dividing itself into two groups.
The first and second platoons under the command of Abdullah CD formed one group and the other three platoons into one group under Wahi Annuar. Musa Ahmad was with this second group. Wahi Annuar's wife, Shamsiah Pakeh, was in an advanced state of pregnancy. Wahi decided to let Musa Ahmad lead a number of them to return to Kerdau since they had lost their Chinese guide to go further North. They were in the vicinity of Padang Piol near Jerantut and in the march towards Kerdau, they lost their way and suffered from lack of food. It took a long time for Musa Ahmad to find Ng Tiong Kiat Tapioca Estate which was on the old Jerantut-Kuantan Road. They remained there for a new months since there was food in the form of tapioca but they were continuously harassed by Security Forces. The group had to leave Ng Tiong Kiat estate and found their way back in Temerloh having lost contact with Abdullah CD for nearly one year. Wahi Annuar suffered a sorry fate when he lost many of his men to Security Forces and eventually surrendered in Jerantut followed by the rest of his miserable followers some of whom surrendered in Mentakab Wahi's wife Shamsiah Pakih managed to escape and by that time had given birth to a son. This infant became a burden and his constant crying was endangering the security of the group. Shamsiah was persuaded that the infant be sent to China. Story has it that the boy was eventually thrown by the cadre into the Pahang river and drowned. From then on, the fate of the 10th Regiment was sealed. Chin Peng tried to boost morale by praising Musa Ahmad for the escape, Early in 1951, Chin Peng at a meeting in the vicinity of Mentakab ordered Abdullah CD and Musa Ahmad to recruit more Malays to increase their depleted 10th Regiment. A few from the Malay Nationalist Party (MNP) and Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (API) joined the Regiment. By the end of 1951 the situation was extremely serious and Chin Peng at a meeting in Mentakab ordered the retrea of all CPM armed units to South of Thailand. Pahang was the target of the Security Forces because Chin Peng was known to be consntly visiting there. Musa Ahmad was directed to proceed to Betong. Musa Ahmad began his second long march sometimes towards the end of 1951. They were joined by Chinese fighting units, one of them was the group that killed Henry Gurney. (It was just a lucky stroke for the MPLA since the ambush was for another purpose. But that is another story).
Musa Ahmad led his men to Bentong and then to Jerkoh near Benta, Lipis where he arrived in late 1952. This showed how hazardous their journey was. Musa Ahmad was again joined by more Chinese combatants. The camp was bombarded by Security Forces after one of the Chinese guards killed a number of the men including his leader, then made his escape and surrendered informing the Security Forces as to the location of the communist camp. Musa Ahmad escaped to another place which was considered safer and he was joined by Abdullah CD who took over command from Musa Ahmad. From there, they moved to Gunung Kerbau (Perak) vicinity walking through Cameron Highlands. It took them almost six months to make the journey. Rashid Mydin joined Musa Ahmad in 1953 and be brought with him a few Malays including Shamsiah Pakeh who had been separated from her husband - now a surrendered personnel. By this time, Musa Ahmad was encamped on the slope of Gunung Kerbau while Abdullah CD was at the foot of the gunung. When they merged again later that year, they were attacked by Security Forces and they fled to Belum and then crossed into the safety of Betong district, South Thailand in 1954. The 10th Regiment or what was left of it established its HQ in the vicinity of Hala about 3 hour walk form the village of that name. It was there that Zainab Mahmud (Musa's wife) gave birth to a baby girl who was given to a villager for adoption. Abdullah CD then moved the HQ of 10th Regiment to Tanjung Mas, South Thailand. Abdulllah CD, Musa Ahmad and Rashid Mydin were summoned by Chin Peng to Betong where the three made their military and political reports regarding their "Long March". The 10th Regiment was a miserable failure. They were never truly trusted by the Chinese cadres and Central Committee of CPM and very often was kept in the dark as to what went on. To make matters worse for them Abdullah CD had an affair with the wife of a Chinese Central Committee member. Abdullah CD was severely reprimanded and demoted. The 10th Regiment was never well and truly armed and their weapons were often old. When the Malay combatants were encamped near a Chinese camp they were not allowed to fraternise with the Chinese compatriots without permisson. There was discrimination with regard to rations and supplies. The Malays were supplied with very limited reading material. The most widely circulated literature
was Lin Shao Chi's essay "How to be a communist, how to work in white areas, and how to carry out work among the masses". It was admitted by the Central Committee of CPM that they had failed to get Malay support and that the CPM essentially was a Chinese Movement. The CPM had come to the conclusion that no political struggle could be successful unless the majority of Malays were associated with it. By Oktober 1955, Chin Peng had rightly surmised that the struggle could never succeed wihtout the Malay support and that the 10th Regiment was a dead loss. He called for the leaders of the 10th Regiment namely Musa Ahmad and his wife Zainab Mahmud (the Malay women section leader) and another leader Jamin@Jalil. They met in Chin Peng's HQ in South Thailand; the meeting was also attended by some top ranking CPM cadres. Musa Ahmad and the Malay leaders of l0thn Regiment were simply told that the Central Committe had decided to send them to Peking ostensibly for further studies. Chin Peng had a secret plan in his mind. He was going to abandon the armed struggle and wanted to meet with Tunku Abdul Rahman (at Betong) so that he could obtain the opportunity of carrying out political actions legally to defeat the British. Musa Ahmad and his colleagues returned to 10th Regiment HQ and handed over command to Abdullah CD. (Abdullah CD now has been rehabilitated and forgiven for his affair with the wife of the Central Committee member. He was given permission to marry her which he did). Musa Ahmad, his wife Zainab and Jamin left for Bangkok. However, it took several months before Musa and Zainab left for China. It was during this period (1956) of waiting that Musa Ahmad was appointed Chairman of CPM, an unusually quick promotion indeed since he became a party card holding member in 1949. It was also at Bangkok, while waiting for about eight month to go to China that Zainab gave birth to a daughter. The three of them arrived in China (1956) where they were met by officials of the CCP organisation which dealt with communist parties overseas known as the International Liaison Department (ILD), Peking. It was the ILD which received all CPM members visiting China or banished there by the British. By this time, the CPM Central Committee was split in two. One in the South of Thailand led by Chin Peng and the other under the umbrella of ILD (Peking) was represented by Musa Ahmad whose
main contact was the CCP Secretacy General, none other than Deng Hsiao Peng who continously exhorted the CPM to emulate the CCP struggle. The decision by Chin Peng to send Musa Ahmad and Zainab to China and Musa's appointment as Chairman of CPM was a clear indication that the CPM was beginning to understand that there could be no success in armed struggle and that the struggle for power should have the support of the Malays and this should be done through subversion and united front work. What it meant was that the armed struggle was to be downgraded and with that the diminishing role of 10th Regiment. The CCP wanted the struggle to continue by all means. To further its wish, the CCP assisted in setting up a radio station which became the Suara Revolusi Malays the mouthpiece of CPM to rally Malay support for the struggle, this time using open and legal activities organised by Malays who were committed to the communist cause, through student and jounalistic ctivitities. While the 10th Regiment had failed in the armed struggle it was hoped that through the United Front then onwards the struggle in Malaya was to be directed from China when the CPM HQ moved to Peking and Chin Peng since 1961 took command under the guidance of CCP through the ILD in guest house No. 3. Political schools were set up in South Thailand and in order to educate the Malay masses, some of the cadres from 10th Regiment like Abdullah CD, Ibrahim Chik were made instructors. The 10th Regiment itself opened its political school in Weng, Thailand in order to recruit Malays but its plan was a dismal failure. The few Malays recruited were South Thai Malays who joined up to seek shelter because they were hunted by the Thai Security Forces as brigands or hunted members of the irredentist movement. In conclusion the CPM and its armed group 10th Regiment never played any significant role in the struggle for independece and were even obstructive in the development programme of an independent country. The Malay nationalists who joined it became mere tools and never achieved their dream of an armed struggle for power. Despite the 19th June 1969 statement issued by the CPM to renew armed struggle there had been no emphasis on the special role of the 10th Regiment. With the break-up of the CPM into three opposing factions, the remnants of 10th Regiment remained with CPM proper. Feeble attempts were made to infiltrate the 10th Regiment into Kelantan but
all in vain. In that process they lost many more men. The whole exercise was a miserable disaster for the CCP, CPM and those Malay nationalists who sided with them in the 10th Regiment.
38
EC-ASEAN Relations in a Changing Equation
wenty-five years ago ASEAN was founded with the Bangkok Declaration. Thirty-five years ago, EEC was founded by the Treaty of Rome. The Community and ASEAN both are resounding success not only in political, but also in economic terms. They have decisively contributed to the stability of their respective regions and greatly helped to raise the prosperity of their peoples. Since the signing of the EC-ASEAN cooperation some twelve years ago, changes in the international order have had a profound effect on the evolution of the EC-ASEAN relations. There is need to examine the key economic and political elements of EC-ASEAN relations in order to determine the priorities for the 1990s. Attention should be drawn to the existence of the dichotomy between the economic and political aspects of the EC-ASEAN Cooperation. The participants of the ASEAN Ministerial and the annual ASEAN-Post Ministerial meetings are the Foreign Ministers and they are in control, while on the other hand EC is predominantly an economic organisation with considerable powers in the field of trade. The results is that trade and economic policies are dealt in a foreign policy setting. Since 1980, rapid economic growth in most ASEAN member countries largely built on exports combined with new opportunities in the EC and open market policies have led to the expansion of trade between the two regions. ASEAN's share of the European market continues to grow and in fact has doubled over the last fifteen years. What really therefore counts for ASEAN is trade and market access. It is therefore very understandable that ASEAN views EC 92 and monetary union programmes with very great concern. The European Community has by far the most developed and comprehensive integration policies. The statement by Wily de Clerq while
* Article written in October 1992 for publication in The Star".
EC-ASEAN Relations in a Changing Equation / 377
Commissioner for Foreign Relations in the EC that "We are not building a single market in order to turn it over to hungry foreigners" (Hamilton, 1991) has lent weight to this fear. It therefore makes sense to look at EC initiatives as the source of change and the main threat to production and trade in the developing countries like ASEAN. What is of great concern is that the new protectionism is however very different. The new protectionism reflects the emergence of trading blocs as agents in place of individual countries. Unilateral rectrictions have developed into multilateral ones and non-tariff barriers such as technical, human rights and environmental standards are used for discrimination purposes. The United States on the other hand has formed NAFTA and it has tended to pursue a more aggressive unilateral trade policy in certain markets under its Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act. With regard to the developement of EC 92 the main questions for ASEAN are: 1. What does EC 92 and the emergence of other trading blocs mean for world trading patterns and for ASEAN in particular? 2. What are the implications for trade in manufacturers? 3. Should ASEAN regard these changes as a means of denying them market access in order to protect the least efficient industries in the EC countries. In answering all these questions it is important to focus on whether Europe's commercial policies are likely to prove protectionist, and hence damaging to ASEAN. Looking into the 1990s EC-ASEAN relations can no longer be in the same setting of the 1980s. Both grouping are transforming themselves and are also caught by the dramatic change that is taking place in their respective continental environment. The Community is going through breathtaking changes on a continent which is in a state of flux. The Community is about to complete EC-1992, and probably complete the economic and monetary union by the end of the decade. It has also concluded the European Economic Area Treaty with AFTA, and EC also attempts to act as anchor for five Ex-Comecon Countries. In the 1990s therefore, ASEAN will deal with much stronger and a longer European Community in a very different Europe. The Community will also eventually develop into a major political power.
ASEAN, given the tremendous economic dynamism is likely to have very high growth rates and by the end of the decade all ASEAN will simply be developed. ASEAN as a result of its commitment to AFTA will see some deepening as a result of trade liberalisation. In all probability it will also see some enlargement as a result of the resolution of the Cambodia Conflict. There is an interest to bring the Indo-China states within the ambit of ASEAN. The recent Peking Congress had shown some signs that there would be opportunities for ASEAN to participate in and enjoy the benefits from development of the Chinese economy. This of course is contingent upon the continuance of stability which may be endangered by uneven growth since concentration of development is now focussed on the Southern provinces assisted by funds from overseas peoples of Chinese origin including from Taiwan and Hong Kong. While there is no suggestion that the inflow for funds is the result of ulterior motive, the effect may be destabilising particularly when Hong Kong continues to pursue a process of democratisation of the Western kind against the wishes of Beijing. China may look askance at the way developments are taking place unevenly. The end of the century will see a more cohesive ASEAN in economic terms probably with an enlarged membership to include all South East Asian Countries. As a result of changing equation there is therefore a need to revise and update ASEAN-EC agreement of 1980. This week in Manila, ASEAN and EC would be meeting. It is hoped that both sides would find it possible to agree on a new mode of cooperation. The new arrangement should emphasize the two way trade and economic cooperation rather than the donor/recipient characteristics of the previous agreement. There is no denying that given the free flow of trade, the economic relationship between the Community and ASEAN assumes rapidly increasing importance. To ASEAN the EC already represents the world's largest single market. Its exports to the EC grew faster than those of the US or Japan. If this trend continues, EC will surpass the US as an export outlet. EC-ASEAN cooperation could go further in discussing market access in terms of broader measures and regulations. In particular EC-ASEAN could play critical role in the Uruguay Round. EC-ASEAN cooperation could also provide a useful bridge to APEC activities.
EC-ASEAN Relations in a Changing Equation / 379
To ASEAN the EC is and remains an important investor. The case for investment in ASEAN is stronger than ever before, in the light of the consistent high growth rates and the recent decision to develop an AFTA with the consequent trend in deregulation and marketisation. It also offers EC to act as a gateway to the Indo-Chinese Peninsula and East Asia region. The private sector cooperation is the most important factor in the development of trade and investments between the two regions. A more coherent approach to facilitating private sector participation and cooperation, particularly between ASEAN Chambers of Commerce and European Chambers of commerce would be a valuable improvement. Development of a conscious approach on the part of EC private sector to the economic problems of the ASEAN countries could be an important cooperative move. The new understanding should strive to concieve new avenues of cooperation. In considering new solutions, EC should consider dismantling some of its barriers. It will find it worth its while. One of the most disturbing trends of the 1980s has been the weakening of confidence in multilateral cooperation, a more sustained cooperation between EC and ASEAN during the final years of the current decade and beyond could provide substantial and much needed support and hopefully a general sense of direction for international efforts at creating a more stable and equitable world. The recent failure of US-EC negotiations was a shocker which could only lead to greater erosion of GATT, the only instrument to safeguard a free trade system which is of paramount importance for an industrialising ASEAN. Various strata of cooperative efforts need to be enhanced further in order to improve EC-ASEAN relations in the 1990s. The two most evident are the bilateral and meetings should be held at regular intervals at official level with each country. Thus the importance of the EC to ASEAN calls for a multi-pronged alternatives to broaden the basis for the closest collaboration between the two regions. Last week, I spoke in Paris urging EC countries that there was merit in revising the EC-ASEAN relationship which since its inception had been characterised by a donor-recipient relationship. With the changing equation in the world, it would seem to me that the EC-ASEAN relationship has now matured to one of partnership in trade, economics and finance. The move towards the new relationship requires reappraisal to remove concerns with many questions requiring convincing answer.
The EC-ASEAN meeting this week in Manila will, it is hoped, somehow touch on the matter of the new mode of collaboration which is imperative for the health of the world free trade system which calls for a multi-pronged alternatives to prevent its basis from erosion. It would be a pity if a member of EC could successfully place an impediment towards a member of ASEAN. Such a problem should be isolated and remain bilateral. The multilateral process must be allowed to develop. This is a joint and common responsibility towards sustainable growth and social justice for all mankind who share a common fate and destiny.
39
Malaysia-Indonesia Relationship: Looking Back
ow far back should and could one look? In terms of people relation it is as far as history could go since both peoples belong to the community known as RUMPUN MELAYU only to be separated by European colonialism. So powerful was the influence of British colonialism in the peninsula, not only was it able to arrange the distribution of territories like exchanging of Banka with Melaka but it left a legacy which distorted mind and spirit as in the definition of MELAYU. This was brought about when the British decided to confine the activities of the Malays to one of subsistence agriculture in 1913 by promulgating the Malay Reservation Law in the Federated Malay States. That law was completely silent on the element of ethnicity in the definition of Melayu. The only requirements were that the Malay should be a Muslim, habitually spoke the Malay language and conformed to Malay custom. It did not seem to matter as to what race and ethnic group he came from. An ethnic Chinese could be a Malay if he had those qualifications. Hence the term "masuk Melayu" applied to a Muslim convert who chooses to abide by the definition. That definition found its way into the 1948 Federation of Malaya Agreement and became entrenched in the Federation of Malaya Constitution of 1957 which was the basis for the Malaysia Constitution. In the Malaysia Constitution, a Malay became synonymous with the natives of Sabah and Sarawak as defined in their respective Constitutions. But those natives were not called Malays even if they were Muslims and irrespective of religious belief they all enjoy the special position of Malays in Article 153. As a matter of policy and general reference, the Malays and the aborigine of the peninsula, the natives of Sabah and Sarawak are known as Bumiputra or Pribumi.
Paper Presented at the Third Malaysia-Indonesia Colloquium held in Bali, 9-12 December 1992.
During the inter-war years the Malays of Malaya understood the meaning of Melayu in the context of the Malay Reservation Enactment as distinguished from Melayu in the context of Rumpun Melayu of the Malay Archipelago. The nationalists among Rumpun Melayu drew inspiration from each other and the struggle was for the return of the undivided land of the Rumpun Melayu. Rizal and Imam Bonjol were Malay Heroes. What I am driving at is that the relationship between the peoples of Indonesia and Malaysia goes back to the age of Rumpun Melayu. It was colonialism of the West which divided the Malay world and now perforce we are discussing in Bali about the relationship between two peoples, the people of which belong to the same cluster like bamboos with each tree growing on its own or "hidup berkampung" that is in togetherness. Let me return to the theme of Malaysia-Indonesia relationship which is based on the Western concept of nation state. The notion of nation state itself is becoming rather archaic. Nevertheless allow me to begin the story of the relationship based on my personal experiences from the time when I served as citizen in various capacities in a country which had assumed an international character, independent and sovereign on 31st August 1957. As I look back I am going to make a narration in historical sequences. Rather like looking at a family photo album I would highlight certain events. My official experience began on Merdeka Day. As one of the most senior civil servants then and academically qualified in international studies and diplomacy, I was given the task of starting the Ministry of External Affairs. One of its functions on the day before Merdeka was to determine the precedence of foreign missions. My recommendation was accepted that Indonesia would stand second to Britain which insisted on seniority for the Merdeka occasion. This gesture was well received by Indonesia. The Federation Embassy was set up in Jakarta on 31st August 1957 with Senu Abdul Rahman, a very senior political leader as the first Ambassador. In fact Senu had been in Jakarta months before that holding a kind of mission which had no precedence in diplomatic practice of the Western kind. Dr. Razif, a senior career diplomat, who had been a Consul General was immediately recognised as Ambassador and became the deputy doyen of the diplomatic corps. A goodwill visit was organised in 1958 for the Deputy Prime Minister, the late Abdul Razak who was also Minister of Education, to
Malaysia-Indonesia Relationship: Looking Back / 383
visit Indonesia and to seek ways and means of strengthening relations through education. I was a member of the Razak goodwill delegation. There were issues of language, spelling and literature which had to be harmonised. Razak brought back from Jakarta the decision that Indonesia and Malaysia should enter into a Treaty of Friendship and a cultural agreement which would give a formal expression towards an enhanced cordiality and the nurturing of the common language and culture. It was during the trip that I discovered how much damage colonialism had done to the concept of Rumpun Melayu. The Malay members of the delegation were aghast when they saw people who looked like them, spoke the same languge and even wore "songkok" were seen worshipping in church. And the shock was even greater when they saw in Bali their own kind were hindus, worshipping in kuils. These Malays, when they spoke to me after their return, were full of misgivings. Razak also noticed the concussive jolt experienced by some members of the delegation that he instructed me to expeditiously put in place the proposed Treaty of Friendship so that the correct perspective could be presented to both sides. With the help of a friend in the Indonesian Foreign Ministry, Mr. Sani, who like me, was a passionate believer in the togetherness of the Malay peoples, the draft of the treaty was completed in record time. Dr. Djuanda the Prime Minister of Indonesia paid a state visit to Kuala Lumpur and signed the Treaty of Friendship and Cultural Agreement in April 1959. As a follow-up, groups of civic workers and ordinary people were organised to visit Medan and Jakarta not only to study the nature of the country and people and their developments but also to make contacts with Indonesians at the grass root level. From Indonesia also came various groups of men, women and youths and also cultural delegations with songs and dances of the various communities of Indonesia. One of the Malayan delegations was led by the late Syed Nasir then the Director of Dewan Bahasa. There was a very great desire to develop the Malay language so that the differences with Bahasa Indonesia could be reduced. In December 1959 the Nasir delegation met with the Indonesian Language Implementation Committee and an agreement was reached to introduce a common spelling is a consequence of that agreement. While all these movements were taking place Tunku Abdul Rahman wrote to President Sukarno in October 1959 inviting Indonesia to join in the establishment in South East Asia of an international organisation which would facilitate cooperation in the
economic, cultural and social fields. The Tunku even included Ceylon in his proposal. President Sukarno in January 1960 replied rejecting the proposal of a multilateral relation in South East Asia because according to him it would give rise to undesirable speculations. The Tunku nevertheless proceeded with this proposal and was able to get Thailand and the Philippines to form ASA. Sukarno was not pleased. The disapprobation expressed by President Sukarno was to me a negative sign. I had tried to persuade the Tunku to go slow but to no avail. My point was that without Indonesia the organisation could be branded as a creature of Western influence. In terms of the Cold War it could not claim neutrality; Malaya was a member of the Five Power Defence Agreement together with Britain as a member. Britain was also a member of SEATO which also had as members Thailand and the Philippines. It must be remembered that a cloud had been hanging over the Federation Government because of the PRRI rebellion of 1957 in Indonesia. President Sukarno had suspected that the Goverment led by the Tunku was in sympathy with the rebellion since there was blood affinity among the rebels and some Malays of Sumatran origin in the penisula. President Surkarno would have preferred a positive support from the Malayan goverment and neutrality would not be enough which allowed the notion of political asylum. A few rebels had taken refuge in the Peninsula and Jakarta wanted them returned. In January 1960 following what was agreed to in the Treaty of Friendship that an extradition agreement should be entered into. President Surkarno invoked the clause but Kuala Lumpur refused since Jakarta made an extraordinary request to include the extradition of those which Kuala Lumpur regarded as political refugees. A propaganda attack in the press followed insinuating that Kuala Lumpur was hand in glove with the rebels. Things got worse when in Oktober 1960 a group of Indonesian diplomats from Europe were given political asylum in Kuala Lumpur. In the meantime, Jakarta furthering its own unilateral decision regarding the law of the sea, had sealed off certain areas which were tradisional fishing grounds for the people who had lived on the Selat Melaka coast of the peninsula. Tensions were simply mounting. In line with Kuala Lumpur's commitment to anti-colonialism and in the spirit of the Treaty of Friendship, Dr. Ismail, Malaya's Permanent Representative at the UN General Assembly, in October 1959 made a scorching attack against "vestigial colonialism" in support of Jakarta over Irian Jaya. The Tunku as Prime Minister
wrote to President Sukarno in September 1960 offering his services to bring about a solution to the problem of Irian Jaya. Tunku Abdul Rahman made a proposal that Irian Jaya should be first transferred to the UN as a Trust Territory with the eventual transfer of the territory directly to Indonesia. It was a matter of personal delight to me when Dr. Djuanda replied agreeing in principle to the Tunku's suggestion contingent upon the trusteeship to be no longer than one year. I went with the Tunku to Canada and the United States in November 1960. The Tunku raised the matter of Irian Jaya in both capitals emphasising the need for a pacific settlement. He also spoke to Dag Hammarskjold in New York. On the way back, we stopped over at Den Hague and the Tunku forcefully spoke on behalf of Indonesia to the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Jan de Quay and Foreign Minister, Luns and the State Secretary for the Netherlands in West New Guinea, a Mr. Bot. I was highly satisfied that I had been able to persuade the Dutch official side to agree to the draft communique which eventually was accepted by the two Prime Ministers. The Netherlands was agreeable to subject her policy in West New Guinea to the judgement of the United Nations. I had recognised then that this by itself did not provide a solution but it would be a positive UN cognizance which would lead to the final resolution. Anyway it had moved a long way away from the intransigent position hitherto held by Den Hague. With Djuanda's agreement to a one year trusteeship, I had believed that there was hope for an early and peaceable solution. I suffered a tremendous dissapointment; before a formal report was transmitted to Jakarta and I was ready to formally convey the tidings, Subandrio the Foreign Minister, lashed out publicly alleging that the Tunku had failed to consult Indonesian leaders about the matter and Indonesia would accept no solution other than a quick transfer of the territory to Indonesia. The United Nations role was merely to supervise the transfer. Apparently Subandrio had ignored Djuanda's letter. The volatile press of Jakarta was quick to echo Subandrio's voice and some went so far as to suggest that the Tunku was an imperialist agent. Yet in November 1960 a Mr. Suska of the Indonesian Foreign Services had personally conveyed a letter from Subandrio to the Tunku which said that the people and the Government of the Republic appreciated all the efforts undertaken by the Prime Minister. Suska explained that Jakarta had reconsidered its position vis-a-vis West Irian and would not after all agree to the slow UN process. In order not to embarass Indonesia, the Tunku agreed to my
proposal that Subandrio's letter would not be revealed to the press for which Suska expressed deep appreciation. On 5th December 1960, i.e. a few days after the Suska visit, a press report appeared in Jakarta to the effect that a senior Indonesian official had declared that the Indonesian Government believed that the Tunku had grossly misused his rights as a mediator. I was thoroughly upset and angered by such a development and tendered a note verbale to the Indonesian Ambassador, Djatikusumo. The demarche said that unless that statement was refuted by Jakarta then Indonesia alone would be responsible for the deterioration of relations. I said I would have no choice but to release Subadrio's letter. I strongly expressed my personal dissapointment to the Ambassador who promised to attend to the problem at once. Within a day Jakarta's Foreign Office issued a denial. That was the backdrop when the Tunku made his proposal in Singapore in May 1961 regarding the close association between the states in the peninsula with North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak which led to the Malaysia proposal. The Federation Ambassador in Jakarta had briefed the Indonesian Government regarding the Tunku's proposal and the initial Indonesian response was heartening. I was myself encouraged to think that Jakarta was turning a new page towards a better relationship. Subandrio in a letter to be New York Times on 13th November 1961 wrote: "... As an example of our honesty and lack of expansionist interest, one fourth of the island of Kalimantan (Borneo) consisting of three crown colonies (sic) of Great Britain, is now becoming a target of the Malaysian Government for a merger. Of course, the people there are ethnologically and geographically very close to the others living in the Indonesian territory. Still, we do not show any objection toward this Malayan policy of merger. On the contrary, we wish the Malayan Government well ..." Then a week later in the General Assembly of the United Nations, Subadrio said, "... when Malaya told us of its intention to merge with the three British crown colonies of Sarawak, Brunei (sic) and British North Borneo as one Federation, we told them we had no objections and that we wished them success with this merger so that everyone might live in peace and freedom." Those were happy tidings as I look back. Six weeks after that statement there was a convulsion when the PKI at the 3rd Plenary of the Central Committee passed a resolution to the effect that Malaya was a form of neo-colonialism and called on the Indonesian people and
Government to heighten vigilance against the imperialist, "... especially in the face of the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia, the formation of a new concentration of colonial forces on the very frontiers of our country." Before long the PKI instigated campaigns succeeded in increasing tension, and inciting the press and certain leaders including President Sukarno and Subandrio to "confront" the Federation. By April 1963 during Liu Shao Chi's visit to Jakarta, Beijing and Jakarta jointly and categorically declared their opposition to Malaysia and their determination to scuttle the Malaysia Plan. Since that time the relation between the two Governments deteriorated very quickly. President Sukarno began to feel less and less secure and turned to rely more and more on the PKI over which he had at best only a tenuous control. Soon there was an open advocacy for the use of force by so-called freedom fighters in Kalimantan Utara. Intelligence sources of Kuala Lumpur began to report on the existance of training camps in Putusibau and other places along the Kalimantan border with Sarawak and Borneo. The colonial government of Sarawak was not too successful in their effort to control the communist group and it was growing in strength the majority of which was Chinese; there were a few Ibans. They were known as Communist Clandestine Movement who received their arms and training on the other side of the border. Things were worse confounded when Manila made a claim on North Borneo and at the same time formulated a new plan calling for an organisation of a Malay Confederation. In March 1963 Manila proposed a tripartite talk beginning with officials culminating in the Summit. By this time there was very little civility in the relationship between Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta. While I had my doubt in the usefulness of the proposed Summit the Tunku thought that to agree to the Summit might place Kuala Lumpur on the good side of Manila. Manila was informed that Malaya agreed to attend at all levels including the Summit. This proved to be correct since Kuala Lumpur heard that during the ECAFE meeting in Manila, Macapagal did advise Subandrio to call off his war of words against Kuala Lumpur and indeed Subandrio did after that appear somewhat conciliatory and even told Sir Garfield (Foreign Minister of Australia) that if satisfactory talks could be held he might be able to persuade his countrymen to accept the Malaysia plan.
The Tunku had arrived in Manila on 20th April 1963 for an official visit and was staying at the Malacanang. He had a series of meetings with Macapagal and I was present. Others present were Pelaez, Lopez and Khir Johari. I mention this to show the Tunku's attitude. Macapagal had been stressing on the need for solidarity among the Rumpun Melayu of which he claimed membership and to which the Tunku agreed. Referring to Indonesia the Tunku never waivered in his belief that there was a permanent bond of brotherly relationship between the people of Indonesia and those of the peninsula. He attributed the sorry state of affairs between Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur to the undue influence the CCP and PKI had on Sukarno and Subandrio who appeared to be the mouth-pieces of the communists. The people of Indonesia should be delivered from the clutches of the PKI who were the real enemies of the Indonesian people. The Tunku urged Macapagal to concentrate on his efforts to unite the Malay peoples of South East Asia. According to the Tunku when the chips were down the Americans and the British would not be able to defend the region effectively. "The KUMPUN MELAYU of which was an integral part should defend themselves." The Tunku then requested me to brief Macapagal on the latest which I did. During the Brunei rebellion, Azahari was in Manila and later went to Jakarta. Our information was that the Committee of Coordination against Malaysia which was headed by Subandrio had lost confidence in Azahari. Subandrio was building another leader by the name of Zulkipli who called himself a General to organise sporadic attacks along the Kalimantan border operating from Putusibau. It would appear that Subadrio was using the armed attack as well as simultaneous diplomatic initiatives as the tactic to frustrate the Malaysia Plan. It was also the Indonesian tactic to internationalise the Malaysia issue. On 11th April 1963, President Sukarno in welcoming Liu Shao Chi said that in recent years China and Indonesia had developed a friendship based on their common struggle. "A friendship that grows out of a common struggle is always stronger than a friendship formed under a FULL MOON." The reference to the FULL MOON was a mocking swipe at the national anthem of the Federation of Malaysia which was taken from a song composed by a Perak nationalist exile in the Sychelles; for years the people of Batavia sang it as a love song called
"TERANG BULAN".
The next day 12th April 1963 about 60 men armed and in uniform attacked a Sarawak (British) police post at Tebedu border village killing a police corporal and wounding two constables. The Indonesian confrontation was escalating but Subandrio found time to talk to Datuk Haji Kamaruddin, the Malayan Ambassador in Jakarta that Indonesia was opposed to the Malaysia plan because Indonesia was afraid that, "the Chinese would swallow everything in Malaysia and in view of this fear, Indonesians and Malays must come together" and Indonesia was well aware that the Malays in Malaya had been left far behind by the Chinese. Kuala Lumpur was not impressed with this line. The Tunku and President Sukarno had a meeting in Tokyo on 31st May and 1st June 1963. I think that was their first and only meeting where they were given an opportunity to know each other better. The Japanese Government had provided a house for the purpose. Only Subandrio and myself were present. I am reminded of this meeting because it was so refreshing to see these two Malay leaders, Sukarno and the Tunku, exchanging thoughts in the most positive and cordial manner. Sukarno made the right noises about brotherliness, good neighbourliness and non-interference. When asked by Sukarno to explain the Malaysia plan, the Tunku in the most sincere and convincing way gave a full exposition of the aim, and plans regarding Malaysia without hiding anything. The right cord was struck between the two leaders when they agreed that the plan would mean independence for the Borneo territories and Singapore and consequently their social and economic upliftment. The Tunku with a great deal of patience demolished all allegations that Malaysia was neo-colonialism, was a threat to Indonesia and certainly it was not a British device to serve British interests. And the Malaysia Plan had the support of the people concerned. The exchanges were extremely frank and cordial. And my heart was gladdened when they agreed to express in a communique the reaffirmation of faith in the Treaty on Friendship (1959) and further agreed that any outstanding differences on matters directly and exclusively affecting the two brotherly countries should be settled in a spirit of neighbourliness and goodwill. They even agreed to refrain from making acrimonious attacks on and disparaging references to each other. They both agreed to sanction the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of Malaya, Indonesia and the Philippines which should take place in June as a prelude to a tripartite Summit.
All differences seemed to have been thrashed out. I was filled with hope that the personal contact would remove any cobwebs between the two. When the Tunku left for the rest room and Subandrio went to have the draft of the communique typed in another room, I was left alone with Sukarno. I asked him if Singapore was in a position to liberate the Borneo territories and Singapore from colonialism. He candidly replied that Indonesia had not succeeded yet in the liberation of Irian Jaya any move in Borneo would be a fight with the British; at that time Indonesia was not in a position so to do. Then I said that we in Kuala Lumpur could deal with the British without physically fighting them. He simply said, "That is good". Then I asked him a rather sensitive matter relating to China's plan for hegemony over the islands. He laughed and invited me to live in Indonesia. I told him that I could easily go to Indonesia and live there to escape China's hegemony or to India or even England. But I reminded him that there would be about 6 million Malays in the peninsula, Singapore and South Thailand who would be abandoned to China. At the time his face changed somewhat and abruptly said that we should discuss the subject next time. The next time I tried to see President Sukarno was on the 30th August 1963 in Jakarta. At that time U Thant had known of our intention and did not object to the announcement that Malaysia Day would fall on 16th September 1963 two days after the completion of his report. I was to inform President Sukarno. Razak had invited Subandrio for a meeting in Singapore to deal with the same subject. Unfortunately Subandrio had an attack of flu and Sukarno for some reason was not able to see me. So the arrangements was that I should meet with Subandrio in Jakarta. I recall the conversation on that 30th August morning was most intriguing. Accompanying me was Datuk Kamaruddin, the Ambassador and his First Secretary, Abdullah Ali. Also from Kuala Lumpur was Jack de Silva. Mr. Suwito, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Indonesia was also present. I was intrigued by the way Subandrio spoke because he was full of apologies and admitted that the impasse was purely a British-Indonesian affair and that Kuala Lumpur had been caught in the middle. He appealed to me to appreciate that it was Indonesia's prime effort not to let Kuala Lumpur get hurt. Indonesia, he said, was on the side of Kuala Lumpur but that, using his own words, Indonesia had been the prisoner of her own stupidity which was the result of her historical experience. The anti-Malaysia
policy was a manifestation of that stupidity and it was "most difficult for Indonesia suddenly to accept Malaysia from a completely antiMalaysia policy". He was most encouraging in his concluding remark to the effect that Kuala Lumpur could rest assured that he would do his best to look towards the future rather than the past so that Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta could have peace together. "I am very grateful to Malaya for letting Indonesia know the background to the new date for Malaysia". That was on the 30th August. On the 4th September I received a stinking demarche through Ambassador Djatikusumo to the effect that the announcement of the date 16th September had created a fait accompli, and that U Thant's report which would have appeared on the 14th would have been a mockery. Those were painful days followed by painful two years in the Indonesia-Malaysia relations or its absence as a result of "Konfrontasi" with a military attack on Kalabakan, parachute landings in the peninsula and the sharp exchanges in the Security Council and other fora of the world. I was tasked by the late Razak to seek ways and means of ending "konfrontasi". Special political action was initiated and credible contact was firmly established after a few futile attempts. The Indonesia side was led by the late General (Tan Sri) Ali Moertopo assisted most ably by General (Tan Sri) Benny Moerdani, the present Minister of Defence. He, with a cover job in Bangkok, played a very important role as the communication and operational link since "konfrontasi" had ruptured diplomatic ties. Ali Moertopo's team was responsible and answerable to no one else, none other than the present President of Indonesia, General Suharto. Both Razak and Suharto were of one mind that "konfrontasi" must cease and never be allowed to happen again nor must it happen between neighbouring countries of South East Asia. Accordingly, these objectives became the terms of reference for our mission. Ali Moertopo and I dug deeply into our common cultural heritage and we found that instinctively whenever there was a sense of insecurity the tendency was to get together - 'BERKAMPUNG' from which the word "village" was derived. I had a secret meeting in Sukarno's cabinet - a Mr. Adhyatman who was assistant to Pak Adam could vouch for it. Pak Adam also was of the opinion that it would be a tragedy for all concerned that countries of South East Asia would be at loggerheads and "konfrontasi" would become the order of the day. The possibility was real since the East-West rivalry was pulling and pushing nations to take sides. The element of fear was present but not
the fear of communism. It was the fear that countries of South East Asia would be split assunder in chaos and used as pawns in the cold war. Ali Moertopo and I after several meetings in Bangkok and other capitals agreed that in presenting the concept of reconciliation and the idea of a regional cooperative organisation to our respective masters, emphasis should be made that for political problems to be effectively managed, leaders at all levels and in all sectors should constantly be exposed through personal meetings with each other. It should then be possible without inhibition with the objective of checking or making a point, for instance, for a minister or an official of Indonesia to pick up the phone and speak to his Malaysian counterpart. We recommended that inter-state problems should not be aired openly no matter how small. If they were border problems they should be dealt with locally through mechanisms or an apparatus which would serve to obviate the matter from becoming a diplomatic boil due to undue publicity. If there were border uncertainties they were to be surveyed together or together developed for mutual benefit. If the areas defied survey or development like gullies and gorges they should be left alone for the time being. We were recommending a special kind of relationship conscious of the fact that the modern separate nation state entities were the product of colonial designs which had left a number of thorny residues particularly in relation to borders. Ali Moertopo and I stressed that streams, sea and straits were not borders that separated peoples rather they were bridges that united them. This was self-evident in the South East Asian region in which relatives were found on each side of the border be a stream, strait or the sea. This unity and togetherness must never be governed by a sense of exclusiveness. (This concept of ASEAN entente was well demontrated by Thailand and Malaysia when there was an overlapping claim in an area in the EEZ; the difficulty was overcome by both sides agreeing to the creation of a Joint Development Authority for the area concerned on the principle of "drinking water from the same well". Incidentally, the Agreement was signed by the Prime Ministers of Thailand and Malaysia, two friends, during a meal at a kway teow (noodle) stall in front of the University of Chiengmai, Thailand, without the fuss and pomp which usually accompanied such an occassion.) In order that words did not become enshrined and ossified in written agreement , Ali Moertopo and I strongly suggested that a
regional organisation should be established but it should not be a creature of a formal treaty, rather a solemn Declaration of a commitment based on the indigenous spirit of faith in "togetherness" (BERKAMPUNG). And we proposed that the regional organisation should be established only after the brotherly relationship between Indonesia and Malaysia has been resumed so that together Indonesia and Malaysia would serve as the mainstay of ASEAN. We also suggested that for the organisation to have a chance of success, its political function should be low-profiled. Stress should be put on its economic character to avoid burdening the organisation with having to deal with political issues in the press which very often were grave diggers for good efforts. Malaysia and Indonesia were reconciled. Sukarno had died and was succeeded by Suharto. It was in 1967 two years after the end of "konfrontasi", and with a great deal of behind the scene diplomatic activities and arguments on the form of words of the Declaration including the nomenclature of the organisation which was resolved by Pak Adam. ASEAN rose from the ashes of "konfrontasi" on August 8 in Bangkok. The special face-to-face personal relations which we recommended indeed served well the interest of both Indonesia and Malaysia. Razak and Suharto met regularly and so did ministers and officials of governments. This practice continued between Suharto and Hussein and after that between Suharto and Mahathir until now. Their latest meeting was in Dakar, Senegal, during the G 15 conference last month. Since I was a minister in charge of security through the General Border Committee, security officers of both sides were encouraged to know each other by their first names and so did their wives. The security forces of both countries took part in joint exercises and today the level of cooperation is such that if necessary they both could easily establish a single command and control for a military operation. There was a time during a joint air exercise, utter confusion prevailed since the Malaysian Air Force used British terminologies while the Indonesian Air Force used American. With regard to the security forces, in the beginning both sides felt awkward towards each other because of different doctrines and methods of doing things. The Indonesian armed forces since they belonged to the people were allowed to live on the people but when they were in Malaysia they had to follow the Malaysian practice. I remember there were some joint operations against the communists
in Kalimantan and that the Indonesian troops had been operating on the Malaysian side of the border. A huge bill for food/ration came to me for payment and there was no formal agreement to legitimise it from the Treasury viewpoint. I presented the case to Razak and I never knew how he found the money but the bill was paid. That was a unique example of collaboration and cooperation without the niceities of a Western type of agreement. The intelligent communities of both sides knew no border. When there was a shortage of rice in Jakarta, Malaysia was quick to respond by sending relief supplies just like any two good neighbours in a kampung would do. The first special mission from Indonesia was established immediately after the visit of Admiral Syaaf and a number of senior military officers sent by General Suharto which signalled the end of confrontation. That mission was headed by Benny Moerdani who eventually organised the formal Indonesian Embassy. During May 13, 1969 General Yoga and a number of his men presented themselves to me that they were sent by President Suharto inquiring if Malaysia needed any help. We were already planning to introduce the NOC and greatfully we sent them home. But it was an extraordinary gesture which I can never forget. Nor can I forget one fateful experience. I received an urgent message from someone by the name of Carrascalao that he and his friends wanted to meet with me. At that time the Portuguese had suddenly decided to leave East Timor (Timur Timor) and Fretlin, the communist group, had taken over. As a minister in charge of security we had information that the Communist Party of China which was supporting the PKI had been sending their agents and PKI escapees through Maco to Timtim from where they infiltrated back to Indonesia, I was unhappy with the situation since that development might also adversely affect Malaysia. Carrascalao was the leader of a group which was opposed to Fretlin and I was curious to hear what he wanted to say. The meeting was in Bali. I met Carrascalao and his three companions in one of the beach hotels. We talked all night and I left for Kuala Lumpur at the break of dawn only to face the Japanese Red Army which had captured the US Embassy for which I went through three more sleepless nights. Carrascalao had bravely and secretly left Timtim for that discussion and returned immediately thereafter in the same way. I was told later the meeting helped to turn the fate of Timtim and Carrascalao later became its civilian governor.
As I look back I cannot help feeling how important it was and still is and surely will be in the future for mutual understanding to be nurtured through people to people contact at all levels. There are at times light-hearted side shows in this exercise of promoting personal contacts among leadership. One such incident was when President Suharto and the late Hussein were to meet in Tawau. All arrangements were in place but Hussein could not make it. It was decided that the meeting should nevertheless proceed but with the acting Prime Minister, then Dr. Mahathir who should be exposed to Suharto anyway. On the appointed morning, the two parties arrived in Tawau each travelling in their respective planes. I was there earlier having travelled by another plane. The meeting went as planned. Both men were by nature very shy but after a while the ice was broken. Suharto decided to leave earlier than scheduled. He waited for a member of his entourage who had gone to town to do a bit of shopping. The man quite naturally took his time; before the agreed departure time Suharto's plane closed its door and left for Jakarta. Immediately after that Dr. Mahathir left for Kuala Lumpur. I waited for the official who arrived at the airport on time for departure as previously arranged. He found to his horror his President had left and he looked most dejected. He said he had to be in Jakarta the next day. The President was receiving a foreign guest and he was to be in attendence. I told him not to despair and that I would get him to Jakarta that evening for his appointment on the morrow. I invited him into my plane and I asked the Malaysian Air Force liaison to inform our mission in Singapore to alert the Indonesia Embassy to be prepared with a ticket of a civilian carrier to Jakarta that same evening. When we arrived at Singapore airport there was a line of Indonesia officials waiting. The Armed Forces Attache was in uniform. I got down and was greeted by the Malaysian Embassy staff saying that the Indonesian Embassy officials would take care of our guest. I went to the Indonesia group with the gentleman following me. I was some what puzzled by the smart turnout yet they were ignoring the Indonesian gentleman. I could not believe the reception was for me. I soon discovered that they were waiting for General Moerdani. Someone had been messing up with names. The gentleman who was with me was Moerdiono - he is now a minister - not yet then! Since
that day Moerdiono and I became great friends and I am sure he is a great friend of Malaysia. Since friendship must be kept in constant repair, meetings between leaders and people must go on. Nothing should be taken for granted or left to chance. I wonder even with PKI endeavours if "konfrontasi" could have been avoided should the Tunku and Sukarno had more private meetings like the one they had in Tokyo where serious business was spliced with rude jokes coming from the two great Malay leaders who after all were extremely human. The atmosphere and humour at that meeting were exemplified in the following anecdote. The Tunku came back from the rest room and Sukarno remarked, "Tunku, your stable door is still open." The Tunku's hand quickly pulled up his trousers zip and while doing so remarked, "Mr. President, like you, I am always ready!"
Index
10th Regiment 369, 373 Adam Malik 150, 355, 356 Abdullah CD 367, 371- 374 Abdul Razak 189, 299, 382 Afghan War 299 AFTA 156, 200 aggression 127 Ahmad Salleh 370 Ahmad Yusof 108,165 Ahmad Yusoff 165 AIDS 274 Ajit Singh 194 Al-Argam 295 Algeria 218 Ali Alatas 173 Ali Moertopo 108,149,151,157-58,16566,189, 354, 356, 392 Alliance 16, 31 Alliance Council 29 Alliance Party 29,36, 51, 70, 73,88,99, 302, 321 American Free Trade Area 181 Anand Panyarachun 172 Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (API) 371 Anglo-American alliance 287 anti-British 49 anti-colonia 46 Anti-Corruption Agency 306 anti-God ideology 229 Anti-Japenese Army 49 anti - Muslim 256 anti-nationalist 229 anti-religious 229 APEC 35-36,175, 224-25 238, 257, 358 Area 63,171 Army 27 ASA 34,64,16566,107,108,189,298-99,351, 354,384 ASEAN 13,34,36,64,87,95,107, 111, 116,118, 120,123,124,128,131,140,144,145,147,
150,156,163,166,168,170,172,177,179, 180,181,183,189,193,196,197,198,226, 277,288,376-379 ASEAN Concord 126 ASEAN-EC 156 ASEAN Economic Ministers Meeting 197 ASEAN Free Trade Area 155,173,182,200 ASEAN Ministerial Meeting 196 ASEAN Regional Forum 199, 201 ASEAN-SAARC 194,195 Asia 204 Asia (ASA) 188 Asian Economic Caucus 146 Asian Tigers 309 Asian Unmei Kyodo Tai 205 Association of South East Asian States 298 Association of the Southeast Authority 31 Bali 179 Bali Summit 192 Bamboo Curtain 224 Bandung Declaration 127 Bangkok Declaration 129,169,180 Bangsa 106 Bangsa China 105 Bangsa Malaysia 36, 38-39, 52, 61,105, 106 Bank for International Japan 238,277, 278 Barisan Nasional 16,29,33,38,58,73,88, 102,302,322,325 Barisan Nasional Council 73 Barisan Nasional Party 73 Benny Moerdani 149,157,165,189, 354, Berjaya 54 BERKAMPUNG 189 Berlin Wall 308 Blueprint 203
BN38 Bosnia Herzegovina 285, 287, 341 British 25 British as Rural Industrial Development Authority (RISDA) 300 British Borneo 88 British Goverment 68 British Malay Regiment 368 British North Borneo Company 43 British Royal Navy 43 Brunei 180, 298 Brunei Sultanate 43 Buddhist Sinhalese 254, 256 Bumiputras 58, 381 Bushido 136 Cambodia 169,179,182 Canadian-United States Free Trade Agreement (CANUSTA)116,117 CANUSTA 117 Caracas Statement 22 CCP 369, 374 Central Committe 373 CGDK152,160 Chandra Bose 366 Chandra Bose's Indian National World War I 27 Charter of Economic Right 276 Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States 210 Chin Peng 367-68,370-74 China 23,126,176, 217, 233,271-72, 278 China Communist Party 364 Chinese Affairs Department 67 Chinese Communist Party 138 Chinese lesson 126 citizenship 100,105 Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea 111, 130 Cold War 79,85,109,132,150,158,236-37, 272,278-79,284, 288,308,309 Cold Warriors 237 colonialism 78 COMICON 111 Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) 182 Common Fund 276 Commonwealth of Islamic 34 Commonwealth of Nations 35
competition while cooperation 238 communism 236, 332 communists 68 Communist Parties 21 Communist Party of China 27,48,67,96,124 Communist Party of IndoChina 138 Communist Party of Indonesia 21 Communist Party of Malaya 96 Community 246 confrontation 166,189 Confrontation Sukarno 21 Confucious 23 Consultative Council 60- 61, 74,89,102, 265, 303, 323 Cooperation 151,153,159- 60,181,167, 198, 304 Cooperation and Development (OECD) 209 Cooperation in South East Asia 110 Council Negeri 43 CPM 35, 366, 373 cultural disjunction 223 cultural revolutions 221 Dai Toa Kyo Ei Ken 183 Daitoa Kyoei Ken 135, 205 Dalforce 49 Dato' Onn 69 Dato' Onn Jaafar 69 Declaration of ASEAN Concord 128 Declaration of Principles 199 democracy 22-23, 48, 240, 241 democratic 23 Deng Hsiao Peng 374 Department 373 deregulation 14 desires 221 Development Authority (RIDA) 300 Dewan Negara (Upper House) 33 Dialogue Partners 201 Djatikusumo 386 Doctrine 110 Do Muoi 141 Dr. Mahathir 60, 63, 76, 87, 310 Dr. Sun Yat Sen 47 Duarte Barbosa 25 Dunburton Oak 217 Duties of States 276
Index / 399
EAEC 35, ,55,174,175 183,185-86,19394, 224-25 250-51, 253, 257, 277-78, 288,359,362, 370 EAEC East Asia 225 EAEC ,European Community 185 Earth Summit Programmes 261 East Asia Caucus 242 East Asia Economic Caucus 147,350,213, 277,324,350,358,299 East Asian 36 East Asian Economic Caucus 64, 87 East Asian Economic Grouping 35 East Asian Pacific Rim 208 East Timor 217 East Turkestan Eepublic 234 Eastern Europe 202 EC 35,117,143,162, 238 EC-ASEAN 376, 377 EEC 376 Economic Cooperation Agreement 208 Economic Consultative Council 37 Economic Issues 25 Economic Order 210 Effective Preferential Tariff 173 ESCAP 338 Euro-racism 203 European Community 203, 207 European Economic Malaysian 247 European Free Trade Association (EFTA) 207 European Home 232, 233 European Industrial Revolution 65, 77 European Market 207 Fa-Hsien 25 Fat Man 282 FELDA 71,103 Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA) 300 Federal Land Development Free Trade Zones 14 Federal Land Development Schemes 101 Federal Parliament 58 Federation of Malaya 65, 68, 97 Federation of Malaya Agreement 50, 303 Federated Malay States 39,43,66,364,381 FLEA 212 Fortress Europe 131
Francis Bacon 12 Frans Andriessen 211 freedom 216 Freedom and Neutrality 159,125, 350 freedom of speech 214 Free Trade Area 143, 173 Free Market 270 Free Trade Zones 38, 59 FTA 147 Fujiwara 79 Fujiwara Kikan 47,138, 368, 369 Fukuda doctrine 123,178, 310 Fukoku Kyohei 135 G-7 118,276-77 G-15 91,275,324 GATT 35, 63,116,139,161-62,171, 173, 180-82, 209, 225, 236, 288,298-99, 354 GATT Free Trade 183 GATT principles and practices 362 General Agreement on Tariff and Trade 63 General Templer 28 GESTAPU 21,139 Glasnost 227, 231 globalisation 235, 240, 241, 242, 247 Global Economic Challenges 141 Goh Chok Thong 173 Gorbachev 227-28, 231-32, 272 Great East Co-prosperity Uruquay Round 63- 64 Government 79 Gross Demestic Product 103 General Terauchi 133 Ghazali Shafie 165 Group of 15 210 Group of 24 209 Group of 77 209 Hakko Ichiu 135 Hakko Icihiu 205 Harlan Cleaveland 174 Hatta 357 HAVENOTS 347-48, 350 heavy industries 14 Henry Gurney 372 HIDUP MELAYU 26 Hindu Tamils 254-56 Hoachio 136 Hoo AH Kay 42
Hong Kong 217, 271 hot war 132, 279 House of Representatives (Dewan Rakyat) 30 Human rights 22, 84, 261 Humpty Dumpty's principle 283 Ibrahim Yaacob 357 Imperial Rescript 133 Incentive Act 14 Indian National Army 49, 67, 365 independence 69,298 Independence for Malaya Party (IMP) 69 Indonesia 108, 217 Indonesian Communist Party 166 industria lisation 14, 236, 332, industrial revolution 222 Integrated Programmes for Commodities 210 International Liaison Ibrahim Chik 374 Investment 14 Investment Incentive 37 Investment Incentive Act 59 Iron Curtain 308 Islam 61 Islamic values 62 Jai Hind 67 Jamin@Jalil 373 JANATHA VIMUKTHI PERA MUNA 255 Japan 219, 223 Japanese 26 Japenese Imperial Army 47 Japenese Imperial Goverment 49 Japanese Military Government 79 Japanese occupation 67 Japan-South East Asia Conference 38 Jiang Jemin 136 jus sanguinis 48,105 jujitsu stratagem 81 Kerakyatan 105, 106 Kesatuan Melayu Muda 47 Khir Johari 388 Khomeini 233 KMT 365, 366, 369 Komunisme 21 konfrontasi 108,150,151,158, 356 Koran 259
Kuala Lumpur 168,179, 394 Kuala Lumpur Municipal Council 69, 98 Kuomingtang 48, 67, 96, 364 Kyong San Tong 67, 96 Kyoryoku shinagara kyoso 238 Lau Khehs 97 leader 326 Leadership 290-92 Lee Kuan Yew 172,184,194 Lee Moses 44 Liaotung Peninsula 135 liberty 217 Livelihood 49 Look East 77, 85, 311, 319 Look East Policy 224 Lome Convention 209, 212 Long March 373 Macapagal 95, 388 MacArthur Restoration 135 MacMichael Treaty 16, 26, 50 Mahathir 193 Mahathir Mohamad 244, 266 Majlis Amanah Rakyat 300 Malacca 25 Malay 65 Malay Land Reservations 300 Malay nationalism 67 Malay Nationalist Party (MNP) 371 Malay Regiment 45 Malay Reservations 66, 71, 96 Malay Reservation Law 381 Malay Resistence Movement 368 Malay Resistance Movement (Wataniah) 366 Malay States 42, 47 Malay world of Nusantara 44 Malaya 51, 299 Malayan 28 Malayan Chinese Association 28,68,87, 98,298,321 Malayan Communist Party 27,163, 364 Malayan Indian Congress 28,76,87,98, 298, 321 Malayan People 49 Malayan People's Anti Japanese Army 365 Malayan People Liberation Army 367 Malayan Police Force 368
Index / 401
Malayan Union 26, 40, 65, 68, 69, 97, 298, 366 Malayan Volunteer Force 368 Malaysia 11,14,17, 31, 40, 65,101,108, 233, 242, 244-45, 250, 262, 267, 296, 351 Malaysia Incorporated 38, 90, 335 Malaysian Federation 298 Malaysian Malaysia 37, 61,104 Malaysia Plan 38,108,166, 265 Manchus 96 Manila 169,180,192 Manila Summit 153,160 Maphilindo 166,189, 299 MARA 304 MARA Institute of Technology 102 Marshall Plan 183 May 13 17,19, 53, 68, 71 Merdeka 54 MCA 70 MCP 367-70 MCP Central Committee 374 meeting 79,197 mega-conglomerates 15 Meiji Restoration 134 Melayu 381-82 Melayu Raya 369 MERDEKA 26, 70, 298 middle -class 58, 61, 74 modernisation 332 Monroe Doctrine 238 Movement 387 MPAJA 365-66 multi-ethnic 74 multi-lateral liberalisation 203 multi-racial 72 multi-religious 72 Musa Ahmad 367, 371-74 Muslim Malay 294 Myanmar 217, 218 NAFTA 35,143,146,171, 238, 246, 358 NASAKOM 21 Nasionalisme, Agama, PKI 21 National Consultative Council 33, 55, 62, 99,100, 262 National Development Policy (NDP) 38, 103 National Development Plan 37, 39
National Economic mutual understanding and mutual respect 268 New Economic Policy 89 National Economic Rukunegara 90 National Economic Vision 2020 303, 324-25, 334, national emergency 53, 71 National Front 29 National Operations Counci 17, 32, 53, 71, 88, 99 , 262, 322 National Organisation 26 National Security Council 301 National Unity 98-100,103 Nationalism 48 NATO 122,127, 339 NECC 102 -103 Necessity 221 necessity and want 221 need 221 NEO-COMMUNISM 271-72 NEP 36, 37, 59, 59, 60, 74, 90,101,102, 265, 304 Netherlands 217 Neutrality 109 - 111, 119-120 New Economic Policy 17, 33, 38, 56- 57, 72,100, 264, 302, 323 New Internation Economic Order 210 New Villages 68, 70 New World Order 270 Ng Tiong Kiat 371 Nixon Doctrine 168 NOC 37, 54, 60 Non-Aligned Movement 35, 85,184, 276, 285, 319 Norodom Sihanouk 160 North American Free Trade Harlan Cleaveland 146 North Borneo 32 North Borneo Company 44 North- South dialogue 276 Nusantara 44 ODA policy 22, 358 Okazaki 354 one country, two systems 123 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 209 Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) 34 Outline Perspective Plan 38,105
Pacific War 67 PAP 29 Papua New Guinea 199 Paris Club 210, 276 PAS 59 Pax Britannica 66, 263 Pax Japonica 65 PBS 58 Pelaez 388 Peoples Liberation Army 23, 215 Perestroika 63, 111, 130,180,202, 212, 227, 231-32 PERNAS 36 Pham Van Dong 111 PKI 394 Plan 60 policy of "spherism" 80 policy of "universalism" 80 Pol Pot 111, 126, 347 Post-Pacific War 328 Post-War Constitution 328 post-Word War 281 Potsdam Conferance 282 Potsdam meeting 79 poverty 59 Preferential Trading Arrangement 142 principle of non-interference 217 privatisation 14 process of "democratisation" 220 Prophet Muhammad 258 psychological weapons 222 Puritan 258 Qian Quichen 359 quasi-political association 46 Rashid Mydin 372 Red Book 71 Red Flag 126 religious hegemonism 259 Rizal 96 resource-base industries 14 Rukunegara 17, 32-33, 36, 52, 55- 56, 58, 60- 61, 64, 71, 89, 242, 262-64, 266-67, 301, 323, 334 Rumpun Melayu 381 Rural Development Programme 101 Rural Industrial Development Authority 300 Russia 272
Russian Commonwealth 64 Sabah 31 Sarawak 31 SARC 35,140 Schwarzkopf 135 Schumann 207 Settlement 209 SEATO 122,189, 384 Second Outline Perpective Second Malaysia Plan 59 Security Council 118 Senate (Dewan Negara) 30 Sense of Foulness 139 Shamsiah Pakeh 371, 372 Showa Imperial Rescript 135 Singapore 17, 29, 41, 97 Singapore Declaration 154,172 Singapore Summit 154,174,181-82,192 Sinhalese 256 Sinhalese nationalism 254 Sihanouk 111 Sin Khehs 96 socialism 236 social system 218, 219 Socialist Market Economy 271 South Commission 91, 209, 324 South East Asia 107,108,122,123,165 South-North Cooperation 277 South-South 195,118, 278 South-South Cooperation 194, 277 Southern Common Market Blueprint 203 South-North 195,118, 278 South Pacific Regional Trade 208 Soviet Union 285 Sphere 49 spherism 314 spirit of Unmei Kyodo Tai 363 Sri Lanka 254-55, 256, 259, 262, 269 Stalin 282, 285 States 34 State Economic Development PERNAS 305, 306 Straits Settlements 364 Strike South Policy 135 Straits Settlements 40, 41 Straits Settlements Legislative Council 42 Subandrio 385, 386
Index / 403
subversion 128 subversive activities 125 Suharto 110, 299 Sukarno 34,107,149,151,157,166, 189, 298, 354, 357, 383, 387-88, 396 Sultanates 297 Sun Min Chu 48 Sun Yat Sen 48 SUPP 73 Syed Nasir Ismail 383 System 119 Taipei 272 Tamil nationalism 254 Tamil United Liberation Front 255 Tanah Melayu 95 TANAKA Memorial 133 Tan Cheng Lok 50 Tan Sri Ahmad Sarji 62 Tapioca Estate 371 tenth Regiment 367-68 the concept of communitarian ism 224 The concept of power 240 the concept security 240 the European Security 120 The Federation of Malaya Constitution 50 The Great East Asia War 329 the Malaya Sultans 297 The Malayan Chinese Association 70 The Treaty of Amity Nixon Israel 116 Third World 22,184 Third World Movement 185 Three Peoples' Principles 48 Tienanmen incident 215 togetherness 220, 224-25, 333 trade blocs 207, 237 Trade nationalism 257 Treaty of Amity and Communist Party of Indo-South East Asia 126 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation 64 Treaty of Amity and Use of force 128 Treaty of Rome 203 Treaty of Shomonoseki 133 TRIAD 147 TRIAD Society 146 Truman 282 tuai rumah 91 Tuanku Abdul Rahman 31, 34, 383, 385 Tun Abdul Razak 32- 33, 53, 72, 99,101,
149,157,165, 351, 355 Tun Hussein 87 Tun Razak 87 two systems one country 217, 271 UMNO 28,30,69,98,298 UN 339, 340, 341 UNESCO 338 Unfederated Malay States 40, 364 UNICEF 33 Union 299 United Malays 26 United Malay National Organisation 87, 97,298,321 United Nations 337 UNPROFOR 285, 339, 342 United States 218 universalism 79, 80, 92, 282, 286, 313-14 Unmei Kyodo Tai 148 Uruguay Round 139,142,147-48, 171, 173-74,193, 210, 236, 253 US-Canada Free Trade Area 208 US-Canada-Mexico Free Trade Pembentukan Bangsa 94 US-EC 379 USSR 122 U-Thant 339 Vietnam 169 Vietnamese Communist Party 141 Vietnam War 345 Vienna Convention on UNCED neo-colonialism 282 Virgin Land Policy 229 Vision 2020 38, 74,75, 90,104, 242, 24445, 248, 251, 253, 267, 288 Vo Van Kiet 141 Wahi Annuar 367, 371 warga 105,106 Warga Malaysia 105 Warsaw Pact 122,127, 202 Westminster 30 Wawasan 2020 36, 52, 60-61, 63-64 Western governance 77 Western democracy 22 West values 84 White Flag 126 World War 312 World War I 286
World War II 79, 97,164, 280, 287 Yang Di-Pertuan Agong 304 Yap Ah Loy 42 Yetsin 272, 285 youths 289
Zaibatsu 133 Zainab Mahmud 370, 372-374 Zhdanov 282 Zone of Peace 125, 350 Zone of Peace Freedom and ZOPFAN 34, 64,127,152,168,178,191, 197
G H A Z A L I
S H A F I E
Malaysia, Asean and the New World Order

Ghazali Shafie has played a pivotal in charting the course of Malaysian foreign policy, first as a senior official at the Foreign Service and later, after his entry into politics, as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Leaving active politics, however, has not meant total departure from foreign affairs for Ghazali Shafie has continued to serve the nation in realising its diplomatic goals. This has been possible mostly because of his close rapport with many of the word's leading statesman. Apart from his role in international diplomacy, Ghazali Shafie has exercised considerable influence in determining Malaysia's socio-economic development especially in the post May 13 era. As Minister with Special Funtions he was responsible for the formulation of the New Economic Policy and Second Malaysia Plan. In the context of nation building his central belief has been that of power sharing as the key to enduring stability Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order is a record of his ideas and ideals as presented at various gatherings - both local and international - on a variety of issues including nation building global economic challenge, conflict resolution , ASEAN and the New World Order.
TAN SRI GHAZALI SHAFIE, a graduate of the University College of Wales and The London School of Economics, was Resident Writer at the Institute of Malay World and Civilisation (UKM) 1993 - 95. Three of his earlier works published by the enerbit UKM are Rumpun Melayu dan Bangsa Malaysia menjelang Tahun 2020, Ghazali Sbafie's Memoir on the Formation of Malaysia (1998) and Malay ationatism and Globalisation (1997).
PENERBIT
I UKM

Malaysia, ASEAn and The New World Order

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Malaysia, ASEAn and The New World Order

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

GHAZALI_ SHAFIE

Malaysia, Asean and the New World Order

Tan Sri Ghazali Shafte

Malaysia, Asean and the NewWorld Order

PENERBIT UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA BANGI

6 I Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

Malaysia: Facing the Global Economic Challenges of the 1990s

12 I Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

Malaysia: Facing the Global Economic Challenges / 13

14 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

Malaysia: Facing the Global Economic Challenges I 15

Establishing a United Malaysian Nation / 17

18 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

20 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

Democracy and Development / 21

22 I Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

Democracy and Development / 23

24 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

26 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

Political and Economic Issues in Nation Building / 27

28 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

Political and Economic Issues in Nation Building / 29

30 I Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

Political and Economic Issues in Nation Building / 31

32 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

Political and Economic Issues in Nation Building / 33

34 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

Political and Economic Issues in Nation Building / 35

36 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

Political and Economic Issues in Nation Building / 37

38 I Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

Political and Economic Issues in Nation Building / 39

Issues and Responses in the National Setting / 41

42 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

Issues and Responses in the National Setting / 43

44 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

Issues and Responses in the National Setting / 45

46 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

Issues and Responses in the National Setting / 47

48 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

Issues and Responses in the National Setting / 49

50 I Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

Issues and Responses in the National Setting / 51

52 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

National Unity: Key to the Ultimate Malaysian Society

54 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

56 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

58 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

60 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

62 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

64 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

7 Conflict Resolution: The Malaysian Experience

66 I Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

68 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

70 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

72 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

74 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

8 Leadership, Development, Evolution of Culture: the Malaysian Experience

Leaderdship, Development, Evolution of Culture / 77

78 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

Leaderdship, Development, Evolution of Culture / 79

80 / Malaysia, ASEAN and the New World Order

Leaderdship, Development, Evolution of Culture / 81