Initial choice of government

1. Colonial legacy
2. Nature of nationalist elites
3. Decolonisation experience
4. Nature of SEA
5. Nature of political alternatives

Philippines
Colonial Legacy
1. EXTENSIVE political tutelage through Filipinisation
1907 creation of legislature with delegates from various provinces
1908: elected indigenous legislature l.e. co-option of nationalists Into colonial apparatus. main
Indigenous nationalist movement: Partido Nacionalista (Nationalist Party), comprising members
of the wealthy landowning class known as ilustrados
1916 Jones Act grants political autonomy (I.e. limited self-government) by allowing a fully
elected legislature
1934: Tydings-McDuffle Act guarantees full Independence in 10 years
Essentially: the US gave them a lot of power and ability to self govern. So they had the
experience of running a presidential democracy, and realised that it worked. So that was a factor
in keeping them using it after independence.
IMPLICATIONS
local elites gained experience with the democratic system and increased their willingness to
adopt it
Independent Filipino state took on the nature and forms of American-style democracy from the
macro concepts of a presidential democracy and bicameral legislature, to the very names and
titles of these institutions

Nature of Nationalist Elites

ilustrados (lit. 'enlightened ones') willing to cooperate with the Americans: Why?
to take advantage of the political vacuum left behind with the Americans
departure of the Spanish, who had previously dominated the political administration to gain
economic privileges since the USA was the main market for Filipino exports, especially sugar
There was an emerging sense of common national identity, but at the same time each part of
the Philippines are very diverse and have distinct languages and cultures.
Yet, they feel they are one people due to the shared history.

Decolonisation experience
They agreed on a commonwealth government with elites. This established a close relationship
between the US and the philippines.
They enjoyed an easy process to decolonisation:
First promised colonisation already
Granted independence to the Philippines without challenge.
Within the US economic interest to give them up
Political alternatives:
Hukbalahaps
They believed in winning support through elections. As the US however, they preferred to pass
on power to the democratic inclined elites rather than the huks. Clearly: the communists were
not a viable alternative for the Americans to transfer power to.
They had also contributed a lot to the war effort against the japanese, but were suppressed by
the americans and filipino government as they were seen as a political threat

TIMELINE:
March 16 1900: Creation of second philippines commission
- Between September 1900 and August 1902, it issued 499 laws, established a judicial
system, including a Supreme Court, drew up a legal code, and organised a civil service
1902: Creation of Philippines Organic Act
- The Philippine Organic Act provided for the creation of an elected Philippine Assembly
July 30 1907: Philippines assembly elections
October 16 1907: creation of first philippines legislature with delegates from various provinces
1908: elected indigenous legislature l.e. co-option of nationalists Into colonial apparatus. main
Indigenous nationalist movement: Partido Nacionalista (Nationalist Party), comprising members
of the wealthy landowning class known as ilustrados
1912: Draft Jones Bill Act enacted
- Philippine nationalists led by Manuel L. Quezon and Sergio Osmeña enthusiastically
endorsed the draft Jones Bill of 1912, which provided for Philippine independence after
eight years, but later changed their views, opting for a bill which focused less on time
than on the conditions of independence. The nationalists demanded complete and
absolute independence to be guaranteed by the United States, since they feared that
too-rapid independence from American rule without such guarantees might cause the
Philippines to fall into Japanese hands. The Jones Bill was rewritten and passed
Congress in 1916 with a later date of independence.
- Since Philippines was seen as a cash burn for the US, they were willing to give it up.
Seen in Roosevelt who said the Philippines was a frontier for the US, one they would like
to give up.
August 29 1916: Jones Act passed
- Lay out US commitment to granting Filipino independence
- Only stopped due to WW1 and WW2
1934: Tydings-McDuffle Act guarantees full Independence in 10 years (by 4 June 1946)
- Political tutelage in that there is a ten year transition, as well as US approving
constitution.. Stuff like that
- In 1934, Manuel L. Quezon, the President of the Senate of the Philippines, headed a
"Philippine Independence mission" to Washington, DC. It successfully lobbied Congress
and led to the passage of the Tydings–McDuffie Act, officially the Philippine
Independence Act, setting into motion the process for the Philippines to become an
independent country after a ten-year transition period. Under the act, the 1935
Constitution of the Philippines was written and the Commonwealth of the Philippines was
 established, with the first directly-elected President of the Philippines (direct elections to
the Philippine Legislature have been held since 1907). The Commonwealth, as
established in 1935 featured a very strong executive, a unicameral national assembly,
and a supreme court that had entirely Filipinos for the first time since 1901.
Feb 1946: American Rescission Law signed, removing benefits of WW2 vets in philippines.
April 23 1946: PHILIPPINE COMMONWEALTH ELECTION OF 1946
- This is more related to stability of democracy, but due to numerous pre independence
issues like collusion with the japanese, economic, political difficulties, destruction from
war, there was disunity and lack of a clear mandate for the government.
4 July 1946: Independence granted
- Filipino delegations were sent to the US following the war to ensure that independence
would follow as scheduled
- the Philippines was officially recognized by the United States as an independent nation
through the Treaty of Manila, during the presidency of Manuel Roxas.

IQ2:
Philippines: important because you see democratic regimes staying in power for a relatively
long time, from 1946 to 1961, we see a clear transfer of power of politicians from year to year,
making it seem like democracy is very strong, there's no attempt to establish
authoritarianism/centralise power. But there were problems in the Filipino understanding of
democracy.
1. Importance of family and personal ties
a. Popularity contest rather than exercise in effective policies, more about personal
advantage and benefit.
b. Hinders legitimacy and credibility of government, deepening into a crisis.
2. Societal instability caused by
a. Econ woes and income inequality
Exacerbating factor: Moro National Liberation Front
Crisis - Filipino muslims recruited to take back land in Saba from Malaysia.
- Northern philippines - significant majority of Catholics
- Southern philippines - minority of Muslims
This disparity means they want independence, autonomy. Comes back to the mistreatment of
the ethnic minorities.

Indonesia
1. Nature of society
- Geographically diverse. islands.
 a. Much of colonialist rule was centralised in Java. The attitudes, beliefs and
priorities of different islands differed greatly. So how do we bring them together
as one Indonesia? Lack of Unity was a major issue in indonesian nationalism.
Outer islanders vs Java.
b. Nationalists neglected the outer islands, islands other than Java and Madura, so
the outer islands resented them as exploiting them.
c. Political differences that ran along ethnic lines. Indonesia is also very diverse.
d. How can a plural system account for social and political diversity?

1. . Colonial legacy
a. Created the Volksraad but dominated by the dutch
i. Didn't have the experience to run a government.
b. Rise of anti-colonial nationalist movements
i. PKI & PNI - leaders were arrested but responsible for the rise of an
indonesian national identity which was also suppressed (suppressive
dutch rule)
c. This affected democracy due to the limited experience and familiarity of
democracy and sentiment of the democratic form of government
2. Nationalist Elite
a. Sukarno and Hatta’s understanding of democracy. Not so much of political
plurality and a system of checks and balances, but more of coming together and
building consensus, finding common ground. How do these slight differences
manifest itself? (copy from slides)
3. Decolonisation experience (crucial)
a. Sukarno declares independence 2 days after Japanese surrender
b. Dutch reluctant to decolonise - launch of police action (movement) to clamp down
on nationalist movement. A major military offensive in 1947 which receives
international condemnation due to changing values. The US was pushing for
transcendental values like self-determination (declaration of liberated europe
etc.) that was opposed to imperialism/colonialism.
c. Sept 1948: Madiun Rebellion by the communists and Sukarno decisively puts it
down. Whats the significance of this in growing CW Tensions? This burnished the
reputation of Sukarno and the Indonesian republic as staunchly anti-communist.
d. Dutch police action in 1949 - American pressure on the Dutch to grant Indonesia
independence.
 e. Nov 1949: Indonesia becomes a federation (RUSI) with a parliamentary system
and ceremonial Presidency
i. Federation allows political plurality. What kind of democracy did they
adopt. Federalism was associated with Dutch attempts to impose colonial
control? how.
ii. In August 1950 replaced with unitary state
f. What was the significance of this?
4. Political alternatives
a. Sept 1948: PKI and PSI declare an Indonesian Soviet Republic at Madiun in East
Java
b. Republican forces successfully crush the rival nationalist effort. This wins
American approval. The lack of political alternatives was strong enough to
reassure the west. (note how the american intervention affects dutch in
package/slides)
c. Democracy is seen as a way to gain legitimacy and support from bigger western
powers.

TIMELINE
10 September 1912: Sarekat Islam - First widespread nationalist movement
- Initially a javanese, islamic organisation, they rapidly increased their numbers in the
1910s TO 1920s. By December 1912, they had close to 100k members
- This led to people from all classes of society joining the organisation.
- Although SI leaders generally espoused Modernist Islam, it became heterogeneous in
terms of demographics and ideology of its grassroots members. While the initial
supporter base was a petty bourgeoisie of religiously devout aliran (societal stream) of
santri, the expansion had led to the inclusion of peasantry of abangan whose Islamic
faith was mixed with mysticism and pre-Islamic animist beliefs, as well as members of
priyayi nobility class who had secular outlooks.
- The leadership of the organisation gradually moved from small-scale merchants of the
SDI era to the intelligentsia of priyayi origin with Dutch-language education.
- Due to large differences between regions, regional branches which held relative
autonomy caused large ideological differences that led to a split between the islamic
supporters, and PKI communist supporters.
- Since SI began to contain members who both supported islam and communism,
radically different ideologies, and began to recognise the communist infiltration, they
decided to reduce political nationalist activity, and focus on religious matters. This left the
communists as the only active extremist nationalist group.
This evinced the diverse nature of Indonesia, and how it was separated along fault lines such as
Javanese v non-javanese, islamic vs secular vs christian minority, communist vs democratic
1914: ISDV, Indies Social Democratic Association established
- The Dutch members of the ISDV introduced communist ideas to educated Indonesians
looking for ways to oppose colonial rule.
- Around the same time, ISDV and communist sympathisers began infiltrating other
political groups in the East Indies in a tactic known as the "block within" strategy. The
 most apparent effect was the infiltration committed on a nationalist-religious organization
Sarekat Islam (Islamic Union) which advocated a pan-islam stance and freedom from
colonial rule. Many members including Semaun and Darsono were successfully
influenced by radical leftist ideas. As a result, communist thoughts and ISDV agents
were successfully planted in the largest Islamic organisation in Indonesia. After the
involuntary departure of several Dutch cadres, combined with the infiltration operations,
the membership shifted from majority-Dutch to majority-Indonesian.
- Later named PKH: At the fifth Comintern congress in 1924, it was emphasised that "the
top priority of communist parties is to gain control of trades unions"; there could be no
successful revolution without this. The PKH began to concentrate on unions, decided to
improve discipline, and demanded the establishment of a Soviet Republic of Indonesia.
The party name was changed again that year, to Partai Komunis Indonesia (PKI,
Communist Party of Indonesia).
1926: Sporadic revolts in Jakarta. However, they were quickly squashed. Close dutch
surveillance, and outlawing of the PKI meant that there was no longer a coherent and able
organisation that could gather mass support.
4 July 1927: PNI, Indonesian National Party established
- Initially, the Dutch colonial authorities permitted the establishment of indigenous political
movements but when Indonesian ideologies radicalised in the 1920s (as seen in the
communist uprisings in West Java and West Sumatra in 1926 and 1927) the Dutch
authorities changed course. A relative tolerant regime was replaced with a repressive
one in which every suspected act of subversive behaviour was suppressed. This
repressive regime in fact only worsened the situation by radicalising the entire
Indonesian nationalist movement. Part of these nationalists established the Indonesian
Nationalist Party (Partai Nasional Indonesia, abbreviated PNI) in 1927 as a reaction to
the repressive regime. Its goal was full independence for Indonesia.

Youth Pledge 1928: At this congress of youth organisations three ideals were proclaimed, to wit:
one motherland, one nation, and one language. The main aim of this congress was to stimulate
a feeling of unity between the young Indonesians. At this congress the future national anthem
(Indonesia Raya) was played and the future national flag (merah-putih) was shown for the first
time. The colonial authorities reacted with another act of suppression. Young national leaders,
such as Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta were arrested and exiled.
29 December 1929: Sukarno was imprisoned for political activities
This led to growing nationalist sentiment that was fueled by repression.

December 1941: Japanese Invasion of Dutch East Indies

- Unlike dutch rule, the japanese occupation allowed indonesian nationalism to thrive
- 1. Destroyed dutch colonial rule, removing the illusion of white supremacy 2. Facilitated
growth of nationalist sentiments by giving leaders a voice, and a position in government
- As Japan's territorial expansion was halted, then reversed, Japan became more
favourable to the idea of Indonesian involvement in the governance of Java. A Central
Advisory Board was established, headed by Sukarno, with Indonesians appointed as
advisors.
 - Japanese or Indonesian replacements were installed in senior and technical positions.

7 September 1944: with the war going badly for the Japanese, Prime Minister Kuniaki Koiso
promised independence for Indonesia (to rally support from Indonesians to keep control of
Indonesia), although no date was set
March 1945: the Japanese established the Investigating Committee for Preparatory Work for
Independence (BPUPK) as the initial stage of the establishment of independence
9 August 1945: Sukarno, Hatta, and Radjiman Wediodiningrat were flown to meet Marshal
Hisaichi Terauchi in Vietnam. They were told that Japan intended to announce Indonesian
independence on 24 August. After the Japanese surrender, however, Sukarno unilaterally
proclaimed Indonesian independence on 17 August.
17 August 1945: Indonesian declaration of independence
August 1946: Republic of Indonesia government formed to oppose the returning Dutch
1947: major offensive by Dutch
- Although extremely successful, eventually capturing sukarno and the temporary capital
of the republic, it was strongly criticised by the US and UN. Australian opposition to the
invasion meant a naval blockade of dutch ships, and US threatening to withdraw all
financial support unless they reinstate the government.
18 September 1948: An 'Indonesian Soviet Republic' was declared in Madiun, east of
Yogyakarta, by members of the PKI and the Indonesian Socialist Party (PSI). Madiun however
was won back by Republican forces within a few weeks and the insurgency leader, Musso,
killed. It turned vague American sympathies based on anti-colonial sentiments into diplomatic
support. Internationally, the Republic was now seen as being staunchly anti-communist and a
potential ally in the emerging global Cold War between the American-led 'free world' and the
Soviet-led bloc
January 1949: the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding the
reinstatement of the Republican government.
27 December 1949: after armed resistance, the Dutch accepted Indonesian independence
- Also faced global pressure to support independence
- The US was pushing for transcendental values like self-determination (declaration of
liberated europe etc.) that was opposed to imperialism/colonialism.
- Accepted under federal structure, but eventually cancelled due to fears of lacking
cohesion, leading to states seceding
17 August 1950: Unitary state of Indonesia established (exactly 5 years after the proclamation)

IQ2:
Colonial experience
1. Administration of dutch east indies
a. Lack of familiarity and exposure due to dutch unwillingness to let them
administrate
b. Strain between jakarta and other regions. Japans divide and rule policy
preserved the pre-existing divisions amongst Indonesia’s political leaders
2. Sprawling geographic landscape
a. How to project power and unity when they are separate
 3. Political disunity
a. What kind of a state should Indonesia be? Secular, communist, islamic. This
character of the state was not resolved. The cultural and geographical divisions
meant the constituent assembly was not able to draft a replacement constitution
even after 4 years of inception, 1955 elections lacked a clear majority. The
country was divided along diff political parties with each party standing for
something very very different. The allowance of democracy and allowing of
different perspectives actually paralysed and hindered decision making as they
couldn't come to an agreement. This caused increasing frustration with
democracy.
4. Regionalism - regional rebellions and separatist threats
a. Idea of economic gap between Java and the Outer islands, wealth not being
distributed evenly. Deep seated division.
b. Power concentrated in Java and very few non-Javanese formed the central
government. Outer islands supported Masjumi VS Central and east Java won
votes of approximately proportions from PNI, PKI and NU
c. Diff rebellions at diff points in time. Persistence of rebellions.
d. Darul Islam, Free achi, sulawesi, moluccas, lesser sunda islands
e. What role and how do the outer islands interact with Java?
Significance: frustration with ineffectiveness of democracy, and entrenched military’s reputation
in restoring law and order. Perception of ineptitude of democratic governments. Emergence of
the military as an alternative political system. Problems with democracy in the context of
indonesia.
Challenges: regional and ideological, outer islands v java, divisions between religious groups,
PNI and PLI, lack of consensus and highly unstable coalition government.

With the unifying struggle to secure Indonesia's independence over, divisions in Indonesian
society began to appear. These included regional differences in customs, religion, the impact of
Christianity and Marxism, and fears of Javanese political domination.
1. Structures like ethnic and political divisions, traditional SEA political values
2. External circumstances like economic imperatives and cold war
3. Most importantly: local actors like the agency of local nationalist elites
- problems with tremendous diversity led to a weak, ineffective coalition government that
couldnt fulfill its role. At a time when most were poor, they demanded economic growth
and increase in SOL which the government didn't deliver.

1948-1962: Militant Darul Islam waged guerilla warfare in Indonesia to establish an islamic state
April 1950: Republic of South Maluku declared independence from Indonesia because of a
former treaty with the Dutch that granted it autonomy.
- These two caused not just internal political instability, but fears over whether the
government could even keep hold of its territories, instead of fracturing
1945-1958: A proliferation of political parties dealing for shares of cabinet seats resulted in a
rapid turnover of coalition governments including 17 cabinets between 1945 and 1958.
- They were all very ineffective. Firstly, they had little experience administrating from the
Dutch. Because the Dutch kept a firm hold, and the Volksraad was just in name, many of
the parties were incompetent. Reports show that the civil service was untrained and
lacked experience, there was little delegation of tasks to local, regional governments, as
there had been provisions for decentralisation written into the constitution, but neither
the parliamentary representatives nor the government administrators were willing to
implement them. This meant decisions were not taken, and issues like healthcare,
governing of economy, not carried out. Weak cabinet and weak civil service caused an
ineffective government. In this period, not a single policy regarding foreign investment
was taken, causing a lack of FDIs.
17 October 1952: 17 October affair where the military pressured the government to disband the
legislature, since the government was attempting to reduce the size of the military. The military
saw this as excessive meddling (see how the government is ineffective and weak?)
- In response, sukarno told the second-in-commands to depose their commanders.
- Then, he drew on support from the PKI, giving them a free hand in local administration
- He has also intervened on the public stage to urge the retention of the secular state, and
that the constitution be not changed to an Islamic type, When he saw, in the pre-election
parliament, that the nationalists could not govern alone, he urged them, to accept a
compact with the Communists. In return for a free hand in the country, the Communists
were to give parliamentary support to the Nationalists. Since the latter controlled the
local administration, their ' free hand ' proved very helpful. As we know, the Communists
polled about a quarter of the total votes in the elections of 1955.
1955: Parliamentary elections were held
- The long-postponed parliamentary elections were held in 1955; although the Indonesian
National Party (PNI)—considered Sukarno's party—topped the poll, and the Communist
Party of Indonesia (PKI) received strong support, no party garnered more than a quarter
of the votes, which resulted in short-lived coalitions.
- Representation was given on a population, not a regional basis. Hence most
constituencies represent javanese. This caused fears of underrepresentation in outer
islands.
- Sukarno had to balance the interests of the popular PKI, his own party, and the
conservative military.
December 1956: The army commanders in North, Central and South Sumatra declared their
autonomy from the cabinet at Jakarta in an act of defiance
1956: Sukarno was openly criticising parliamentary democracy, stating that it was "based upon
inherent conflict" which ran counter to Indonesian notions of harmony as being the natural state
of human relationships. Instead, he sought a system based on the traditional village system of
discussion and consensus, under the guidance of village elders. He proposed a threefold blend
of nasionalisme ('nationalism'), agama ('religion'), and komunisme ('communism') into a
co-operative 'Nas-A-Kom' government.
15 February 1957: Sumatra rebellion
February 1957: a system of 'Guided Democracy', and proposed a cabinet representing all the
political parties of importance (including the PKI)
21 February 1957: Sukarno detailed his plan.
- Sukarno pointed out that at the village level, important questions were decided by
lengthy deliberation with the goal of achieving a consensus. This model of
decision-making, he said, was better suited to the nature of Indonesia than the
Western-style voting system. While deliberations at the local level were guided by the
village elders, Sukarno envisioned that the president would guide them at the national
level.
- The elected parliament was replaced by one appointed by, and subject to the will of, the
president.
- Meant to consolidate power for a stronger government that could effect change
- In some ways it worked, but perhaps in the wrong way along Sukarno’s vision..
Ideological projects and statues.. In social policy, Sukarno's time in office witnessed
substantial reforms in health and education, together with the passage of various
pro-labour measures. However, Indonesia's economic position deteriorated under
Sukarno; by the mid-1960s, the cash-strapped government had to scrap critical public
sector subsidies, inflation was at 1,000%, export revenues were shrinking, infrastructure
crumbling, and factories were operating at minimal capacity with negligible investment.
Severe poverty and hunger were widespread.
- There was still forms of difference in opinions, it wasnt totally authoritarian. However
power was concentrated in Sukarno’s hands. For example, he proposed a government
based on the four main parties plus a national council representing not merely political
parties but functional groups—urban workers, rural farmers, intelligentsia, national
entrepreneurs, religious organizations, armed services, youth organizations, women’s
organizations, etc.—through which, under presidential guidance, a national consensus
could express itself.
May 1957: The National Council(guided democracy) was established by emergency law
1960: military had increased presence in politics after being invited to join the legislature. From
then on, they had a place in passing laws.
- Included the PKI, etc. the laws Sukarno had still had to go through it and gain votes, but
because of Sukarno’s balancing act, he did it well
- BUT the people inside werent elected but appointed by him. But IG some form of
accountability.
3 December 1957: Army began taking over dutch companies, giving them a major economic
role in the country
30 September 1965: Gestapu, 30 sept movement - six of the most senior generals within the
military and other officers were assassinated in an attempted coup
The PKI was blamed for the coup(may not have been them), and anti-communists, initially
following the army's lead, went on a violent anti-communist purge across much of the country.
The PKI was effectively destroyed, and the most widely accepted estimates are that between
500,000 and 1 million were killed. The violence was especially brutal in Java and Bali. The PKI
was outlawed and possibly more than 1 million of its leaders and affiliates were imprisoned.
Without the popularity and influence of the PKI backing the PNI, Sukarno was forced to concede
to Suharto.
March 1967: the Provisional People's Consultative Assembly (MPRS) named General Suharto
acting president
- COLD WAR: In the aftermath of Suharto's rise, hundreds of thousands of people were
killed or imprisoned by the military and religious groups in a backlash against alleged
communist supporters, with direct support from the United States (since he was seen as
staunchly anti-communist)
- TRAD VALUES: the idea of a paternal leader invoked javanese traditional leadership
values
- LOCAL AGENTS: Public opinion shifted against Sukarno in part due to his apparent
knowledge of, and sympathy for, the events of 30 September, and for his tolerance of
leftist and communist elements whom the army blamed for the coup attempt. Student
groups, such as KAMI, were encouraged by, and sided with, the Army against Sukarno.
The army had also led thousands in gestapu, soo
Note: The Dwifungsi ("Dual Function") policy allowed the military to have an active role in all
levels of Indonesian government, economy, and society. No dissent allowed. Elections werent
free and fair, as Suharto controlled parties.

Vietnam
1. Colonial Legacy
a. French exercised tight control over their colony. Similar to the Indonesian colony
with tight control. This results in the rise of more radical nationalist movements
which sought to overthrow colonial rule through violent means.
b. This repressive control means that they have minimal experience with western
political structures which is something very foreign to them.
2. Nationalist Elites
a. Local actors and the role they play: Ho Chi Minh - exposed to french socialism
but embraced communism. He couldnt square the theories of liberal democracy
with what was happening in Vietnam under french rule
b. Vietminh mounted strong resistance against the French and Japanese during
WW2 - gaining legitimacy and popular support. When you are repressed and
someone comes up to fight for your interests, they will gain your support.
c. Even after ww2, vietminh continues to fill the power vacuum left by the japanese
by setting up agencies and grassroots, enacting land reform. Even though they
didnt have traditional form of governance, they had experienced political leaders.
d. First indochinese war. Pull up all yr old notes.
e. Due to the popularity of Ho and dislike for the French colonial system, and by
extension the democratic system, there is a clear choice to adopt communism
instead of democracy.
3. Decolonisation experience
4. Nature of SEA
5. Nature of political alternatives
[LINK HERE]

Burma
1. Nature of society
a. Very diverse. Heterogenous makeup of burma.

b. 7 largest minorities: think about it

c. Representation for every minority. (flesh out how it works)
d. British very concerned about the Chins, the Kachins, the Shans of the Shan
States, and the minority community of the Karens since they were administered
separately and only joined burma in 1935
2. Colonial legacy: experiences and implications left as a result.
a. It was ruled differently depending on the geographic space
b. Burma proper under direct rule from the british vs frontier areas under indirect
rule (come under local, tribal chiefs, indigenous actors who worked with british to
assert their control over the region)
c. Significance: constitutional experience exposed some burmese leaders to
western-style democratic structures, while the indirect rule of frontier areas
cemented a sense of autonomy amongst ethnic minorities. They felt they should
have autonomy and rights even after independence. Having a central
government assert control over them might not be received well. This reinforces
the need for plural political structures - how does democracy allow for a sense of
autonomy to be preserved where power is decentralised more.
d. Also: implication of India in colonial struggle, setting a precedent for quick
negotiations
3. Nationalist elite: know who the local actors are
a. Western-educated elites
i. Aung San and U Nu. Graduated from University of Rangoon, equipping
them with relevant theories and exposing them to democratic norms and
institutions. This affects how they perceive the future of Burmese society
and why they wanted to adopt democracy.
ii. Aung San was also exposed to socialism, hence he envisioned the
creation of a consensual political order, where the plural Burmese society
was to coexist under an agreed common consensus. Also tied to his
 recognition of diversity in Burmese society. He recognised their
experiences and thought it could be the best way to ensure the survival of
the nation. So thats why he mightve chosen democracy over socialism.
b. 1945: AFPFL which comes under the leadership of Aung San
c. Armed wing of AFPFL aided Allied re-conquest of Burma in May 1945 against the
Japanese. People remembered those who defended and pushed back the
oppressors. So they have a certain weightiness and influence over the people.
How does this influence political alternatives?
i. Myriad organisation, loose coalition which took on many different
positions and groups. This is good because in fighting for independence,
they show the British that there is a big desire for independence from
people of all stances and walks of life.
ii. Problem: In-fighting. How short-lived/stable democracy can be in Burma.
iii. Encouraged the establishment of a plural form of govt, emergence of BNA
as having political weight.
4. Decolonisation experience
a. May 1945: White Paper outlined intention to grant Burma complete
self-government but only if Burma is ready. The british are generally ok to grant
them independence as long as they demonstrate they are ready.
b. Response of AFPFL? Countrywide campaign for independence and formation of
a private militia.
c. Aung San guarantees minority rights as well. To reassure the British that the
country won't split up into small portions and tribal societies. (1947 Panglong
Agreement)
d. His adoption of democracy/consensus-based politics was part of a larger move
(copy rest down)
5. Political Alternatives
a. Burmese Communists believed that true independence could only be achieved
via revolution. The expulsion of communists was also a tactical move to make the
AFPFL acceptable to the British who were wary of Communist influence. (Jan
1946 expulsion of red flag communists, Oct 1946 expulsion of white flag
communists)
Burma:
Adoption of federal democracy had its roots in British colonial rule which reinforced
ethno-linguistic distinctions of Burma that also ran along geographical lines

Decolonisation was fundamental in that the British would only grant independence on condition
of Aung San's agreement to guarantee the rights of the local ethnic chieftains, and in light of his
ability to demonstrate that the AFPFL had both the mandate and know-how to rule Burma

TIMELINE:
1930s: anti colonial movement already started because of British suppression of Burmese
culture
1940: Aung San joins Burma Independence Army in Japan before Japan joins WW2
Late 1941: Japanese invasion of Burma begins
1944: Allied forces conduct operations to liberate Burma from Japanese rule
1941-1944: Many burmese aid the japanese invasion and rule, such as the Arakan national
army and burmese national army
17 May 1945: White Paper on Burma released
- Set the desired path to Burmese “independence” as a Dominion within the British
commonwealth
- (1) A period of "direct rule" by the Governor (assisted by an "Executive Council" of
Burmese leaders), economic rehabilitation and reconstruction (the country was in ruins
at the time), and then elections before May 1948; (2) The convening of a new Burmese
parliament under the 1935 Burma Act that would chose a new Premier and government
but also draft a new constitution and (3) Eventually independence but as a "Dominion"
(as Australia, Canada) within the Commonwealth.
- Rejected by Aung San, causing a standoff between the AFPFL and the British (AFPFL
wanted independence, and threatened to conduct mass protests, strikes, and to mobilise
the nation to not pay taxes - since they had garnered mass support for their cause. This
forced the british to reconsider their plan, especially due to weakened British prestige,
wealth, and military presence in burma post WW2. Commander Mountbatten noted in
1946 that British troops would be unable to suppress an armed uprising in Burma)
13 September 1945: Burma liberated from Japanese rule
September 1946: Nationwide strike initiated by AFPFL, pressuring british into a compromising,
conciliatory position
23 December 1946: AFPFL Statement to British issued
- The AFPFL Statement is a central text, as it was issued on the eve of the delegation’s
journey overseas and sums up in a straightforward manner the goals of the AFPFL in
going to London. In this statement, the British were asked to make concessions even
before having met with the Burmese representatives. This text was part of the AFPFL’s
first attempts to reverse the relations of power between the metropole and its colony, and
to assert the dominating position it would try and maintain during the whole of the
London Conference. It is important to stress that the British representatives’ room for
manoeuvre in the debates was highly limited, not only by the AFPFL’s threats of massive
strikes in Burma, but also by the wider context of decolonisation in South-East Asia: the
British knew they had to be very careful what they granted Burma if they wanted to avoid
repercussions in other Asian colonies.

13-27 January 1947: London talks between Aung San (AFPFL) and British
- AFPFL being on the front of the Burmese stage - most of its well-known leaders were
members of the 1946 Executive Council and the League had the support of a large part
of the population – the party sometimes gave the impression that it did not encounter
any opposition. In reality, we have to keep in mind that, while the AFPFL included at first
many different political groups, it suffered from a split with the Communists on the 2nd of
November 1946, when some members of the League entered in negotiations with the
British and eventually became part of Rance’s new Executive Council. The Communists,
divided between the “Red Flag” Communist Party (which had left the League at the
 beginning of 1946) and the “White Flag” Communist Party, advocated much more
revolutionary methods to obtain self-government. According to Angelene Naw, Aung
San’s acceptance of the visit to London led to a weakening of his popularity: he did not
manage to get the support of the Communist Party and he was worried that the
Communists, along with the PVO (his paramilitary People’s Volunteer Organization
formed in December 1945) might take advantage of his compromising attitude towards
the British to launch a political struggle
- Military Intelligence in Rangoon, along with Governor Rance, wrote reports on other
threats that might disrupt the tranquillity of the unfolding of the discussions in London.
The Communists notably, fearing that a positive outcome of the AFPFL negotiations with
the British might have negative consequences on their popularity at home, had made
plans to resort to force while the key members of the AFPFL were abroad. Reports
indicated that the Red Flag Communists had started gathering arms and would march on
Rangoon around the 15th of January: their plan consisted in starting hostilities with
Government forces so that, interpreted as the beginning of rebellion in the districts, it
would provoke “widespread revolt”.10 This turn of events worried Aung San who was
afraid his popularity at home might be weakened by his recent decisions, such as that of
negotiating with the British: the Communists in particular, who preferred armed
resistance to peaceful discussions, accused him of not being strongly enough opposed
to imperialism. He himself was under a lot of pressure, as a failure on his part to obtain
concessions from the British would question his leadership and support in the country:
before leaving Burma, he asserted that if the negotiations did not go his way, he would
leave London immediately to join the freedom movements.
12 February 1947: Panglong agreement (after conference in Shan state)
- Between brits and burmese on terms of independence, and answering the question on
the frontier areas and the Chin, “full autonomy in internal administration for the Frontier
Areas”, Shan states, and envisioned the creation of a Kachin state which would grant
them more autonomy.
- Karens laid claim to a separate state altogether
9 April 1947: Elections held, AFPFL given mandate
19 July 1947: Aung San Assassinated
10 December 1947: Burma Independence Act
4 January 1948: Independence Day

IQ2:
1963: burma military coup
1948-1962: parliamentary democracy
Military have been in power since 1962
Didn't understand the economy, drove it into the ground.
Conditions that precipitated the 1962 coup
1947: assassination of aung san
1948: civil war
1958: dissolution of AFPFL
October 1958: Ne Win’s caretaker government
1961: U Nu makes buddhism the state religion
1962 March: Ne Win stages coup, military seizes power
- Military tatmadaw seized power
Burma: issue of ethnic diversity.
Ethnic groups have ties to the land. They were administered differently from the burman
majority. This indirect rule by the british gives them historical experience of autonomy less
disrupted compared to burma proper. So while the democratic system seems like a good idea to
allay minority fears, this could prove to accentuate those differences- which is what happened
Threats to stability - insurgency, political disunity, and a weak civil government

In some regions, the central government doesn't have power and control anymore, so much so
that parallel governments form to run the regions over there.
Political divisions: White Flag communists, PVO
Ethnic divisions: Karen National Union
- Why did this disintegrate democracy? Need to explain and illustrate
- The minorities were significant minorities - they were the majority in the areas where
they lived
- They were literally separate states. Under the new relegation, they would be relegated to
the status of a minority. So they would want to keep their interests protected. Failing to
do so would result in insurgencies.

Civil War and breakdown of central administration, economic instability

AFPFL split: “stable” and “clean” AFPFL
Democracy was ineffective in forging political consensus, exarcebated by the actions of
incompetent democratic leaders.
Resulted in political instability and economic stagnation - created favourable conditions for the
shift toward maximum government
- Weak civil governance
- Economic stagnation and division in the country - insurgencies, unhappiness.
- E.g establishment of buddhism as state religion - created division since minorities were
afraid they werent going to be represented. The policy was discriminatory in nature.
- Was meant to forge social cohesion of new burmese state, but it proved to be divisive
due to fears of majority domination by significant minorities who were not buddhist.
- Panglong agreement 1947: tangible outcome to give minorities freedom of autonomy.
This gives them justification and the basis to assert their rights. But the new government
reneged on their promise.
- Serious issue: what is the power and position of the minorities in the new state? The
policies seem to discriminate against them socially and take away their power.
- This created political instability in the country

Economic imperatives: civil war destroyed the economy, meaning industrial and agricultural
production had not reached pre war levels by 1960. Minority insurgencies also limited
development of rural areas. This is a good justification for maximum government, given that
they promote economic development - use of economic imperatives.
Failure of democracy - U Nu’s promise to separate states for Arakanese and Mon, reneged on
his promise
establishment of buddhism as a state religion intensified fears that fueled the insurgency. U Nu
wanted to unite the people through Buddhism, but fears from the Christian minority fueled the
insurgency.

Alternative institutions: caretaker govt phase, discipline and cohesion contrasted against
political and social chaos
Inability of democratic leaders to achieve stability, leads to political chaos and social instability
and economic stagnation. Political elites were hence convinced of the need for strong state
power. Military was seen as a viable political force in the face of instability, presenting itself as
the solution to the instability.
- Demonstrated that the military can be a viable alternative
- Also: context of burmese military as playing an indispensible role in driving away the
japanese and british.
- Earlier period won them popular opinion
- Revolutionary council - 1. What enabled it to seize control
Justification: secessionist movement from minorities and factionalism in civilian government
means they need to step in with a new brand of ideology to preserve the newly independent
state. Military used for internal and external security from the emergence of the modern
burmese state.
Shift to socialism and a command planned economy - government sets the production and price
of the items. Industry is run by the government.
In the end - 8 8 88 uprising

Singapore

Singapore Timeline:

1955: Rendell constitution

1959: PAP electoral victory
1963: Operation coldstore
- Paved the way for the rise of the PAP as the only viable party
1963: Merge with malaysia
1965: Separation and independence
1966: Barisan Sosialis boycott

Political divisions:
Collaborated with the left leaning, chinese speaking movement. Started off with a small group of
western educated, english speaking people.
They had to embrace the majority of Singaporeans, the Chinese. Not just that, chinese working
class leftist leaning population.
So in order to rise to power, they have to collaborate with left leaning chinese speaking faction
of the PAP (who were eventually dragged through the mud)
- Factions within the PAP:
- Moderate middle class english educated professionals
- Radical left wing chinese educated students and workers

Economic imperatives:
- Export oriented industrialisation
- Attract FDI
- Means we need to stop boycotts, riots and all must be squashed
- All the nanyang, chinese educated were stopped. No chinese universities, all
closed. There was fear that their riots/social instability will threaten economic
development
- Infrastructural support etc.

Traditional political values:

- Asian and confucian values where the leader tells us what to do and we progress
together.

Malaya
Colonial Legacy:
They were split into multiple states. The british had colonial administrators in all states. In
federated states, the colonial administrators held more power than the local rulers and vice
versa in unfederated states.

Under the treaty, they came and offered protection to instil certain rulers as the legitimate rulers.
In return, the colonists enjoyed massive power. Fiction of malay power during british colonial
rule. Because they were technically a protected state and not a colony. Significance: no pan
malayan nationalism. Malays were loyal to their own individual sultanates and there were
different waves of immigrants from India and China. They began to demand for greater rights.
Some of them may have come from push factors from their motherland, so they pushed for
more rights. They wanted to assert themselves to safeguard their interests, but this wasnt
obvious in the pre-independence period. The nature of British colonial administration was that
pol. power was in the hands of malays, to keep the fiction of Malay supremacy. Clear communal
divide based on occupation and geography within the state: many farmers, then some educated
elites and royalists. Many were malay because malaya was a protected malay state. Although
there were some other races, none of them were used significantly except in the Straits
settlements.
Diversity becomes entrenched in a communal mode. Since they were a plural society, the
Japanese exploited this to divide and conquer.

Decolonisation experience:
When the british came, they saw they wanted to make the Malaya vision work- malayan union.
Multicultural and racial malaya with equal rights for everyone. But they were met with fierce
resistance by UMNO when they came back because there was heightened political
consciousness - they saw that they had the experience of running the country directly, as
opposed to indirectly ruling with the British as the true power. Another reason: the whole social
contract was that they were protected Malay states, which was against the constitutional
agreement between the British and Malays. And the british had larger issues to grapple with!!
Not plantations, but reviving their economy. Domestic reconstruction. Conundrum: while their
priority is domestic reconstruction, the colonies are also a lifeline for them to reconstruct their
economy. But when they came back, they returned to a politically awakened nationalist
movement. So the only way they can retain their economic influence in the region is to give up
power and work with the nationalists to trade etc. this was their first time meeting with
confrontational malay action, so they conceded their demands and reverted to their pre-war
agreement that Malaya will remain Malay states. Problem: communist insurgence (emergency
that started in 1948). Only way to ensure that the democratic leaning leaders kept in power is to
accede to their demands and align with them, to arrange for a happy medium. Grant greater
representation for them.

Stark contrast to MCP communists. Problem: they were predominantly chinese, and very
radical, making it difficult for them to gain support from the non-chinese, making them seem to
be a handmaiden of China rather than a legitimate local movement. Emergency declared until
1960. To ensure there was no support for non communists, british gave democrats more power.
This pushed the british to consider the nationalists as an important alternative.

Malaya needed to grapple with the fact that its a multiracial society even though its built on the
idea of Malay political supremacy- what is the effect on political stability then?

TIMELINE:
1826: British control over the straits settlements was established (Penang, Malacca and
Singapore)
1890s-1910s:
Selangor, Perak, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang established as Federated Malay States
- Had less autonomy, and accepted a british resident who controlled development
- However they enjoyed more modernisation and economic prosperity compared to UFMS
Unfederated Malay States (UFMS) established - Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis, and
Terengganu.
- Limited economic potential meant British limited political interference in these states.
- This period of slow consolidation of power into a centralised government and
compromise—the Sultans retain their reign but not rule in their states—would have a
great impact on the later road to nationhood. It effectively marked the transition of the
idea of Malay states from a collection of separate lands governed by their own different
feudal rulers, towards a federation with Westminster-style constitutional monarchy. This
became the accepted model for the future Federation of Malaya and ultimately Malaysia,
 distinguishing the nation throughout the Asian continent, whereby most other countries
adopted stricter, heavily centralised unitary state administrations.
- Although the treaty meant that the British “advisors” could make the final decision, the
ruling sultanate was given the illusion of political power
Note: since by right the states were protectorates, this gave the illusion of british not really
controlling, but local feudal rulers retaining their power. Real power in the FMS and its
constituent states rested with the four local British Residents and the Resident-General, the
discretionary powers of the local sultans being essentially reduced to matters "touching Malay
Religion and Customs"
Economy
The Federated Malay States main economic activity was mostly focused on agriculture and
mining with emphasis on rubber and tin. FMS and Malaya as a whole was the main supplier of
these two commodities for the British industrial need. Rubber estates or plantations were
established in all four states and tin was mined primarily in the Klang valley in Selangor and the
Kinta Valley in Perak. This labour-intensive economic activities prompted the British to bring in
immigrant workers from southern India to work at the plantations and workers from southern
China to mine the tin.
Malays: given roles in the government, representation to control religious activities (sultan
remained the head)
Chinese and Indian immigrants: given role to promote economy. First immigrated as labourers
for tin and rubber, palm oil etc. then later gained influence. Seen in Kapitan Cina: the third
Kapitan Cina, Yap Ah Loy, developed KL as a commercial centre in the 19th century, developing
the tin industry.
Division between chinese and malays: malays largely held administrative power de jure, but
regions were controlled by chinese secret societies, causing a larger divide between the races -
solidified racial hold and place in society. Generationally, malay officials solidified their rule,
while the chinese increased their economic hold and regional control through the secret
societies.
Indians: brought over by the british since they had a longer experience with colonialism, hence
taking over administrative and civil service posts
Nationalism in this period:

(British provided feudal leaders stipends)

This meant there was little political consciousness among the malays. During the occupation,
this had to change.
8 December 1941- 15 February 1945: Japanese invasion of Malaya
- British were unprepared for japanese invasion, concentrating their resources in Europe
 - Japanese took control in just 2 months. This disillusioned the malays on British
superiority. British contract of protecting malaya was not fulfilled. (protectorates). Myth of
“Asia for Asians” which was promoted under japanese rule disillusioned the public.
Promoted since they controlled the 4 newspaper publications, while silencing those
already in place.
- The japanese promoted some forms of nationalism, allowing malay sultanates to retain
their positions. Malays and Indians were also reappointed as civil servants.
- However, they allows four northern states to be annexed by the Thai, reneging on malay
nationalism. The loss of export markets in the west also led to mass unemployment,
causing unhappiness with the Japanese.
- The community’s split along racial lines was solidified as the chinese were treated as
enemy aliens, such as through sook ching (cleansing of the chinese in mass murder)
1 April 1946: Trigger event - formation of malayan union
- Decreased political power of the sultans - The Sultans, the traditional rulers of the Malay
states, conceded all their powers to the British Crown except in religious matters de jure
(previously just de facto)
- Allowed equal rights to people who wished to apply for citizenship, including many
chinese and indian immigrants, ending idea of malay preeminence
- Malays were super unhappy with this and began to protest
10 May 1946: UMNO established to oppose Malayan Union
- They utilised civil disobedience as a means of protest by refusing to attend the
installation ceremonies of the British governors. They had also refused to participate in
the meetings of the Advisory Councils, hence Malay participation in the government
bureaucracy and the political process had totally stopped
- This forced the British to reconsider this, and make changes to the system which they
did.
5 July 1946: After entering negotiations with UMNO, the British conceded to a federal system
instead of a union.
- Stricter rules to become a citizen, requiring knowledge of english and malay for example
- The federation agreement set the powers of the federal and state governments.
Financial matters must be handled by the respective states. The Sultan was given full
power on religious issues and Malay customs. Foreign policy and defence continued to
be administered by the British government. The federation agreement was made the
Constitution of the Federation of Malaya and officially declared on 1 February 1948
- High commissioner helped put in place many political institutions, such as a legislative
council. This preceded the parliament. Political office was appointed by the governor,
until elections in 1955. Judiciary system also implemented.
- Communal relations were already complicated. Push for independence was founded on
malay fears of losing their pre-eminence, but at the same time there was an increasing
minority of chinese and indians, forming over 40% of the population at the time.
1 Feb 1948: creation of federation of malaya

16 June 1948: Malayan emergency began

Why democracy?
 - British enabled it.
- Communists were seen as handmaiden of china, and preeminence of malay in politics
meant that this movement was seen as illegitimate. Most malays didnt want chinese to
seize control of govt. (requires more unpacking - emergency was v big)
- British also brought back relative wealth as compared to japanese, meaning that the
malays werent opposed to british financial involvement, nationalist movement was
mostly political

IQ2:

What set this up was racial strife - we see in 1965

At the time of independence in 1957, Malays comprised 55% of the population, Chinese 35%
and Indians 10%.This balance was altered by the inclusion of the majority-Chinese Singapore,
upsetting many Malays. The federation increased the Chinese proportion to close to 40%. Both
UMNO and the MCA were nervous about the possible appeal of Lee's People's Action Party
(then seen as a radical socialist party) to voters in Malaya and tried to organise a party in
Singapore to challenge Lee's position there. Lee in turn threatened to run PAP candidates in
Malaya at the 1964 federal elections, despite an earlier agreement that he would not do so.
Racial tensions intensified as PAP created an opposition alliance aiming for equality between
races.

The most vexed issues of independent Malaysia were education and the disparity of economic
power among the ethnic communities. The Malays felt unhappy with the wealth of the Chinese
community, even after the expulsion of Singapore. The two issues were related since the
Chinese advantage in education played a large part in maintaining their control of the economy,
which the UMNO leaders were determined to end. The MCA leaders were torn between the
need to defend their own community's interests and the need to maintain good relations with
UMNO. This produced a crisis in the MCA in 1959, in which a more assertive leadership under
Lim Chong Eu defied UMNO over the education issue, only to be forced to back down when
Tunku Abdul Rahman threatened to break up the coalition.

The Education Act of 1961 put UMNO's victory on the education issue into legislative form.
Henceforward Malay and English would be the only teaching languages in secondary schools,
and state primary schools would teach in Malay only. Although the Chinese and Indian
communities could maintain their own Chinese and Tamil-language primary schools, all their
students were required to learn Malay, and to study an agreed "Malayan curriculum". Most
importantly, the entrance exam to the University of Malaya would be conducted in Malay, even
though most teachings at the university was in English until the 1970s. This had the effect of
excluding many Chinese students. At the same time, Malay schools were heavily subsidised,
and Malays were given preferential treatment. This obvious defeat for the MCA greatly
weakened its support in the Chinese community.
As in education, the UMNO government's unspoken agenda in the field of economic
development aimed to shift economic power away from the Chinese and towards the Malays.
The two Malayan Plans and the First Malaysian Plan (1966–1970) directed resources heavily
into developments that would benefit the rural Malay community, such as village schools, rural
roads, clinics, and irrigation projects. Several agencies were set up to enable Malay
smallholders to upgrade their production and to increase their incomes. The Federal Land
Development Authority (FELDA) helped many Malays to buy farms or to upgrade ones they
already owned. The state also provided a range of incentives and low-interest loans to help
Malays start businesses, and government tendering systematically favoured Malay companies,
leading many Chinese-owned businesses to "Malayanise" their management. All this certainly
tended to reduce the gap between Chinese and Malay standards of living.

This created a climate of unhappiness because the malays were highly educated, but
underemployed.

1968: Formation of Gerakan Rekyat Malaysia, distinctly non-communal mix. An islamic and
democratic socialist party, PAS and DAP respectively

12 May 1969: federal elections, the UMNO-MCA-MIC Alliance polled only 48% of the vote
13 May 1969: Fear of what the changes might mean for them (as much of the country's
businesses were Chinese-owned), a Malay backlash resulted, leading rapidly to riots and
inter-communal violence in which about 6,000 Chinese homes and businesses were burned and
at least 184 people were killed.
14 May: The government declared a state of emergency, and a National Operations Council,
headed by Deputy Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak, took power from the government of Tunku
Abdul Rahman, who, in September 1970, was forced to retire in favour of Abdul Razak. It
consisted of nine members, mostly Malay, and wielded full political and military power

[1] The race riots of 1969 marked a watershed in Malaysian politics. They provided a reason for
overhauling the political structure, and democracy was scaled back. Accommodation between
the races was still favoured, but Malay pre-eminence was emphasised. This granted UMNO
overwhelming dominance and expanded the government's executive power. After Mahathir
Mohammad assumed office in 1981, such developments were extended with his autocratic style
of leadership, which entrenched both UMNO's as well as Mahathir's political hegemony.

[2] Immediately after what subsequently became known as the "May 13th" incident, a state of
emergency was imposed and parliament was suspended for 21 months. The government ruled
by decree through a body known as the National Operations Council (NOC), which coordinated
military and police action to restore order. It was feared that democracy was dead in Malaysia,
and while this was not quite the case, significant changes would follow.

[3] By 1970, UMNO elites were able to oust the accommodationist Tunku Abdul Rahman and
Tun Abdul Razak emerged as national leader. He recruited well-educated Malay 'ultras' (a term
Lee Kuan Yew and other PAP leaders used to describe Malay chauvinists) and held
deliberations on how to tighten the Malays' grip on both political power and the economy.

[4] While parliament remained suspended, Tun Razak devised a way to reduce the electoral
competition that had weakened the Alliance in 1969. The 'Alliance' formula of cooperation would
be expanded beyond its 3 component parties and absorb the opposition into the ruling coalition.
The non-Malay parties would also be pit against each other for candidate selection and cabinet
positions, thus increasing UMNO's centrality rather than diluting it.

[5] Tun Razak then turned to parliament, imposing limits on its agenda as a condition for its
resumption. He introduced new sedition laws that would bar all debate over Malay
pre-eminence and special rights (when parliament was subsequently reconvened, Tun Razak
also ordered parliament to include them as amendments to the Malaysian constitution).

[6] The next generation of Malay politicians also saw the need to vigorously tackle
socio-economic disparities which had fuelled communal antagonisms within the country. As the
NOC concluded that the riots of 1969 had originated from causes related to the communal
distribution of wealth, it was decided that a new economic arrangement was necessary.

[7] Government under the NOC ended in 1971 and parliament was restored as the nation's
supreme law-making body. It was, however, not a simple return to the status quo ante. The
degree of political freedom that characterised the 1960s disappeared. Non-Malays were in a
weaker bargaining position as compared to before May 1969. Ultimately, the state adopted a
more explicitly Malay character and Malay interests would be paramount.

[8] The implementation of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1971 had serious implications for
the political structure. It aimed to increase bumiputra control. of the Malaysian economy from an
estimated 1.9% to 30% by 1990. While socio-economic in orientation, this meant a dramatic
expansion of government intervention in Malaysian businesses and society..

[9] The role of the executive thus increased considerably with the launch of the NEP as the
bureaucracy was given major responsibilities to support the growth of a new bumiputra
commercial and professional class, and to intervene directly in business activities as a proxy for
the bumiputras. Greater government intervention in the economy via the NEP also enabled the
state to attract foreign investors to the manufacturing sector, particularly, in electronics. As a
result, Malaysia saw rapid economic growth in the 1970s and 1980s.

[10] In 1973, Tun Razak's idea of expanding the 'Alliance' formula was institutionalised with the
establishment of the Barisan Nasional (BN, or National Front). It would serve as the device that
created a strong UMNO led government. The MCA and MIC remained within this broader
coalition,

Thailand:
Thailand:
1. Political reform
a. In other countries where decolonisers bulldozed their way in, King Chulalongkorn
had power at the start already
b. King was an example of absolute power, a unifying figure, at the center of
“Thainess”, in other words you cannot be Thai unless you pledge allegiance to
the King. embedded in thai cultural belief. King is regarded as Buddhist
chakravartin. But the previous ruler was revered and changed it to allow people
to look at the King.
c. Enforces his mandate to rule. Forms basis of thai national identity (nationalism),
invoked and re invoked until today. Veneration and respect
d. Control of political and social power (leader of Buddhist faith)
2. Role of Western Nationalist Elite
a. Chulalongkorn saw the need to send the royal elite to the western education
centers to learn from them.
b. He implemented a policy for upper class educated women to wear western
dresses.
c. They learnt the values of equality and democracy. When they came back, they
questioned the nature of the autocracy that Chulalongkorn was reinforcing. They
became advocates for democracy. Advocates of political change. They preferred
social mobility.
d. Wanted greater say
i. But they saw their prospects in a semi-feudal systems where the highest
positions are reserved for the king’s favourites, which is seen as given
and a fact of life, they realised its so difficult
3. Emergence of the military
a. Powerful state institution developed to protect the borders. It started as a ragtag
group of volunteers to a professional standing army trained along Western line.
To protect the state, but also the monarchy and King. It was seen as the protector
of the King. This would be used to justify their long term intervention in politics til
today.
b. So powerful until we see thai buildings with TMB - thai military backed
c. Under King Vajiravudh, he further developed the military (TMB), creating a
paramilitary group who were commoners that he liked. He elevated them to a
higher standard in society. BUT this was seen as a threat to the military. He spent
a lot of money on his troops and entertainment, unaware of the threat. This
created tension and resentment in the military as military officers were not
allowed to join
4. Emergence of political group: people’s party
a. Wanted political change. Opportunity came in the great depression (1929)
b. Thai king didnt handle situation well, so the political party mobilised the civilians
and the army into a coup d'etat in 1932. First of numerous coup d'etat. First
instance in which the military intervened in politics. This also ended absolute
monarchy overnight, restricting the King’s powers.
Thailand: exception. Why was democracy ineffective?

1932: revolution - democratic experiment

1938: authoritarian rule under phibun
1944: civilian rule
1947: coup by sarit
1948: phibun resumes power
1957: coup by sarit, removing phibun from power

So many coups, yet it doesnt threaten social stability?

Modernisation - BUT:
Modernisation efforts predate WW2. They wanted to ensure they could ward of colonial powers.
Justifications for a strong absolutist state:
- External threat (first colonialism, then communism)
- Internal threat (chinese - fear of China as an exporter of revolution)
- Potential chinese fifth column to destabilise the country.
- Need for progress and prominence in world of competing nations and ideologies. Ward
off colonial powers, and the lure of communism which is poverty.
- Thailand also shares many borders with other countries, bringing a sense of
vulnerability.
Why did it work? Traditional conceptions of thai society.
- Prominence of the monarch and tradition of a strong state
- Strong sense of social hierarchy
- Role of the nation to be unified, passive and obedient, listen to the top.
Democracy was adapted to allow a shift of power from one group of elites to another.

Period of transition:
Political divisions:
Monarch who was supposed to be in power had a sudden death - King Ananda
Post 1932: military vs civilian faction
1944-1947: instability under civlian rule (exarcebated by death of king)
Cold War:
Threat of communism in the ongoing vietnam war, with thailand sharing a border with vietnam,
showed the strategic independence of thailand. They hence enjoyed growing prominence in a
bulwark against communism (domino theory). The US so propped up thailand due to domino
theory.
Historical context:
weak tradition of democracy and strength of military faction.
Strong sense of identity.
Strength of military faction can be traced to Phunam as a leader. “Believe in the leader and the
nation will escape danger”
Sense of urgency that thailand is under siege. They have saved themselves from colonisation,
and should save themselves from communism as well.
Fascist style of government to establish order in society.
Deep suspicion of chinese - hence he pushed forth cultural and economic nationalism on the
basis of your national pride. What it means to be Thai.
Govt intervenes actively in the economy.
Encouragement of militarism and glorification of martial values as a way to ensure discipline
order and development.
But he also aligned himself with the US - anticommunist stance. He hence encouraged the use
of constitutionalism, using democratic processes to strengthen and justify his actions, while also
using it to garner support from the US.
Outcome: sense of national pride and acquiescence of the peasantry.

Economic pride: promotion of local goods, not imported goods.

Social modernisation was associated with the west - western goods etc., but they also wanted
to promote local goods! How did that work

Next revolution and development:

1. Pattiwat: known for cultivating revolution and development. His revolution isnt a radical
challenge to an established order, but a reinforcement of social order and hierarchy. Its
not to disrupt the current order. Its to reinforce traditional political order.
Phibun was doing peripheral changes, but didnt have sufficient rate of change to justify
his extended rule in terms of economic development. There was growing threat of
communism along the border, with an escalation of tension along the vietnamese border.
Increasingly
He also encouraged the growth of technocrats. Bureaucrats who have technical
knowledge in things such as the economy. This was smart because it helped them
promote long term economic development and growth.
To ensure protected borders, they strengthened partnership with the US by joining
SEATO
This hence strengthened the authoritarian regime. The difference is this leader had the
means to ensure economic development.
Lese majeste law: anything defaming the king can be jailed. Dissidents dragged to the
court with accusations that they are shaming the king.

Broad arguments:
5. CW merely reinforced the shift to maximum government that was already set in
motion.

CASE STUDIES:
Maximum governments adapted or eradicated democratic model

Indonesia Philippines (marcos) Malaysia, Singapore

burma thailand

Authoritarian< >Democratic

Parliamentary process Martial law imposed Parliamentary institution

retained
Absolute power in one
person
Dominant military (de facto
another branch of govt)
dictatorship and processes intact,
Military as handmaiden of concentration of power in
oppression one dominant party.

Democratic model Democratic model Democratic model retained

eradicated suspended temporarily
MACRO

Establishing different forms of government

Why different forms of government were adopted; based on the economic social and political
developments

After ww2: colonists were stopped by an awakened political movement. Returning colonial
powers met with either aggressive resistance by the nationalists, or it could be very peaceful
where the nationalists just had to negotiate with the colonisers. Our task is to examine the
causal relationship.

Historical concepts:
1. Cause and effect
2. Change and continuity
3. Significance
4. Diversity

Pt of independence to 2000. Looking at the timeline, which aspects remained constant? Were
there changes or elements of continuity?
Looking at diversity

Democracy

IQ1: Why was democracy the preferred mode of government in most Southeast Asian states
upon independence?

Key features of a democracy:

institutions of a democracy - elections, civil liberties.. Every state has executive, legislative and
judiciary. Either open house or bipartisan. There must also be a level of competition between
competing parties that offer different political visions. There is an element of decentralisation in
the govt and checks and balances
Checks and balances are important because it prevents corruption, ensuring no branch of
government abuses its power beyond the stipulated extent in the constitution, restrained legally.
This strengthens the trust of the people in the government and keeps political stability.
- Why are these important to the adoption of democracy in SEA?
Values in democracy:
Everyone is equal/has equal rights before the law. No one person will be marginalised.
Everyone has certain degrees of freedom and there must be free representation - not just
majority rules.

When looking at democracy in SEA, you need to look at BOTH the values and how
established/institutionalised they are, as well as whether the key features (or processes and
systems) exist in a sound manner. That is “true”-r democracy

Factors:
1. Colonial legacy
a. All of the countries inherited many things from colonial legacy. This is important
so we understand some of the decisions/processes implemented.
2. Role and nature of nationalist elite
a. People who were western-educated and had interactions with the colonial
powers. They were important in having a role to play in why these systems were
implemented in the country
b. Needed to gain legitimacy from the West
3. Decolonisation experience
4. Nature of SEA
a. Political pluralism to accommodate the views of different groups
b. Ethnic and cultural diversity with arbitrary, artificial boundaries set by the colonial
masters. All these previously sovereign kingdoms or self sustaining societies
were pulled together by the West. How did this eventually play a role in
democracy at the point of independence?
5. Nature of political alternatives
a. What else is possible? Communism.

Challenges to new states:

1. Newly created country
2. Diverse communities

How do they navigate these challenges?

How did the government maintain political stability up til 2000?
Periodisation - theme 1, until 1950s/1960s, theme 2 is 1960s and onwards.

Maximum government - a government by a narrow elite. A group/political class like the military,
or one person (autocracy)
Why was it possible? Weak social forces and identified threats to sovereignty.
This made it easy for the government to seize control and power for itself.

Features of maximum govt

 1. Centralisation of power in one person/one group of people
2. Limited political pluralism
3. Weak civil society
4. Legitimacy derived from overcoming domestic threats (insurgencies, economic
downturn.. Used as justification for the need of a strongarm state) - hence necessitating
stability
a. What happened throughout the 1960s which hindered the democratic
government’s ability to rule effectively?
i. Provide for the citizens - economic protection and security. keep social
cohesion - things like protests, riots will hinder economic development
and normal activity. Also, threat to survivability of the state - newly
independent and weak states, they arent natural communities but they
can easily fragment if there are strong separatist movements that want to
break away and form their own independent states.

What it did: the state still needed the mandate and support of the people, so - the state
depoliticized public life - they allow for participation in politics, but ensure they do not have
competition for control.
E.g. They will allow the creation of the women’s group, but based on the sanction and allowance
of the state. The state manages the diversity in the country by ensuring theres no competition
for power and influence in the country. Civil societies: labour unions, women's groups, religious
groups, environmental groups are allowed to exist but under the management of the state,
allowing the image of public participation in form but not in substance.
To an outsider: people are participating at the grassroots level, they are electing their leaders,
but in reality power is not with the people.
to achieve political stability and pursue national ends.

Why it was able to last so long: it legitimises itself through effective economic outcomes. It
overcame economic problems, and people benefitted from this economic growth.

A government lasts as long as it:

1. establishes political stability. No riots, strikes or challenges that results in a
disruption to daily living. No threats to the government - ie competitors. Some will
be arrested.
2. Economic growth. No government can last very long if it doesn't put food on the
table
3. Sense of identity: social cohesion. Important because there is tremendous
diversity. People need to understand they are part of an imagined political
community, national identity.

Problems to the function of govt in the immediate postwar period

1. Politically, there are radicalised peasantry. For the first time, the farmers engaged in
agrarian uprising and challenges to the Japanese and returning colonial powers. There
 is also a militarised nationalist sentiment. They have a stronger sense of their rights as a
group of people. This is a challenge because when the government passes laws, the
people cannot be easily culled.
2. Economically, they inherited the colonial economy, an export economy which is
unsustainable as an independent national economy. It was ill developed, so how do you
form a strong economy not dependent on the colonial markets? The economy is also
ravaged by the war. How does the government form economic development which forms
the basis of its legitimacy?
3. Emerging national identity. Begin to feel that they are one people, one nation. BUT only
mainly among the elite and those who fought against the colonial powers. At the same
time, there is an assertive minority which doesnt want a government privileging the
majority. Sometimes culminates in separatist movements.

Features and functions of maximum government:

Features of maximum govt

1. Centralisation of power in one person/one group of people
2. Limited political pluralism
3. Weak civil society
4. Legitimacy derived from overcoming domestic threats (insurgencies, economic
downturn.. Used as justification for the need of a strongarm state) - hence necessitating
stability
a. What happened throughout the 1960s which hindered the democratic
government’s ability to rule effectively?
i. Provide for the citizens - economic protection and security. keep social
cohesion - things like protests, riots will hinder economic development
and normal activity. Also, threat to survivability of the state - newly
independent and weak states, they arent natural communities but they
can easily fragment if there are strong separatist movements that want to
break away and form their own independent states.

1. Centralisation of power - political control

- Political control
- Suspension of democratic rule (martial law): in the short term
- Hard to justify why you should rule by decree without being accountable
to the people. So its only a short term solution
- Seizes control over institutions and branches of government
- allowing them to use them as instruments to exert their political control
- Social control
- Seized control over all sources of social groupings in the society and the media
- In theory, media is used to check the government’s policies. But under social
control, media becomes a vehicle to further government policy rather than
challenge it.
- Economic control
 - Promotion of developmentalism as the basis of state legitimation
- So it can reserve the right to rule as it has fulfilled its fundamental task

Government as the Patron - granting benefits and also utilising coercive powers
2. Economic growth: influx of capital, technology and education. Helps nurture growth.
3. Political growth: state building - growing the institutions in the government to help the
government run the country. Technocrats. Specialised bureaucrats who advise the
government on long term plans for the government. This improves the capacity of the
country to grow since they improve their pool of expertise. Also: support of the military
playing a sociopolitical role in ensuring stability in the country. + Social growth:
depoliticised social life. (weak civil society)

This control results in political stability.

Social development allowed maximum governments to last - better SOL, higher literacy, better
health and greater urbanisation, rising middle class. At the start, there are the political
elite/landowning elites, then you have everyone else: farmers etc. BUT now there is a new
middle class who want to have more participation in politics and challenge the elites. Many
protests in the 70s/80s is a result of this new middle class. All this is possible due to..
Economic growth like the influx of MNCs and becoming exporters of manufactured goods
causes inequitable distribution. A booming economy but poverty is still very much rampant. This
results in rising ethnic conflicts. Some poor in cities or other towns intensifies their secessionist
movements. The military are then activated by the government to contain the threats.
Unifying national identity: 1940s-1960s is about a generation. From late 60s, these people feel
like they are Singaporean or Filipino. A sense of national cohesion is born because they are the
beneficiary of modernisation due to economic development.
Questions we ask about factors:
Which local actors could capitalise on the structures and circumstances to produce the
transition?
How do we establish a relationship between the factors?

Why maximum govts in SEA?

- Why democracy died
- Keep in mind the 3 functions of the government: promote pol stability, economic
development, and social cohesion
- These 3 functions are also linked and affect one another
- Why maximum govts thrived

Sub inquiry question: how effective democratic governments were in sustaining and
maintaining stability in the region
- This will help us understand why they eventually give way to maximum governments.
- Why were they eventually ineffective? Was it more effective for some countries?

Example Thesis:
/1/ Political and ethnic divisions which post-war leaders inherited from colonial rule and
exacerbated as a result of the Japanese Occupation and decolonisation had laid the
foundations for instability. Such circumstances unleashed conflicting political aspirations
amongst different groups, which jostled for power in the new state.

/2/ Hurried decolonisation process in most countries meant that indigenous leaders were
thrusted into leadership with little experience with democratic practices and principles such as
consensus-making and accommodation. Leaders were thus unable to mediate diverse political
interests and effectively tackle the problems of nascent independent states.

/3/ The decisions which the incumbent government took confirmed the demise of democratic
governments, as these either precipitated intervention from the military or triggered the ruling
elite to abandon democratic structures in favor of authoritarian forms to maintain (political)
stability.

Contributing factor: trigger or add onto current trends

Always link failure of democracy/triumph of maximum govt to good/poor governance in terms of
the functions of government