The Common Traits of Southeast Asian Leaders

Date : 2006-03-16

By Prof Kanbawza Win

Witnessing the political crisis in Philippines and Thailand, not to mention the dictatorial countries of Burma, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam and the near totalitarian countries of Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei there seems to be several common factors of the so called ASEAN countries. A common penchant or rather and inkling is that once the leaders got into power by hook or by crook, they will never let it go. This is a great lesson which they copied it from the Burmese leader General Ne Win.

Since the post colonial era soon after the second World War II, Philippines has produced Marcos, while Indonesia comes up with Suharto. Even the so called democratic countries like Singapore and Malaysia had produced Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad, all are dictators but in name, and who may have been popular and benevolent in a democratic way, but who both used a dreaded internal security act, allowing indefinite arrest and internment without trial, to keep opponents in check.

Another common trait is their cruelty on the people. When Pol Pot of Cambodia was killing millions of his own people, including women and children and taking the country back to the stone age, the so called ASEAN leaders were mute and quietly supported the Khmer Rouge in the international arena. Hence it was no wonder that they treat the Burmese the same way and that the policy of Constructive Engagement, born out of their brains was the hall mark of torturing the people of Burma. The cruelty of these Southeast leaders were match by lust and greed which was clearly demonstrated in the region especially in the exploitation of human and natural resources of Burma. Not every one will agree but it can be label as ASEAN values.

Now Thailand has a fledgling democratic system, but, ironically, has produced a civilian leadership which falls in line with a lust for power and the greed it engenders, shown by the Burmese Generals. In fact, the five-year-old government of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has gathered even more power than any military leadership before it, and is accused by a growing chorus of critics of using it brazenly to amass levels of dubiously acquired wealth.

Most of the dictators including Ne Win had paid for their venal attitude to power with their abrupt removal by the people. The current popular uprising in Bangkok calling for Thaksin’s head seems all too familiar and seems to be fighting a rearguard action tenaciously clinging on to power. Once a strongman refusing to recognize the writing on the wall, the time for playing by the political and constitutional rules seems to have passed.

Farmers, teachers and thousands of state employees opposed to Thaksin's rule were traveling to the capital to take part in the rally, organizers said. Metropolitan Police spokesman Col Pinit Maneerat said police had received reports that Thaksin supporters were planning their own rally in Bangkok, stirring concerns of a standoff between the opposing camps.

Tens of thousands of protesters have been demanding Thaksin’s resignation in regular weekend rallies, accusing the tycoon-turned-politician of corruption, mishandling a Muslim insurgency in southern Thailand, stifling the media, and allowing cronies to reap gains from state policies. Labor unions representing state-owned utilities and rail workers have called on employees to join the rally to protest Thaksin's privatization plans.

Thaksin was overwhelmingly re-elected to a second term last year when his party won 377 of the 500 seats in the House of Representatives. The rural constituencies, which have benefited from his populist policies has supported him. But when he sold its controlling stake in telecom giant Shin Corp to a Singapore state-owned investment company for 73.3 billion baht (US $1.9 billion), it became the last straw for the people and the anti Thaksin campaign swelled. Critics allege the sale involved insider trading and tax dodges and complain that a key national asset is now in the hands of a foreign government. The protesters sought Singapore's help in annulling the deal. The third common trait of ASEAN countries is the dog eating dog is now having a great effect on Thailand. Unlike the people of Burma who are used to bear the injustice silently, the Thais had stood up and Singaporean companies who had relish on the blood and sweat of the working people of Southeast Asia are partly to blame. The term Constructive Engagement which is so synonymous with the continuous violations of the people of Burma had misfired with the Thai and perhaps the marginalized people are now laughing in their sleeves.

What kind of picture do ASEAN present to the world? What sort of regional organization it presents. Action speaks louder than words and it is high time that ASEAN countries should stop producing and supporting dictators under different guise.

Prof. Kanbawza Win (Dr. B.T.Win): Incumbent Dean of Students of AEIOU Programme, Chiangmai University, Thailand. Senior Research Fellow at the European Institute of Asian Studies, Under the European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. Earlier Consultant to National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma. Editorial Consultant, "Asian Tribune." The learned Professor submitted this article for publication in the Asian Tribune.

- Asian Tribune -