ASIAVIEW, October 2003 PAGE 1

Asia Research Centre Murdoch University, Perth, Australia

VIEWOctober 2003, Volume 13, No 1.

http://wwwarc.murdoch.edu.au

D

he recently-convened Centre conference,‘Globalisation, Conflict and Political

Regimes in East and Southeast Asia’, held inFremantle between 15th and 16th August,brought together a rich array of papers anddiscussions on the implications of conflictsemanating from neo-liberal globalisation forthe directions of political regimes in the region.

August Conference on Globalisation and Conflict

Professor Val Alder meets conference delegates (from left)Professor Shaun Breslin, Dr Ian Taylor and Dr Wil Hout.

uring 2003-05, the Asia ResearchCentre’s agenda will be principally

shaped by the objectives of the new PoliticalRegimes and Governance in East andSoutheast Asia project. This research hasthus far attracted $430,000, mainly fromexternal sources, with additional fundsenvisaged through collaboration with otherCentres and further support from grants.

The project addresses the politicalimplications of pressures for governancereform and institution-building associatedwith the restructuring of market systems inthe region in the wake of the 1997-98 ‘Asiancrisis’. The capacity or otherwise ofauthoritarian and post-authoritarian regimesto absorb or accommodate these pressures ispivotal to the project’s enquiry. Can calls forincreased transparency, freer informationflows, improved corporate governance, ruleof law and other institutions be satisfiedwithout releasing dynamics inimical to

Political Regimes andGovernance Project to Lead the Agenda

By Garry Rodan

political authoritarianism? Or can new,more sophisticated forms of authoritarianand illiberal rule emerge to resist thesechallenges?

Political Regimes and Governance isorganised around four themes: ruling elites,corporate governance and politics; civilsociety, social capital and political pluralism;media, information flows and free expression;and markets and authoritarianism. Furtherdetails about these themes are provided onthe Centre’s web page. The differentauthoritarian regimes of China, Malaysiaand Singapore as well as post-authoritarianregimes where democratic institutions areyet to take deep root or are open to challengeby illiberal forces, such as in Indonesia,Thailand and the Philippines, will receivespecial attention in the project.

A programme of conferences, workshopsand collaborative exercises bringing visitorsto the Centre is being developed for the

project, details of which are announced onthe Centre’s web page as they becomeavailable. The recent highly successfulconference, ‘Globalisation, Conflict andPolitical Regimes in East and SoutheastAsia’, held in Fremantle on 15th-16th Augustand co-hosted by the Southeast AsiaResearch Centre (SEARC) of the CityUniversity of Hong Kong, was the firstinternational meeting linked to the project.Among the subsequent conferences in theplanning stages is ‘Media, Markets andDemocracy in Asia’, which ProfessorKrishna Sen is convening in 2004.

The project sees the return to the AsiaResearch Centre of Dr Kanishka Jayasuriyaas a Principal Senior Research Fellowresponsible for leading the analysis of CivilSociety, Social Capital and Political Pluralism.It also brings Indonesia specialist Max Laneto the Centre. Both will be writing booksdedicated to the project’s objectives.

The meeting examined the different degreesand forms of conflict arising out of attempts toinstitutionalise more liberal market systems,including analysis of the social forces supportingand opposing neo-liberalism. The politicalimplications of the various governance andinstitutional reforms accompanying the neo-liberal globalisation push were also subjected

T to scrutiny, among which initiatives in politicaldecentralisation and social capital featured.

A particularly significant aspect of the meetingwas the analysis in the keynote speeches ofthe ways in which new directions in Americanforeign policy and the ‘war on terror’ areconditioning the form and veracity of theneo-liberal agenda. Attention was also givento how the ideology of neo-liberalism isfostering ideas about politics that are hostileto the forging of democratic regimes in theregion.

The full programme of the conference isdetailed on page 2. A number of papers fromthe meeting have been incorporated into theCentre’s Working Papers Series and are nowavailable on the Centre’s web site. A selectionof the papers are now being refined for thepurposes of publication, details of which willbe announced on the web site as they becomeavailable.

PAGE 2 ASIAVIEW, October 2003

Working PaperSeries Revived

This year has seen the return of the AsiaResearch Centre’s longstanding WorkingPaper Series, which had lapsed in recentyears. The revival began with thepublication of Working Paper Number97, Terence Chong’s Meditating theLiberalisation of Singapore Theatre:Towards a Bourdieusian Analysis. Thisand all subsequent Working Papers areavailable electronically from the Centre’sweb site at http://wwwarc.murdoch.edu.au/publications/wpapers.shtml.

Welcome Address:Professor Val Alder, Executive Research Strategist, Murdoch University

Introduction:Professor Garry Rodan, Director, Asia Research Centre, Murdoch UniversityProfessor Kevin Hewison, Director, Southeast Asia Research Centre,City University of Hong Kong

Session Presenter Paper

Keynote Address Professor Richard Higgott, What Battle for Ideas? AmericanUniversity of Warwick, Unilateralism and the ‘Securitisation’ ofUnited Kingdom Globalisation

Professor Richard Robison, Neo-liberalism and the Politics of MarketsInstitute of Social Studies,The Hague, The Netherlands

Professor Jomo K. S, Globalization after the East Asian Crises,University of Malaya Seattle and September 11

Regionalism, Dr Mark Beeson, University of Resisting Hegemony: The Sources andMultilateralism and Queensland Limits of Anti-Americanism inPolitical Conflict Southeast Asia

Dr Ian Taylor, University of Neo-liberal Globalism and Multilateralism:Botswana The Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation

Forum as a Terrain of Struggle

Dr Vivienne Wee, SEARC, ‘Globalisation’ After 9/11 And The IraqCity University Of Hong Kong War: Implications For Asia And The Pacific

Contrasting Political Professor Kevin Hewison, Neo-Liberalism and Domestic Capital:Responses to, and City University of Hong Kong The Political Outcomes of The EconomicImplications of, Crisis In Thailand,Neo-Liberalism:Thailand, Singaporeand Indonesia

Professor Garry Rodan, International Capital and Challenges toMurdoch University Singapore’s State Companies,

Max Lane, Murdoch University ‘Reorganization’ of Mass Politics and theWeakened National Revolution in the Eraof Neo-liberal Globalization,

China: International Professor Shaun Breslin, Globalisation, International Coalitions andCoalitions and University of Warwick, U.K. Domestic Reform: China and the WTO,Domestic Conflicts

Dr Sally Sargeson, University of No Man’s land? Political dimensions ofNottingham, U.K. land reform in China’s global transition

Good Governance and Dr Wil Hout, Institute of Good Governance and The Politica New Politics Social Studies, The Hague al Economy of Selectivity,

Dr Kanishka Jayasuriya, Civil Society, Regulatory State and the NewMurdoch University Anti Politics,

Dr Vedi Hadiz, National Decentralisation and the Reorganisation ofUniversity of Singapore Political Regimes: The Indonesian Case,

Dr Ben Reid, University of The Arroyo Government and ParticipatoryNewcastle Development in the Philippines:

neo-liberalism, political alliances andsuccession,

States and Political Dr Gregory Acciaioli, Locating the Commonweal:Fragmentation University of Western Australia, Decentralisation and Local Resource

and Associate Professor Carol Conflicts in Bali and Sulawesi,Warren, Murdoch University

Dr John McCarthy, Decentralization and the Emergence ofMurdoch University Volatile Socio-Legal Configurations in

Central Kalimantan’s Districts

Associate-Professor David Ethnic Conflict and the issue of FederalismBrown, Murdoch University in Indonesia,

Dr Michael Jacobsen, Disentangling the Indonesian State andCity University of Hong Kong Nation: On Social and Political Fault-Lines

in Outer Indonesia,

August 2003 Conference ProgrammeMoving Onfter 12 and a half years with the AsiaResearch Centre as its executive

secretary, Del Blakeway has left the Centreto set up her own business, Projects PlusAdmin Solutions, which offers project andadministrative services to a wide range oforganisations. Her major project at themoment is as Assistant Director, InternationalProjects, Deacons - a major national andinternational law firm, whose network ofmulti-disciplinary consultants service multi-lateral agencies such as the World Bank,Asian Development Bank, AusAID, UnitedNational Development Program.

During Del’s time at Murdoch University,she provided excellent service to researcherswithin the Centre and played a crucial role inthe administration of major research andconsultancy projects. Del was also the efficientand friendly ‘face’ of the Centre for so manyof our external collaborators and guests. TheCentre extends its sincere thanks to Del forher long and valued service and wishes herwell with the new venture. It also welcomesTamara Dent who joins the Centre as itsprincipal administrative officer, and takesover many of the duties performed by Del.

A

ARC Thesessukasa Takamine has completed hisPhD thesis, ‘Engagement: A Foreign

Policy Analysis of Japan’s OfficialDevelopment Assistance to China, 1979-2002’. He now takes up a three yearpostdoctoral research fellowship at the Schoolof Asian Studies, the University of Auckland,commencing 1 November this year. In 2007he will begin a lecturer position in a newnational university in Okinawa, Japan.

id Adams has submitted his PhD thesis,‘Collective Action and a Disappearing

Resource: the politics of the Southern bluefintuna industry’. Currently he is employed as alecturer within the School of Politics andInternational Studies at Murdoch University.

T

S

ASIAVIEW, October 2003 PAGE 3

T he annual APEC summit has just beenheld in Bangkok but this is one

organization whose agenda is out of stepwith the real issues and problems that theregion confronts. Bangkok provided a stagefor many political leaders to exploit thesummit for domestic political kudos, such assome touchy feely rhetoric on the globaleconomy and the ‘war on terror’. The sadfact is that no substantial outcomes are likelyto be expected from this current APECmeeting. The reality is that APEC is a spentforce. Much of the trade liberalization agendaestablished under the auspices of APEC hasbeen thrown into disarray after the Asiancrisis. To properly understand these changeswe need to look at the transformation of theregional political economy in the periodsince the formative influences that shapedthe development of APEC, and more broadlythe strategies and forms of regionalgovernance for most of the 1990s.

‘New regionalism’ is the term given to theinfectious waves of regionalism that markedmost attempts at regional cooperation acrossthe globe in the last two decades of the 20thcentury. This new regionalism, as opposedto the older forms of regionalism, wasdirected at the integration of regionaleconomies within the global economythrough a variety of programs, but chieflythrough trade liberalization. In the AsiaPacific region this new regionalism was drivenlargely by the Asia Pacific EconomicCooperation (APEC) strategy of openregionalism. However, in the aftermath ofthe Asian economic crisis, the core ideas andinstitutions of open regionalism have cometo be seen as inappropriate in thecircumstances of the global economy in thefirst decades of the twenty first century. Thisis one circus that could do with a few newtricks.

Energizing the APEC strategy of openregionalism was the fact that it served tobolster powerful domestic interests andcoalitions. How? Open regionalism providedfor a set of policies that enabled the protectionof politically linked business groups in thenon tradable sector of the economy andconcurrently benefited the export sectorthrough the pursuit of an open economicpolicy. Not surprisingly, therefore, this openregionalism had all the hallmarks of amercantilist strategy that leaves vestedinterests in the domestic economy untouched.At the same time, the implementation of theWashington consensus policies ofderegulation and privatisation in the contextof the close relationship between politicalélites and business was to result in the effectivecapture of public infrastructure by politicallyprotected conglomerates. Open regionalismwas always about politics not economics.

Regionalism in CrisisKanishka Jayasuriya

Principal Senior Research Fellow, Asia Research Centre.

Prior to the economic crisis, economists whoviewed the region through rose tinted glassesenvisaged the twin strategies of free tradeoverseas and domestic deregulation as thecapstone of the Asian economic miracle. But,taking these policy strategies out of thecontext of the broader relationship of thetradable and non tradable sector simplyobscures the underlying structures of powerin the broader political economy that madethese strategies attractive to vested interests.Essentially, then, the various programs forregional governance which were linked tothe idea of open regionalism were muchmore in the nature of a political project ofdominant domestic coalitions than a lessonin good trade economics. Yet, after the crisisthe trade-offs between the tradable and nontradable sector have become more costly,and the political attractiveness of openregionalism has been considerably dimmed.

Increasingly regional governance is concernedwith the regulation of various forms ofeconomic and financial risk in the globaleconomy. Managing these - such as thecurrency crisis - is now seen as one of theprimary objectives of regional governance.In other words, the development of a globalmarket economy and the increasingvulnerability of economies to financial crisisrequires the development of a type ofregulatory regionalism that is able to providesome degree of regional policyharmonization. In short, we need to movebeyond the new regionalism of the 1990sand beyond a focus on trade liberalisation, tofocus on such issues as monetary and financialcoordination.

Yet, it is precisely these kinds of regulatoryarrangements for policy coordination thatthe APEC was unable to provide. In onesense, the Asian crisis hit home to the regionalpolicymakers the idea that a globalisedeconomy needs to develop regulatorystructures for a range of financial andmonetary issues, all of which encompassareas thought to be within the domain ofdomestic governance. Some movement inthis direction was made with theestablishment of the Chiang Mai Initiative(CMI) which provided for emergency fundsfor currency stabilisation. But regionalgovernments are loath to concede the kind ofdiminution of sovereignty that such regionalregulatory framework require. Consequently,any developments along these lines will behotly contested and long drawn out.

Further emblematic of changes within theregion is that East Asia which had long beenthe jewel in the crown of the fabled‘Washington consensus’ of market and tradeliberalization began to lose much of its lustrefor international financial organizations -which suddenly discovered corruption - aswell as political élites around the region who

blamed the ‘consensus’ for much of theregion’s economic difficulties. These élitesbegan to defect from the ‘consensus’ when itthreatened their financial and politicalinterests. What is now evident in the EastAsian context is an ongoing political struggleover programs and projects of economicreform. While new forms of regulatory statesare being established to manage the processof globalization, it is clear that for manystates the emphasis is on management ratherthan simple integration into the globaleconomy. Again, this marks a significantdeparture from the new regionalism thatdominated the Asia Pacific regionalgovernance in the 1990s.

But the region is changing in other ways aswell: there has been a proliferation, mostnoticeably in the last few years, of a variety ofregional governance arrangements rangingfrom the so-called ASEAN+ 3 to the recentpromotion of a string of bilateral tradearrangements. Some of these governancearrangements are mutually inconsistent. Forexample, the idea of an East Asian regionalgrouping sits uncomfortably with a regionrushing in to sign preferential trade dealswith the United States. Indeed, the rapidgrowth of this new bilateralism - most recentlyreflected in the US-Singapore Free TradeAgreement - is symptomatic of the increasingcrisis of the multilateral APEC style approachto trade.

Unquestionably the election of the BushAdministration and the events of 9/11 havedramatically altered the dynamics of theregion. As the US becomes much more inclinedto be a coercive rather than a benevolentpower within the region, it is to be expectedthat regional institutions such as APEC willfeel the damaging fall-out from this newcoercive tilt in US policy. The US is now verymuch the main actor at this show and isunlikely to concede centre stage to otherseven if they perform some dastardly highwire acts. Given that the regional governancestrategies of the 90s were framed within thecontext of a different US economic andmilitary posture, the question of how regionalinstitutions and countries respond to thesechallenges will be of great significance to thefuture of regionalism in the Asia Pacific.

Adding to the complexity of this picture is theemergence of China as an economic and politicalpowerhouse within the region. The importanceof China in the region has become abundantlyclear in the aftermath of the Asian economiccrisis. More recently, an economically andpolitically resurgent China is rapidlytransforming the regional political economywhich was previously based on a set of economicand political arrangements between the US,Japan, and Southeast Asia. In all of thesedevelopments APEC will be but a side show;there is no ring master for this circus.

PAGE 4 ASIAVIEW, October 2003

S E M I N A R S

n the eve of the recent conferenceGlobalisation, Conflict and Political

Regimes in East and Southeast Asia, theCentre launched two new books involvingResearch Fellows and Associates. The first ofthese, edited by David Bourchier and VediHadiz, Indonesian Politics and Society: AReader (London: Routledge, 2003) is a Centreproject that both David and Vedi beganwhile based at Murdoch University. Thisbook is only the second of its kind onIndonesia, bringing together extensivespeeches, statements and quotes fromIndonesian political thinkers and activistsduring the period of the New Order. Ithighlights the struggles and tensions underSoeharto, detailing the interests embodied inthe collisions between reactionary and radical

From left: Professor Jomo KS, Professor Richard Robison,Dr Vedi Hadiz and Dr David Bourchier launching books

O

BLaunched

ooks

27th FebruaryDR MARSHALL CLARK

School of Asian Languages and Studies,University of Tasmania

Men and Masculinities in IndonesianMedia

3rd MarchPROFESSOR DAVID GOODMAN

Director, Institute for InternationalStudies, University of Technology,Sydney

Structuring Local Identity: Nation,Province and Country

5th MayPROFESSOR PAUL BOWLES

Department of Economics, University ofNorthern British Columbia, Canada

Privatisation of Rural Enterprises inChina: Processes and Outcomes

22nd MayMAX LANE

Fellow, CAPSTRANS,University of Wollongong

Indonesian Politics after the 2004elections: Crisis of the political elite,bankruptcy of ‘Civil Society’ anddisorganization at the grassroots

17th JulyDAVID REEVE

Department of Chinese and Indonesian,School of Modern Language Studies,

University of New South WalesOutsider/Insider - The painful journey ofbecoming Indonesian

25th JulyRAJA MOHAN

Strategic Affairs Editor

The Hindu India’s New Approach ToThe Indian Ocean

FulbrightScholarship

avid Brown has recently returnedfrom the USA where he enjoyed

the bounties of an extensive library andpublic transport system. David wasawarded a Fulbright New CenturyScholarship to undertake research at theUniversity of Wisconsin - Madison andStanford University. There were 10 USAdelegates and 20 delegates from the restof the world. David was chosen as theAustralian delegate.

populism, secular state corporatism andliberalism in these turbulent years. It isorganised into different schools of politicalthought among Indonesian thinkers andactivists, with the editors providing extensiveanalyses of and commentaries on these schoolsand their relative influences over the courseof the New Order and, indeed, its demise. Itis a very welcome and timely complement tothe earlier pioneering work in this genre byHerb Feith and Lance Castles, IndonesianPolitical Thinking: 1945-65 (Ithacca andLondon: Cornell University Press, 1970). Itshould become as much a classic in the fieldas its predecessor.

The other book was Khoo Boo Teik’s BeyondMahathir: Malaysian Politics and itsDiscontents (London and New York: ZedBooks) . Having already written the definitivestudy of Mahathir, Paradoxes of Mathirism:An Intellectual Biography of MahathirMohamad (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford UniversityPress, 1995), Boo Teik dedicates this volumeto an analysis of the tumultuous events ofrecent years – including the political demiseof Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim,the emergence of the Reformasi movementand the dynamic coalitions and frictionscontained therein, and the legacies of DrMahathir’s rule after his planned resignationin October 2003. It is an insightful and richanalysis which, in typical Boo Teik style, iselegantly written and a highly readable book.Consequently, it can be expected to again, aswith the 1995 book, exert an influence wellbeyond academia. It will be available inAustralia through www.astambooks.com.au

D

ASIAVIEW, October 2003 PAGE 5

I

Military Styling:local paramilitaries in

East Jakartan June 2003 local Indonesiannewspapers carried reports on a

relatively minor incident involving theSurabaya branch ‘taskforce’ (satgas; satuantugas, a euphemism for security forces), ofthe Indonesian Democratic Struggle Party(PDI-P). Apparently provoked by an earlierincident, PDI-P satgas attacked a car carryinggovernment appointed security guards. Aftertrashing the car and severely beating itsoccupants, the PDI-P satgas held the guards‘hostage’ in the party’s office for a number ofhours. The incident came to an end afternegotiations between the police and PDI-Pofficials. The guards were set free on theunderstanding that PDI-P supporters,detained by police over a previousconfrontation, would be released withoutcharge. Despite the seriousness of the offences(deprivation of liberty, assault, maliciousdamage) no charges were laid. This is oneexample of the violent methods and legalimpunity enjoyed by the paramilitary securitywings of the major political parties.

Paramilitary style groups and civil militiashave a long tradition in Indonesia. TheIndonesian national army itself was originallyformed from such groups, pointing to thehistorical ambiguity between criminality andauthority. What can be viewed as the emerging‘paramilitary nature’ of Indonesia’s politicaldemocracy was established during the NewOrder period. The New Order state fosteredand utilised a number of quasi-official ‘youth’organizations such as Pancasila Youth andPancamarga Youth. Drawing from gangs andthe criminal underworld of preman, thesegroups acted as ‘assistants’ to the regime,employing the time-proven methods ofphysical and psychological intimidation. Theconcept of ‘total people’s defence andsecurity’, articulated during the New Orderjustified the use of civilian groups as proxiesby the state apparatus.

The 1999 multi-party elections, the first tobe held since the end of the New Order, sawa boom in party affiliated satgas. Thecampaign period also saw a dramatic upsurgein satgas related violence. Ostensiblyestablished in order to defend party assetsand control supporters, the security forcesinstigated violence and intimidation againstrival groups, journalists, students and NGO’s.Party satgas are largely recruited from the

The Politics of Thuggery:Paramilitary Groups in Indonesia

Ian WilsonResearch Associate, Asia Research Centre, currently working on the

Political Regimes and Governance in East and Southeast Asia project.

urban poor. With little education and scantemployment prospects the security unitsprovide a ready made identity, completewith military style uniforms and rank, andalso an opportunity for financial gain andsocial mobility. The involvement ofneighbourhood level preman has beengreatest within parties popular amongst thelower classes, such as President Megawati’sPDI-P. The PKB party of the Nahdatul Ulamahas utilised traditional networks associatedwith religious boarding schools and martialarts associations whereas the former rulingparty Golkar has made use of the extensivenetworks of patronage established duringthe New Order. The total membership ofthese satgas groups numbers in the hundredsof thousands. While the recruitment of knowncriminals has been routinely criticised bycommentators within Indonesia, it has alsobeen justified as a way of involving adisenfranchised group within the politicalprocess. The reality however appears to bethat few abandon their criminal ways.According to Hidayat Nurwahid, presidentof the Justice Party, preman routinely channelfunds into political parties on theunderstanding that they will receive“concessions” if the party is successful at theballot box. These concessions can be in theform of an executive position within theparty or having the authorities turn a blindeye to their activities.

Paramilitary-style groups are not isolated topolitical parties. Numerous ethnic, religiousand social organizations have large welltrained security wings. Provincial governors,mayors, village heads and even student groupshave their own entourage of hired ‘toughs’.One ethnic based organization is the ForumBetawi Rempug. Established in 2001 byFadloli el-Muhir, a member of the IndonesianSupreme Advisory Council, FBR wasconceived as a forum for “reclaiming” Jakartafor middle and lower class members of theindigenous Betawi ethnic group. The methodsemployed by FBR to achieve these ends havebeen violence and extortion. FBR has beenlinked to attacks on urban poor activists,women’s groups and the Indonesian HumanRights Commission. The group was exposedin the media as having attempted to extortregular donations from local businesses, andcontrols street vendors and taxi drivers in itsstronghold areas. The security wing of FBRadopts a command structure drawn from themilitary. In and around the Cakung region ofEast Jakarta the group has 115 security posts,known as gardu, ostensibly in order to ‘fillthe void’ left by the understaffed and

underpaid police. Wearing black andcamouflage military style uniforms andcarrying machetes, FBR members are aconspicuous and intimidating presence. Thegroup even has its own intelligence agentswho ‘collect information’ on suspected drugdealers, petty criminals, gambling operatorsand potential “trouble-makers”.

The use of military style uniforms, trainingand command structures by paramilitarygroups shows an identification and affinitywith the very forces that have the power tocurtail them. In 2002 both the head of theIndonesian Armed Forces and the Ministerfor Defence made public statements callingfor the disbanding of paramilitary groups,especially those that employed military styleuniforms and insignia. The Indonesian army,concerned that they no longer held amonopoly on military symbolism, claimedthat it further undermined their authority.Despite widespread public support, nolegislation has been implemented to back upthe calls. As most of the paramilitary groupsexist outside of the organizational structureof the party to which they are affiliated, theyare not accountable to their patrons.Mirroring the strategy employed by themilitary, violations of the law are inevitablyblamed upon ‘rogue individuals’ rather thanthe organization as a whole.

While some civil militia groups identifiedwith radical Islam, such as Laskar Jihad, theIslamic Defenders Front and Ka’abah Youth,have come under pressure from the authoritiespost-September 11, this has been largely aneffect of international pressure resulting fromthe ‘war on terror’. In the current politicalclimate groups employing the symbolism ofmilitant Islam have become a political liabilityto those in power, and have consequentlylost the tacit backing they once enjoyed.However paramilitary groups linked topolitical parties continue to grow in strengthand influence.

When seeking a legal foundation for theirexistence, paramilitary and militia groups

Continued last page...

PAGE 6 ASIAVIEW, October 2003

T he TV news on the evening of SaturdaySeptember 21, 2003 on METRO TV

was typical of many news programmes.METRO TV news is one of the most watchednews programmes. That night’s newsexemplified very well the gains of the 1998mass movement which forced Soeharto outof power, ended the dictatorship, and put theArmed Forces and GOLKAR on the defensive– but which by no means broke their power.

Political space, combativenessThe first news items were all reports ofactions of the state apparatus in one area oranother, all reported in an oppositional tone.This section was followed by a 10-15 minutereport of a clash between the military, policeand Jakarta government, and kampungresidents being evicted from the slumdwellings. The TV footage showed threethousand police and soldiers lined up inhordes ready to rush in and evict the residents.It also showed the barricades and a rallyinside the kampung. It showed sympatheticinterviews with the residents, mainly poorworkers and semi-proletarians, parents withchildren and no home to go to. Student andNGO activists were also there as part of thelocal resistance. The soldiers and police wereforced to postpone the attack because of thelevel of organisation of the resistance buteventually they did attack. The TV footageshowed soldiers moving through the kampungfiring the rifles at kampung dwellers, beatingpeople. But some of the people fought backand there was also footage of bleeding policeand soldiers. Finally, in the aftermath, theTV showed the devastated families sitting ontheir pathetic belongings in the middle of theflattened rubble, some crying as they held onto their babies or children.

There were also interviews with the executivesof the National Housing Authority denyingthat the land was about to be sold to ‘SisterTutut’, ex-president Soeharto’s daughter. Andan interview, obviously screened as a form ofcriticism of the police, with a senior policeofficer was shown where he was claiming hishorde of 3,000 men had been attacked by the500 kampung dwelling families.

(One newspaper, Koran Tempo, thenproduced a huge photo spread on the clash.Again the general tone was oppositional.)

The same news broadcast also had a segmenton Aceh. This too clearly had the agenda ofundermining the military’s credibility. ‘Weknow where all the GAM leaders are,’ thefield commander of the TNI was shownsaying. ‘We will decide the timing of when

Media, Political Pluralism andPost-Suharto Indonesia

Max LaneResearch Fellow, Asia Research Centre

we go to get them.’ As for civilian casualties:‘Of course,’ he said, ‘when two sides are inconflict, some people will be caught in themiddle, that is life,’ answering questionsfrom the Indonesian journalists who wereobviously annoying him. Asked about whatthe TNI was doing to ensure the safety ofIndonesian journalists being held by GAM:‘Journalists have no more right to protectionthan other civilians.’

The same TV station also broadcast aneditorial, perhaps also 10 or more minutes,mocking President Megawati’s recent speechwhere she stated that ‘dealing with thecountry’s never-ending problems was givingher a headache’. The segment went throughher speech, showing her at the podiumsighing, exhausted at the hopelessness of ‘herpeople’. Unemployment, economic crisis –oh, what a headache! (Of course, METROTV is owned by a big capitalist who is alsocampaigning for GOLKAR to nominate himas its presidential candidate. Suryo Palo, oneof Aceh’s leading businessmen, now based inJakarta, also owns a major newspaper.)

Military resentmentThe current leadership of the IndonesianArmed Forces (TNI), especially the Army,resents deeply their loss of power since May,1998. They are now subject to continuouscriticism in the media. While the politicaland financial influence of GOLKAR in thebureaucracy has meant that most militarypersonel brought before the Human RightsCourt have got off or only got light sentences,they still resent the whole process of beinginterrogated in an open court. This week thecase of a massacre of Moslem protesters inthe 1980s began and has had front-pagepublicity: another photo of a row of uniformssitting in the accused chairs.

On the same METRO TV news there was areport about the detention of more than 30men accused of ‘involvement from terrorism’.This report also lasted about ten minutes andagain represented a critical attack on thepolice and military. The police had detainedthese people without providing the specificsof charges, without proper warrants andwithout giving any paperwork to their family.The news interviewed the wife of one detaineewho spent two days trying to find where herhusband was. These were mainly Islamicactivists who were arrested. The report wentthrough each clause of both the new Anti-Terrorism Act and the Criminal Code thatthe police had contravened. It was a verycritical report from the stand-point of civilliberties.

This report also brought out the resentmentof the military. Since 1998 the intelligencenetwork that was used to spy on thepopulation has crumbled. It is rare to seeINTEL agents at political events any more.‘We want to be able to help the police,’complained both the TNI and the Intelligenceheads. ‘We need a new law so that we canoperate intelligence activities in the fieldagain. Now we cannot.’

This call has also been criticised in the media.Rumours say that the whole of the ArmedForces Headquarters is now unanimous inlooking for a way to end the democraticspace. They hate their loss of power; theywant all of Indonesia to be like Aceh – undermore-or-less military rule. But Indonesia is220 million increasingly combative peoplesitting on a crumbling economy – rulingIndonesia by themselves would be a somewhatmore daunting prospect than suppressingGAM in Aceh. They need others to call onthem to act and this is not happening at themoment.

Combativeness and passivityThe huge clash in the Kampung Baru (referredto above) is just one of the very many cases oflocal resistance and protest that are reportedin the media. These protests are too numerousto record, but remain separated from anypolitical movement, idea, figure ororganisation. Of course, this also means thatthe ruling parties and institutions, as full ofinternal rivalry as they might be, are still ableto rule in the old way. This political reality(for the moment) combined with financialdesperation among the people feeds alsoanother contradictory tendency among themass of people, a demoralisation that also inturn feeds passivity and a willingness toaccommodate ‘money politics’. The bigestablished parties, and even some of the newbut reasonably financed parties, are findingit very easy to buy new members, Rp 10,000to Rp50,000 will get a member, who willhand over his or her ID Card to bephotocopied.

Some commentators and activists here seethis as a form of deep depoliticisation.Sometimes the popular longing for an end touncertainty in the economy and governmentis interpreted as a longing for the allegedlystable times of the Soeharto era. Theseobservers come to these kinds of conclusiononly by ignoring the steady stream ofcombative protests everywhere and thegeneral anti-elite sentiment that is prevalenteverywhere. Taking money from the partiesis simply a reflection of the mass’s cynicism

ASIAVIEW, October 2003 PAGE 7

and contempt for these parties. If they needto act on the streets over a local issue they doand they do not rely on the parties. They turnto the NGOs, student groups, the media andsometimes the People’s Democratic Party -PRD (which ironically in the eyes of themasses is often labeled an NGO, because it isNGOs that advocate what are seen as pro-people programmes and not ‘politicalparties’).

Another recent example of the democraticpublic mood was the huge public outragefollowing the death of a student at the HomeAffairs Higher Education Institute (STPDN)during a brutalisation ritual. Following newsof the death, one TV station obtainedextended footage of the brutalisation ritualand aired it on TV. Despite the Minister forHome Affairs, a former Soeharto periodmilitary officer, laughing off calls for him toresign, a massive wave of outrage wentthrough the media and the public. TheMinister is safe under President Megawatiwho refuses to sack any Minister no matterwhat the issue, however the head of theSTPDN has had to be dismissed and criminalcharges are likely to be pressed. There hasalso been a wave of calls for the STPDN,which trains personnel for the provincial,district and village administrative apparatus,to be closed down. The STPDN is seen nowas an institution to train local officials in amilitaristic style of government. Thissentiment has been so widespread thatMegawati’s main presidential rival, currentPeoples Consultative Assembly Chairperson,Amin Rais, also called for its closure.

The post-dictatorship ‘transition-to-somewhere’ ferment means that there isconstant activity in Jakarta and in every cityand town. The ten years of struggle againststruggle from the first big student-peasantalliances of 1989, and the earlier ten years ofstudent protests against the dictatorship, hascreated a huge liberal milieu of active orsemi-active people. The 1997-1998 studentprotests added a few more hundreds ofthousands to that milieu. This provides aconstituency that is the basis for this ongoinground of critical events of all kinds, fromprotest actions to public forums to artexhibitions as well as the incredible explosionin video documentary and short filmproduction, and, most of all, the lively press– the latter being one of the main gains of thefall of Soeharto.

Electronic Media, Markets and Civil Societyproject led by Professor Garry Rodan comes to fruition in November with aSpecial Edition of the journal The Pacific Review. The ‘Electronic Media,Markets and Civil Society in East and Southeast Asia’ project was undertaken

on behalf of the Southeast Asia Research Centre (SEARC), City University of HongKong. In addition to Professor Rodan, other members of the Asia Research Centre –Professors David Hill and Krishna Sen – were involved. Other members of theinternational team of researchers represented in the volume include Shanthi Kalathilof the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington D.C., CameronOrtis and Professor Paul Evans of the University of British Columbia, and Dr WilliamAtkins of Sydney University.

The collection is disciplined to an address of two sets of questions.• To what political purposes are electronic media being harnessed – the opening up

of the political space of civil society or the consolidation of authoritarian regimes?How do we explain the success or otherwise of these attempts? What social andpolitical forces and alliances are involved?

• What is the significance and impact of markets on these processes? Do marketpressures represent a structural force for greater media freedom, or are they anobstacle to it? What agency, if any, has business played in the struggles to increasemedia freedom?

Further details of the contents of the Special Edition are provided below.

The Pacific ReviewVolume 16 Number 4 2003

Special Edition: Electronic Media, Markets andCivil Society in East and Southeast Asia

Guest Editor: Garry Rodan

Introduction 459Garry Rodan

Brand Power and state power: rise of the new media networks in East Asia 469William Atkins

China’s new media sector: keeping the state in 493Shanthi Kalathil

Embracing electronic media but suppressing civil society:Authoritarian consolidation in Singapore 507Garry Rodan

Communication for a new democracy: Indonesia’s first online elections 529David T. Hill

The Internet and Asia-Pacific security: old conflicts and new behaviour 553Cameron Ortis and Paul Evans

Radio days: media-politics in Indonesia 577Krishna Sen

A

Postgraduate AwardFrom February to May this year, LEE JaeHyon, a PhD student with the Asia ResearchCentre, conducted field research andinterviews for his thesis. Fieldwork wasmainly in Kuala Lumpur and Penang. Thetrip was funded (USD 3,000) by the Korean-ASEAN Scholars Student Exchange Fund,jointly set up by the Korean Association ofSoutheast Asian Studies and the ASEANUniversity Network.

During the fieldwork, Jae was attached to IKMAS(Institute of Malaysian and International Studies),Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (NationalUniversity of Malaysia) which kindly providedinterim supervision, by Associate Professor NoraniOthman, and support facilities. The fieldworkwas productive, with opportunities to interviewhigh-profile UMNO politicians including a formerDeputy Prime Minister, opposition politiciansand social activists.

At the completion of the fieldwork, Jae was ableto present his findings to, and get constructivefeedback from, the academic community atIKMAS.

Photo taken with Mr Khalid Jaafar(former Press Secretary of Anwar Ibrahim -formerMalaysia Deputy Prime Minister),Information Chief of National Justice Party.

PAGE 8 ASIAVIEW, October 2003

ASIAVIEW is the newsletter of the Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia. The Centreexamines social, political and economic change in contemporary East and Southeast Asia and the consequences thosechanges have on Australia’s relations with the region. ASIAVIEW provides information about the Centre’s activities andresearch. All articles are copyright and may not be reproduced in any form without permission.

ISSN 1037-6534

ASIAVIEW is produced by the staff of the Asia Research Centre. To obtain a copy or for more information about the Centreplease contact Tamara Dent, Admin Officer, Asia Research Centre, Murdoch University, Western Australia 6150.Telephone: +61 8 9360 2263Facsimile: +61 8 9360 6381Email: T.Dent@murdoch.edu.au

The Asia Research CentreInternational Advisory Panel:

Co-operation withSEARC Special Series

As the recent co-sponsored conference in Fremantleindicates, the Asia Research Centre will periodicallybe co-operating with the Southeast Asia ResearchCentre (SEARC) of the City University of Hong Kongwhere our research agendas intersect. Among otherforms of collaboration with SEARC, the Asia ResearchCentre is also co-operating with SEARC in developingits new book series with RoutledgeCurzon (see below).This will be done on a case-by-case basis and theCentre will also be publishing elsewhere where it ismore appropriate.

RoutledgeCurzon/City University ofHong Kong Southeast Asia Series

The Southeast Asia Research Centre has entered intoan agreement with RoutledgeCurzon, a member ofthe Taylor & Francis group for a book series. TheSeries Editors are Professor Kevin Hewison andAssociate Professor Vivienne Wee.

Andrew Brown, Labour, Politics and the State inIndustrialising ThailandPublished Sept 2003This book focuses on how the state has becomeentangled in the processes through which workershave been organized, reorganized and disorganizedas social and political actors in different historicalperiods. ISBN 0415318629

Kanishka Jayasuriya (ed.), Asian RegionalGovernanceDue: Dec 2003This book looks at the changing global and domesticpolitical economies shaping the new regionalism inAsia and examines the relationship between regionaldomestic, political and economic structures and formsof regional governance. ISBN 0415321913

Richard Robison and Vedi Hadiz, ReorganisingPower In Indonesia The Politics Of Oligarchy In AnAge Of MarketsDue: Feb 2004Encompassing the most important political economicand political developments in Indonesia over the last40 years, Robison and Hadiz shed new light on theSoeharto regime and the transition to a post-Soehartoera. ISBN 0415332524

Garry Rodan, Transparency and Authoritarian Rulein Southeast Asia: Singapore and MalaysiaDue: April 2004This book analyses the significance of internationaland domestic pressures for transparency reform onthese two authoritarian regimes. It compares therespective capacities of these regimes to absorb andeven harness some pressures for transparency reform,while attempting to deflect others. ISBN 0415335825

Vivienne Wee (ed.), Political Fragmentation inSoutheast AsiaDue: April 2004This book provides an analysis of a number of separatistand autonomy movements in Burma, Indonesia, EastTimor, Thailand & Laos, tracing how they emergedand highlighting the ways in which these movementsgained their strengths. ISBN 0415318610

The Series Editors welcome submissions for theseries. Contact Kevin Hewison(sskevin@cityu.edu.hk) or Vivienne Wee(ssvwee@cityu.edu.hk)

inevitably invoke Article 30 of the 1945Constitution which states that every citizenhas a right and obligation to defend the state.Law No.3/2002 changed the concept of ‘totalpeople’s defence and security’ to that of‘total defence’, however it failed to establishthe state as the sole legitimate body for theuse of force. The issue was further obscuredin July 2003 when President Megawatipublicly endorsed the establishment of ‘armedcivilian guards’. Citing the 1945 Constitutionand recognizing the weakness of the statesecurity apparatus, she stated that “we shouldconsider giving proper recognition to thepublic’s demands to be allowed to defendthemselves and their property”. Thecomments were a major blow to the pushfrom certain politicians and the NGO sectorto disband, or at least curtail, the activities ofparamilitary groups before the electionsscheduled for April 2004. Current electorallaws contain no provisions regarding theexistence or role of satgas, or acts of violenceand intimidation carried out by them.Violations are dealt with by the police on anindividual basis, with no sanctions to beimposed upon the parties themselves.

With the continuing lack of legal clarity andpolitical will regarding their existence,paramilitary groups will continue to disruptthe development of a strong civil society andpeaceful democratic process in Indonesia.The decentralization of political power inIndonesia has been accompanied by a

....Continued from page 5 decentralisation of political violence, coupledwith a new found freedom for the criminalunderworld. Under the mantel of maintaining‘security’, paramilitary and civil militia groupsoperate as private armies and collectionagencies for the political and economic elite.Whilst the reform era has seen a decline inthe political influence of the military, theexistence of these groups represents a re-militrization of civil society.

Greater autonomy at the city, district andprovincial levels has also resulted in anincrease in conflicts between paramilitarygroups, as political and civil organizationsfight over ‘turf’, economic resources andconstituencies that were previously theexclusive domain of the New Order. Therole of ‘muscles’ as forms of social capital inthis socio-political landscape reproduces theNew Order practice of using violence as alegitimate form of political communication.Ironically, the same opposition parties thatonce made repeated calls for the de-militarisation of the political process havebeen instrumental in reviving andsupporting its ‘para-militrization’. Withgeneral elections scheduled for April 2004and ever growing public apathy andcynicism towards the major political actors,paramilitary groups are set to play apotentially explosive and divisive role inensuring votes. Whilst Indonesia has gone tofar to return too the authoritarian ways ofthe New Order, its present trajectory pointsto an increasing degree of political thuggeryand fragmentation.

Professor Kevin HewisonDirector, Southeast Asia ResearchCentre, City University of Hong Kong

Professor Richard HiggottDirector, Centre for the Study ofGlobalisation & Regionalisation,University of Warwick

Professor Jomo K.S.Faculty of Economics & Administration,University of Malaya

Professor Tessa Morris-SuzukiResearch School of Pacific and AsianStudies, Australian National University

Professor Anthony ReidDirector, Center for Southeast AsianStudies, University of California, LosAngeles and Director, Asia ResearchInstitute, National University ofSingapore.

Professor Krishna SenDepartment of Media & Information,Curtin University of Technology.

Professor Lynn T. WhiteDirector, Woodrow Wilson School ofPublic & International Affairs,Princeton University.