On your last point, 100%.
He still continues to this day, nearing 100 years old, I wish he’d just call it quit lol.
I don’t know whybut many Asian media news sites continues to quote his words like he has any relevance.
seaposting
joined 1 month ago
Agreed with practically everything you said. The AFC was definitely an engineered attack against SEA to disrupt EA-SEA integration, but interestingly enough I would say lead to the rise of labour organization and consciousness in Indonesia, with the presidentship of the progressive Abdurrahman Wahid, before his prompt ousting of course but that’s a different story.
Although there are small details I’d contest.
while instituting neoliberal mass privatizations to benefit his own cronies.
He had quite a flip-floppy industrial policy but in his first couple terms he did pursue import-substitution industrialization, especially for transportation. Only in the later years did he then ran on a neoliberal platform (which lead to the rise of the current opposition party of PAS).
socially conservative
I don’t agree with the use of this phrase to describe Malaysian or Asian social beliefs because it mischaracterises the class positions and historical-cultural reasons for why populations in the Global South would seem “backward” compared to bourgeois-liberals in the West. (A lot of it is just Western chauvinism aswell).
Malaysia’s current geopolitical trajectory
Sitting at one of the most important waterways in the world - the strait of Melaka, the country hosts the 2nd largest Chinese diaspora, 3rd largest Indian diaspora and largest Indonesian, Bangladeshi and Nepali diaspora. One thing to know is that Malaysian foreign policy never strays too far from home.
It has now been a few years since the 2022 General Election, where a lot of the foreign alternative media was highlighting US influence in the opposition coalition and a potential westward turn. But unfortunately to them, lacking in dialectical materialism and influenced by Eurocentrism, they never actually understood the material and historical contexts that shape Malaysian politics.
remainder
To be clear, there is clear evidence of US involvement in aspects of the opposition. This is inevitable, Malaysia has a large professional English educated middle class owing to British colonization and many who aspire to be professional activists in the NGO industrial complex. The government’s continuation of colonial-era policies of unions and radical political organization meant that in modern-day Malaysian society there are really two avenues for those that want to be politically active: fall under the bureaucracy of parliamentary parties or go through ‘independent’ NGOs in “civil society”. However, this also implies that the past ruling coalition of nearly 50 years as somehow the anti-imperialist or atleast anti-US position. This isn’t the case.
Brief background on Malaysian Foreign Policy
Malaysian foreign policy has stayed remarkably consistent despite changes of government. This is due to the position of Malaysia in the global world economy, where through it’s colonial history and subsequent independence through build-up of native industries, it anchors Malaysian foreign policy and dissuades large changes. As such a lot of the country’s foreign policy hedges on free trade and ensuring domestic political stability and openness to foreign investment. This status-quo remains comfortable for most of the national bourgeoisie. That said, continual pressure from the diverse masses and popular classes ensure that the government could never take an outwardly pro-West position.
In practical terms this means broad alignment with Global South and Islamic interests, despite the prevalence of comprador classes. This means a firm anti-Zionist stance, extensive economic and cultural co-operation with China, close historical and cultural ties with Indonesia and India, and engagements with internationalism through the Non-Aligned Movement and others. It has one of the most progressive foreign policies in Southeast Asia, or at-least in the ASEAN-5, especially concerning China.
Back to the present
The government is now in the process of drafting the 13th Malaysia Plan - the next 5-year plan for 2026-2030, which is when Malaysia is finally forecasted to reach high-income status according to World Bank classifications. This economic development is what I attribute to as the cause of the fracturing and instability of the Malaysian political scene - the fall of Barisan Nasional and rise of Pakatan Harapan and Perikatan Nasional. It represents a shift of power from the old ruling classes to the aspiring and modern national bourgeoise and petite-bourgeoisie, represented by the new or rising political parties, who grew and responded to an environment nearing the end of the Cold War, at the midst of neoliberalism’s establishment. The “radical change” as hoped and expected by the NGOs, Western and Alternative media never happened - which was to no one’s surprise except the liberals.
The current government is currently pursuing a lot of fiscal reforms, while echoing neoliberal phrases that has become all too common. This isn’t especially new - this is merely a continuation of neoliberal policies since the 1990s, before any large changes within the Malaysian parliamentary scene. Generally, neoliberalism in the country has never taken a fully radical turn like that found in Argentina. For parts of the national bourgeoisie, privatization means a loss of their own class’s accumulation, and so neoliberalism trickles in targeting particular industries that maximizes their own racial-class gain. The so-called “third position” found in many semi-peripheral global south countries.
The current Prime Minister does have more of an assimilationist foreign policy rhetorically, especially when compared to some of the previous prime ministers. It falls quite well in line to the coalition’s class base of “sensible” and “smart” (read “business friendly”) policymaking, but again this falls quite in line with past precedent of telling the West what it wants to hear but never actually acting on everything said. The “liberal reformer” seemingly is not much of a reformer after all - but he definitely fits the liberal bill though.
To give another example, he echoes decades old refrains from neighbouring Singapore - whereby the Palestinian cause is “divisive” that threatens “social harmony”. The context of this is that there have been continuous protests and mobilizations for Palestine, especially after October 7th, with demonstrations infront of the US embassy in particular. Sometimes organized by left-wing organizations, sometimes by mainstream political parties - often by the new opposition after the liberals gained power (especially that of Parti Islam Se-Malaysia).
This binary understanding of the role of religion and race is part and parcel of the government’s liberal minded coalition when it comes to racial relations - too simple, sometimes naive. Don’t mistake this rhetoric as being pro-Zionist though, for that is an untenable position in Malaysia. Just recently the Prime Minister emphasized the need to speak against Israeli aggression and crimes in Gaza and Iran and maintaining “centrality” (neutrality), not relying on any one country too much.
What holds for the future?
The so-called rise of “protectionism” has put Southeast Asian economies in a somewhat lucrative position through the China+1 strategy and others. This in effect has risen the trade and foreign investment with the US but it remains to be seen if this foreign investment can be sustained or will actually yield long-term benefits. Malaysia will continue straddling this neutral position, but for a majority of Malaysian policymakers, dealing with the US is merely an economic necessity, but does not hold any of the cultural, political or historical significance like it does with China. Over the longer term, Asian trade and investments will only continue to increase in relevance, with the flagship BRI project, the East Coast Rail Link, on track to finish by next year, bringing needed development to deprived east coast communities and enabling another potential rail link to Thailand.
The Malaysian establishment’s continual acquiescence to Western Capital and unwillingness to be at the forefront of a Global South alternative will undoubtedly continue to roadblock further prosperity and harm the country when the middle-ground becomes impossible, giving further ammunition to those outside the current ruling coalition.
To reiterate what I have wrote in the past, this means that Malaysia can only lean more East as time goes on. It is simply unfeasible for Malaysia to shift West. Economically, politically, culturally, and historically. Do not believe the “analysis” of those that have only stepped foot in this country to visit the beaches. All signs are leading to greater Eurasian and especially ASEAN integration.
And to connect it to current events, having never recognized the Zionist Entity, the country has called the “Israeli Zionist regime” strikes on Iran a “flagrant violation of international law” but falls short of naming the key supporter of “Israeli” aggression, the US of A. Furthermore, Malaysia-Iran relations are friendly although minuscule. In the long-term, I do see growth as the US empire weakens due to both being Islamic countries and high potential for co-operation in many industries, but especially in oil and gas.
That specific comment on comprador diaspora refers to the infamous Indisch peoples , the mixed-race compradors of the Dutch East India now residing in the Netherlands. See for example “Racial apartheid continues, targeting Indonesian war victims”.
I definitely agree that Indonesia, the largest and yet one of the poorest in Southeast Asia, face numerous class divides of multiple levels, both nationally, and sub-nationally, especially with regards to East Timor and West Papua.
As for the rest of what you said, of course it is true, and the film takes the point-of-view of those involved in the massacres, in which they have already justified it all in their heads - they wouldn’t be alive to that day otherwise. The historical tragedy and trauma of the destruction of the Parti Komunis Indonesia can not be understated, and the further massacres as well.
I said what I said, because in postcolonial societies there is resistance to colonization and also submission to colonization.
For Indonesia, decolonization has been part of our daily life, we have been doing it every day, in all aspects of life, economics, education, technology and sociocultural. The Western domination is everywhere and we fight it every day. In its true sense the term decolonization puts the experience of the (ex) colonized and oppressed people in the center. For Indonesia, decolonization is not just an agenda to look for truth, it is much bigger than that. To be an independent country we have to turn away from the Western guidance and get back what the colonizers took from us. We must re-own the term decolonization again and start to enlighten the Dutch how to decolonize their mind.
Indonesia is indeed a sick society, a country with scars etched by colonization, but what I won’t accept is that Indonesia has no form of agency from Western Capital that we can plainly see through their interactions and relations with Russia and China as part of the Global South semi-periphery.
The country is suffering from the contradictions of the past and present but that does not negate the atrocious Eurocentrism when Indonesian history is talked about. It’s own unique cultural history that is intertwined with other Southeast Asian nation-states and continues to be an anti-colonial and anti-imperialist force within Indonesia, and although many were and continue to be silenced, aspects of their continual sacrifice can still be seen in the present day.
That is what I am trying to highlight when I say that Indonesian history is unique, because despite of what you mention, Indonesia still takes a neutral stance to the modern-day US-China rivalry. China has been Indonesia’s largest trading partner since 2005, 20 consecutive years. That in on itself suggests something more going underneath the surface. But a lot does not appreciate this history, and only look at traumatic events in the past without actually moving the discourse forward to present-day realities.
For an example of what I am saying, see this article for example, “International Discussion: Building International Solidarity Against Militarism in Indonesia”
and
“Indonesia’s Probable Foreign Policy Shift from the West under a Prabowo Administration”
This gives a part of the analysis, but many still need to be carried out and importantly practiced so Indonesia can finally move away from a dark period of it’s history.
Ah apologies, I didn’t mean to come off too strong. I was still pissed off at the article - let’s use that as the excuse.
The point of my reply was to emphasize that there are anti-imperialist and independent forces within each country, but it is very easy to paint Southeast Asian countries as sinophobic and fall into pessimism when this is not nearly the case, especially with the South China Sea issue.
I think a lot of anti-Chinese sentiment in the Philippines is merely manufactured through co-ordinated media warfare and does not reflect the realities of beliefs of people on the ground. My filipino comrades can clarify this further, but from what I know, yes there may be millions, but for a region with nearly 600million people, and a country of 100million, even tens of millions still does not amount to a majority. A sizeable minority at best.
Indonesia is a unique case in that they do not actually have any overlapping SCS claims because they don’t actually neighbour the South China Sea. I would also say out of the major Southeast Asian countries, Indonesia is the only postcolonial country without a sizeable comprador diaspora or colonial-era Western educated comprador elite with sizeable power. That isn’t to say there aren’t comprador and reactionary forces within Indonesia, but there has not been a complete Western ideological capture of educational institutions within the country. They definitely do not subscribe to Eurocentric perversions of International Relations and foreign policy, which is what my critique is specifically based on. Talks of the Bandung spirit still lives strong.
Malaysia, well that’s where I am from, and I have nearly finished editing an essay on Malaysian foreign policy. And again, contrary to this weird assumption that postcolonial countries are only filled with pro-colonizer compradors, being Anti-West in Malaysia is the norm. You talk to a random guy on the street and chances are they’d praise Russia before they’d have anything positive to say about the US. There is a decent comprador population in Malaysia of course, but most of their concerns are funnelled through domestic policy issues and NGOs, and rarely does the mainstream and comprador media here talk about the South China Sea, especially with the sort of veracity and explicit anti-China bias you find in the West.
It is a complete fabrication made to enthuse the War profiteers than something that will actually lead to all-out instability (unless through US provocations by proxy of the Philippines and Taiwan).
Edit: I was wrong about Indonesia not having claims in the SCS, for I thought they had already solved the disputed claims diplomatically but actually the “North Natuna Sea” as coined by the Indonesian side still remains disputed territory. Although under the new Indonesian administration, Indonesia seemed quite happy with China’s joint development proposal, in which I generally personally agree with aswell.
But regardless, the lack of news being raised about this signifies it’s non-importance, especially considering from what I know there has been no updates on the overlapping claims of Malaysia-Indonesia.
I was going to write a proper response to another Western article on the SCS but they all are so lame and predictable.
China militarizing sand blah blah blah.
And then the common made up theory is that’s why these SEA nations are “hedging” and “balancing” between great powers.
It’s all so tiring. Westerners managed to end one war in the ducking 1600s and they think they know anything about international relations or statecraft. And I am especially raging at Amerikans whose country barely existed for 300 years thinking their decades old “expertise” can navigate millenia old cultures and history. Yes I really care about what a Guy in Baltimore thinks about the South China Sea issue.
::: spoiler A Response
The issue with a lot of those in the field international relations is that they can’t ever escape their Eurocentric pretensions and understandings. In the article they try to take an ideological “neutral” “understanding” of the South China Sea by evoking very tired concepts like “hedging” and mistakenly (or purposefully) project their own impressions and dynamics of Southeast Asian relations with China, and so they use the terms like “aggressive” and “great power”, when truthfully no one actually gives a fuck (except maybe VietNam) and no one in Southeast Asia ever uses those term, unless they have been groomed into Western institutions and education.
Literal Amerikan Geopolitical propaganda.
No one ducking lives there you dumb fucks. Are the fish victims of Chinese Imperialism? Perhaps their migration signifies hedging to US Navy boats. And actually I can hear one fish cry out, “save us from being victims of really good hotpot”.
Every accusation is projection and etc.
Mahathir is indeed unique in Malaysian politics, because he was the first Prime Minister to not be of royal origin and being born from peasants. As part of the up and coming Malay-Muslim bourgeoisie within UMNO, against the traditional British-aligned feudal bureaucrats back in the 60s and 70s, his firebrand speeches does seem quite anti-imperialist for those unaware. However, Malaysian foreign policy had already shifted east-ward and maintained this position since Tun Abdul Razak, where Mahathir was really just riding the coat tails of.
I also do think generally his anti-semitism is usually overstated especially in Western media. It plays only a small role in the grand scheme of things.
As for his Malay-Muslim supremacy, that’s a big one because for a lot of those on the left, the creation of the comprador Malaysian nation-state was already as right-wing as you can get, especially with the secession of Singapore. I have written before about the class forces that led to this secession, and so I won’t focus too much on it here but the reason I bring it up is that a lot of Malaysian liberals of any racial background, have this false idea that Mahathir was the main progenitor of racialism (racism), and that prior to his premiership there were little-to-no racial tension. This was definitely not the case.
I’d say the key contributor to rising racial tension was the failure of left-wing parties and organizations to consolidate and gain power, and of course there is a ton of reasons for this, but just to name one example, Barisan Sosialis in the 60s and 70s were the premier left-wing party that was composed of a unity between Malay-Muslim farmers and Chinese labourers. Their fall lead to a resurgence and continuation of racial-baiting in the political scene and myopic race-based party decision-making.
Furthermore, now to mention the liberals, they too had facilitated racialism within the country despite their pretentiousness and claims of being anti-racist. This is because of their misunderstanding of racialism and the causes of it within Malaysia - which has always been because of unequal land distribution, colonial-era relations of production and British-origin ideological divide and conquer.
Now the liberals have built up quite a large propaganda machine that over-exaggerates racial difference and racial tensions to practically scare voters into voting for them. It’s two sides of the same coin.
And so to call Mahathir right-wing because of his Malay-Muslim supremacism is really meaningless to those on the left here. A lot of the modern-day Malaysian political establishment and the many-many parties are right-wing by that definition, for none actually seek to reorganize the relations of production and actually end the root causes of racialism.