I would not be sanguine with a former Secretary of Defence (Zahid Hamidi) who know effectively runs Malaysia, stating that Chinese and Indians “weren’t loyal enough” to join the Malaysian Armed Forces. There already has been a coup, Jibby is window dressing, and Zahid runs the show and he will for at least ten years. I do not expect the condition for non-Malays and non-Muslims to either stabilize or become more integrated within Malaysian society. You can forget that nonsense, UMNO and PAS don’t want them, DAP has become as weak as MCA and PKR is a collection of self-absorbed twits who each want power and none can defeat the bullying Zahid. Malaysia is already effectively an Arab nation in outlook and Islamic autocracy. The position of the Chinese has become like the Copts or Assyrians or other affluent non-Muslim minorities. Comparisons with Indonesia are useful, but there are many differences, one being that President Jokowi does not (overtly anyway) advocate racism and he hasn’t “borrowed” 1 trillion Rp to buy apartments and houses overseas, using Chinese middlemen (like Jho Low and Robert Kuok). The Indonesian NGOs that promote tolerance are far more influential than their Malaysian counterparts. Bersih x.o has had no impact on UMNO and there are even more extremist Malay “NGOs” that promote Malay and Islamic racism and bigotry, which have greater impact than the Islamic Parties in Indonesia on a demographic basis. In point of fact, Malaysia has been highly Arabized with many religious Malays abandoning adat and looking to Makah as their gold standard; this is less the case for Indonesians who are more secure in their respective cultures, whether Javanese, Minangkabau, Batak, Iban, Bugis, Indonesian ‘Malay’, Toraja, etc.
Whether recent or old immigrants, the Chinese can be expected to be treated with respect and according to all UN Convention of Human Rights. That is not negotiable.
‘They crave development’ because more is always better, right? ‘Twenty-first century realities’ You mean like the dying planet?
The capitalist consumption of resources is uncontrollable, like someone addicted to drugs. The ‘benefits it brings’ are desirable but the cost is everything. When Myanmar comes knocking at our door should we really welcome them into our drug-den ‘we’re on a road to nowhere come on inside’.
Being relatively new immigrants in Southeast Asia, the Chinese can’t really expect the best of both worlds. In Malaysia, the Chinese speak their own various languages even in front of the non-Chinese, and the parents readily send their children to Chinese schools, ostensibly to maintain their ‘cultural roots’ although the actual reasons for it are varied (which may include a certain degree of contempt for the Malay language/culture). But the rights to vernacular education and cultural practices are enshrined in the Constitution and one cannot accuse the Chinese of being treacherous purely on the basis of their not using the national language on a daily basis as is the case in Thailand and Indonesia. Of course, the Chinese do pay a price in that any ambitious and irresponsible politicians can stir up ethnic sentiment by arguing the Chinese do not deserve full political power on account of their ‘refusal to assimilate’.
The question for the Chinese in Malaysia is therefore: would you sacrifice your rights to vernacular education and be fully assimilated into Malay society (including embracing Islam) so that you may one day control 90% of the economy and even produce a PM from among you?
Thailand used to have among the best Chinese schools in the region, but they had to be forcibly closed down for the sake of assimilation. Most Thai Chinese, the younger generation especially, no longer know their surnames, and find it embarrassing when asked by Chinese from other countries. Such is the price to pay in order to enjoy economic prosperity and full political rights. Worst, I have met a good number of Thai Chinese who pretended to be more Thai than Thais by denying Chinese ancestry so as to cover up the fact of not knowing anything about Chinese language or culture. Ironically, it is not uncommon to see Thai Chinese in southern Thailand sending their children to Penang for Chinese education.
And how the Thai state deals with the Chinese within its own territory is subject to the whims and fancies of the monarchy and the powers-that-be. It is fortunate that the current king is one who is benign and generous towards the Chinese, but it is hard to predict what would come after him.
It would also be interesting to study why the Malays in the south and, to a considerable extent, the Issan folks (who made up a significant portion of the Red-shirters) have consistently resisted Bangkok-centric hegemony. In other words, the so-called successful assimilation as engineered by the ruling elites may remain an illusion to many who are denied fair treatment.
And isn’t it paradoxical that a multilingual/cultural/religious Malaysia has not seen any military conflict among the various communities, whereas the supposedly monolingual/unitary Thailand has gone to war with its own peoples?
Firstly, I’m from Mawlamyine, Myanmar and, though not from the poorest, certainly not among the wealthy. I do know why so-called Burmese middle-class hunger for “development” based on Western models— because of an inferiority complex instilled into them by Hollywood and American corporations.
Secondly, I’m definitely not anti-development; just the opposite. I’m arguing against neoliberal agenda and the so-called export-led model which is a recipe for neocolonialism. For most of human history, nations, often strong and powerful, have lived and survived, and the alchemy-like pseudo-science of economics is just two hundred years old. These countries did so without neoliberal agenda and American consumerism attached.
Let me add some controversial examples. Stalin’s USSR rose from an agrarian society to industrial one in a few years. Hitler’s Germany rose from the world’s worst depression to a great power within six years. Certainly, this is not an endorsement of other policies they had done. Non-controversial examples include Wirtschaftswunder, the post-war economic miracle of Germany based on social market policies, not on mass consumption, and Germany did better than the rest of Europe even without the so-called Marshall Plan and with crippling restrictions imposed by the US. Indeed, these models are hidden from the “blueprint” imposed by the IMF and World Bank, effective American puppets, at least in terms of ideology.
What the so-called “opening up” and “export-led” growth create are neocolonialism and vast dependency. Now, even China has troubles on its own. A dispute and a trade war will effectively shut down most Chinese factories and create social unrest, if not a revolution, while America can simply divert its supply to other countries and domestic sources. And talk about vast environmental degradation and pollution, not for their own people, but for the white men in a frantic rush to fill American Walmart stores. South Korea? A nation with Seoul but without soul and an effective US puppet. Milton Friedman was right. The USA has been exchanging “cheaply printed green paper” with Chinese and Asian slave-like labor.
“Can you think of a better deal than our getting fine textiles, shiny cars, and sophisticated TV sets for a bale of green printed paper? Or for some entries on the books of banks? If the Japanese would only be willing to keep on doing that, we can provide all the green paper they will take.” –Friedman
That is incorrect, as usual, Mr Smith. Not all Malays are racists, but all zealous Muslims in Malaysia have an issue with Chinese. When Malays were less zealous about Islam 200 years ago, and indeed, when Malays weren’t even Muslim but Hindu-Buddhists, they interacted with Chinese with little problem. Islam is driving Malay racism. Malay adat is not driving Islamic racism. I am not aware of any Malay racist that does not invoke Islam and I am aware of Muslim converts to Islam, like “Dr” Tee that can only pretend to be Malay. One cannot separate out Ketuanan Melayu from Islam today, and those Malays who are tolerant and accept multiculturalism tend not to be ardent Muslims.
Thailand is the only country in SE Asia which has not become a colony of a European nation. Its historical and cultural background is different from Malaysia or Indonesia.
The best Malay is spoken by Chinese-Malaysians. I hardly think Abdullah Tee is an example of Chinese failing to assimilate and the Lims in DAP bend over backwards to indicate that there dispute is with UMNO and not Malaysia. Lim senior is practically obsequious in his devotion to Malaysia. Such comments that Chinese fail to adapt are rubbish. There are always people who fail to adapt, even Malays and Indians. Adapt to what, when you have an openly racist and felonious government ?
Lumping Indonesia and Malaysia together may have some advantage but it also leads to statements that possibly apply well to one of the countries and not to the other. For example, ‘the suspected growing political power of ethnic Chinese’ hardly applies to Indonesia beyond the case of Ahok.
Similarly, to compare the ‘demographics’ of two countries which have such vastly different populations is asking for trouble. ‘Muslim majority countries with a sizeable Chinese minority’ in any case hardly fits as a description for Indonesia since many other ethnic groups are non-Muslim, not just the Chinese. And how large is the ‘sizeable Chinese minority’ in Indonesia, 5%? If that.
Focus on Ahok, irrespective of how representative of growing Chinese power he really is, is going to intensify over the next few months as the Jakarta elections approach. It is interesting that the Muslim parties, which one might have expected to unite behind a single candidate opposing Ahok, are not going to do that. At least not for the time being.
PKS remains locked into its marriage with Prabowo Subianto and thus supports the candidacy of former Education Minister Anies Baswedan, so recently a liberal pin-up figure who has now forgotten any reservations he once had about Prabowo. Jakarta may not be ‘worth a mass’, as Henry IV once said Paris was before converting to Catholicism to secure the French throne, but Jakarta may well be worth tossing away some old principles or hang-ups.
PPP, PAN and PKB are backing another candidate, SBY’s elder son, Agus Harimurti. Agus dramatically emerged last week from behind the curtain with which king-maker Ibu Ani was screening him to achieve maximum surprise. He then took his place centre-stage as her husband’s preferred successor, despite only having reached the rank of major in TNI. Not in even the worst days of dwi-fungsi did a mere army major ever seek to govern a giant city.
Ahok, the Chinese incumbent governor, has the support of his former chief, Jokowi, and the PDIP, Golkar, NasDem and Hanura, the latter named so appropriately, we should not forget, the Party of the People’s Conscience. One of the redeeming features Jokowi has shown since winning office has been an apparently completely lack of anti-Chinese prejudice.
If Ahok wins the first round in February, the Muslim parties will have a new opportunity to fall together behind an anti-Ahok candidate, be it Agus Harimurti or Anies Baswedan. Whatever happens in Malaysia, however, one should be careful about predicting that this confluence will lead to a strongly anti-Chinese environment in Indonesia. It may do but it is too early to be sure.
“Trade” has always been assumed to be good and could do no harm. But there is no such thing as “free trade” or “free market” (Read Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade). One thing Myanmar should learn from China is Chinese know what they can do and what they can’t do. For example, China knows creating tools like QQ and Weibo is within its reach. So instead of relying on USA’s Facebook, and passing through NSA’s “deep package inspections,” it fosters domestic companies.
Most of the Chinese investment are in resource extraction and long-term construction. This creates “leverage” for Myanmar as any deterioration in relationship hurts China. On the other hand, most of the Western investment are or will be in finance and technology, which create dependency and if withdrawn, hurt Myanmar. This creates “leverage” for the West and gives leeway to interfere in Burmese affairs.
Empirically, the West has been proven to be a very “unreliable partner” several times in the past century. Look at what happened to Gaddafi, Sadam, and other former “Western allies.” Hugging the West with open arms would be a recipe for disaster, especially in the future when “climate refugees” would flock Burmese borders in millions. A nightmare for Burmese financial sector would be when ALL Myanmar banks rely on Washington’s tech. Sanctions—toothless as they were in the past—in the future would create an immediate economic disaster. Of course, no President, not even ASSK, would dare to risk such a catastrophe, in so doing becoming effective Western puppets.
But neither resource extraction nor dependency is good for Myanmar in the long run. So Myanmar must pave her own way. This calls for abandoning the myth of free trade and other neoliberal agendas. Rely on trade for beneficial technologies you can’t create on your own for now. But never depend on the West (or China) for must-haves and technologies that are within your reach as “human rights issues” can be created out of thin air.
Myanmar should not be closed off, nor should it be “free for all.”
The idea that Thai-Chinese face persecution in Thailand and through forced assimilation have lost their Chinese culture is part of Peninsular Chinese mythology and prejudice.
The only real difference is that Thai-Chinese often adopt Thai Buddhism. Apart from occasional intermarriage, Thai-Chinese are completely separate from the Thais, and totally Chinese.
The only discrimination they have ever faced is from Thai government efforts to make them appear Thai, which amount to little more than a change of surname. Ordinary Thais do not discriminate against Thai-Chinese because they speak Thai and anyway amount to one sixth of the country’s population. They may have issues with individual Thai-Chinese businessmen, but it never becomes a matter of race as it does in Malaysia.
Very interesting update, written from the perspective of Singapore’s dominant Chinese. Cohen is fuming on his latest anti-Malaysia rant. But I’m surprised by Hew Wai Weng’s narrow perspective. If he’s going to bring in socio-political aspects – as distinct from religious – then doesn’t China’s rising warrant at least brief mention ? This would give wider perspective.
In Cambodia the Chinese have intermarried with the Khmer for generations yet still preserved their Chinese culture and identity. Thailand’s Chinese population are also, despite a change of surname and temple, entirely Chinese.
What is true is that 90% of businesses in Thailand are owned by Thai-Chinese and they therefore tend to look down on native Thais as rustics and mercantile lightweights. Apart from this minor prejudice, the Chinese have no issues with either Thais or Malays. Islam is also not an issue. The only problem is Malay racism.
Sadly your garden of Eden-like vision of a natural, unspoiled Myanmar doesn’t conform with twenty-first century realities. You talk of “better ways out there” – please share some examples.
In Myanmar meanwhile apatr from a tiny elite, people live in abject poverty. They crave development and the benefits it brings.
One of the sane comments here. People always blame Malays but these critics fail to see that some Malaysian Chinese intentionally refuse to assimilate with the dominant culture and speak proper Malay. I know some Chinese parents who scold their kids if their kids speak Malay.
While it is true that one can speak of predominantly “Chinese areas” and the colonial root to such segregation in Indonesia, I think you will find that the interaction/socialisation between the so-called Chinese Indonesian (which in itself is far from being a homogenous group) and the “local Muslims” is a lot more nuanced than you seem to be suggesting. Apart from the business elites such as the likes of Budi Hartono, most average Chinese Indonesians are not “settled down almost separately from the local Muslims” (especially true to those from a merchant class background). Besides, I’m not sure how much of the exclusivism of the business elites can be attributed to ethnicity since most rich people live a fairly exclusive lifestyle.
Furthermore, while there is indeed a widespread perception that Chinese-Indonesians are “wealthier” than “pribumi,” a lot of that can be traced to the myth that Chinese Indonesians are somehow a homogenous group of Soeharto-era tycoons. I’ve yet to seen any compelling empirical evidence which substantiates the notion of a “growing economic disparities” between the “Chinese” and the “Muslim.” Not to mention the fact that both of these categories are so general that I doubt if there’s much analytical utility to them.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
A rise in anti-Chinese rhetoric
I would not be sanguine with a former Secretary of Defence (Zahid Hamidi) who know effectively runs Malaysia, stating that Chinese and Indians “weren’t loyal enough” to join the Malaysian Armed Forces. There already has been a coup, Jibby is window dressing, and Zahid runs the show and he will for at least ten years. I do not expect the condition for non-Malays and non-Muslims to either stabilize or become more integrated within Malaysian society. You can forget that nonsense, UMNO and PAS don’t want them, DAP has become as weak as MCA and PKR is a collection of self-absorbed twits who each want power and none can defeat the bullying Zahid. Malaysia is already effectively an Arab nation in outlook and Islamic autocracy. The position of the Chinese has become like the Copts or Assyrians or other affluent non-Muslim minorities. Comparisons with Indonesia are useful, but there are many differences, one being that President Jokowi does not (overtly anyway) advocate racism and he hasn’t “borrowed” 1 trillion Rp to buy apartments and houses overseas, using Chinese middlemen (like Jho Low and Robert Kuok). The Indonesian NGOs that promote tolerance are far more influential than their Malaysian counterparts. Bersih x.o has had no impact on UMNO and there are even more extremist Malay “NGOs” that promote Malay and Islamic racism and bigotry, which have greater impact than the Islamic Parties in Indonesia on a demographic basis. In point of fact, Malaysia has been highly Arabized with many religious Malays abandoning adat and looking to Makah as their gold standard; this is less the case for Indonesians who are more secure in their respective cultures, whether Javanese, Minangkabau, Batak, Iban, Bugis, Indonesian ‘Malay’, Toraja, etc.
A rise in anti-Chinese rhetoric
Whether recent or old immigrants, the Chinese can be expected to be treated with respect and according to all UN Convention of Human Rights. That is not negotiable.
Lifting US sanctions: right or wrong?
‘They crave development’ because more is always better, right? ‘Twenty-first century realities’ You mean like the dying planet?
The capitalist consumption of resources is uncontrollable, like someone addicted to drugs. The ‘benefits it brings’ are desirable but the cost is everything. When Myanmar comes knocking at our door should we really welcome them into our drug-den ‘we’re on a road to nowhere come on inside’.
A rise in anti-Chinese rhetoric
Being relatively new immigrants in Southeast Asia, the Chinese can’t really expect the best of both worlds. In Malaysia, the Chinese speak their own various languages even in front of the non-Chinese, and the parents readily send their children to Chinese schools, ostensibly to maintain their ‘cultural roots’ although the actual reasons for it are varied (which may include a certain degree of contempt for the Malay language/culture). But the rights to vernacular education and cultural practices are enshrined in the Constitution and one cannot accuse the Chinese of being treacherous purely on the basis of their not using the national language on a daily basis as is the case in Thailand and Indonesia. Of course, the Chinese do pay a price in that any ambitious and irresponsible politicians can stir up ethnic sentiment by arguing the Chinese do not deserve full political power on account of their ‘refusal to assimilate’.
The question for the Chinese in Malaysia is therefore: would you sacrifice your rights to vernacular education and be fully assimilated into Malay society (including embracing Islam) so that you may one day control 90% of the economy and even produce a PM from among you?
Thailand used to have among the best Chinese schools in the region, but they had to be forcibly closed down for the sake of assimilation. Most Thai Chinese, the younger generation especially, no longer know their surnames, and find it embarrassing when asked by Chinese from other countries. Such is the price to pay in order to enjoy economic prosperity and full political rights. Worst, I have met a good number of Thai Chinese who pretended to be more Thai than Thais by denying Chinese ancestry so as to cover up the fact of not knowing anything about Chinese language or culture. Ironically, it is not uncommon to see Thai Chinese in southern Thailand sending their children to Penang for Chinese education.
And how the Thai state deals with the Chinese within its own territory is subject to the whims and fancies of the monarchy and the powers-that-be. It is fortunate that the current king is one who is benign and generous towards the Chinese, but it is hard to predict what would come after him.
It would also be interesting to study why the Malays in the south and, to a considerable extent, the Issan folks (who made up a significant portion of the Red-shirters) have consistently resisted Bangkok-centric hegemony. In other words, the so-called successful assimilation as engineered by the ruling elites may remain an illusion to many who are denied fair treatment.
And isn’t it paradoxical that a multilingual/cultural/religious Malaysia has not seen any military conflict among the various communities, whereas the supposedly monolingual/unitary Thailand has gone to war with its own peoples?
The hidden cost of Cambodia’s coastal development
A great article exposing a significant, yet little known, issue in the Asia-Pacific region!
A rise in anti-Chinese rhetoric
[…] trổi dậy của chính trị “chống Trung Quốc” ở Malaysia và Indonesia: The rise of ‘anti-Chinese’ politics in Malaysia and Indonesia(New Mandala […]
Lifting US sanctions: right or wrong?
Firstly, I’m from Mawlamyine, Myanmar and, though not from the poorest, certainly not among the wealthy. I do know why so-called Burmese middle-class hunger for “development” based on Western models— because of an inferiority complex instilled into them by Hollywood and American corporations.
Secondly, I’m definitely not anti-development; just the opposite. I’m arguing against neoliberal agenda and the so-called export-led model which is a recipe for neocolonialism. For most of human history, nations, often strong and powerful, have lived and survived, and the alchemy-like pseudo-science of economics is just two hundred years old. These countries did so without neoliberal agenda and American consumerism attached.
Let me add some controversial examples. Stalin’s USSR rose from an agrarian society to industrial one in a few years. Hitler’s Germany rose from the world’s worst depression to a great power within six years. Certainly, this is not an endorsement of other policies they had done. Non-controversial examples include Wirtschaftswunder, the post-war economic miracle of Germany based on social market policies, not on mass consumption, and Germany did better than the rest of Europe even without the so-called Marshall Plan and with crippling restrictions imposed by the US. Indeed, these models are hidden from the “blueprint” imposed by the IMF and World Bank, effective American puppets, at least in terms of ideology.
What the so-called “opening up” and “export-led” growth create are neocolonialism and vast dependency. Now, even China has troubles on its own. A dispute and a trade war will effectively shut down most Chinese factories and create social unrest, if not a revolution, while America can simply divert its supply to other countries and domestic sources. And talk about vast environmental degradation and pollution, not for their own people, but for the white men in a frantic rush to fill American Walmart stores. South Korea? A nation with Seoul but without soul and an effective US puppet. Milton Friedman was right. The USA has been exchanging “cheaply printed green paper” with Chinese and Asian slave-like labor.
“Can you think of a better deal than our getting fine textiles, shiny cars, and sophisticated TV sets for a bale of green printed paper? Or for some entries on the books of banks? If the Japanese would only be willing to keep on doing that, we can provide all the green paper they will take.” –Friedman
A rise in anti-Chinese rhetoric
Many Chinese Malaysians are voting with their feet and emigrate. Cry My Beloved Country.
A rise in anti-Chinese rhetoric
“non-Muslim converts to Islam”. My typo
A rise in anti-Chinese rhetoric
That is incorrect, as usual, Mr Smith. Not all Malays are racists, but all zealous Muslims in Malaysia have an issue with Chinese. When Malays were less zealous about Islam 200 years ago, and indeed, when Malays weren’t even Muslim but Hindu-Buddhists, they interacted with Chinese with little problem. Islam is driving Malay racism. Malay adat is not driving Islamic racism. I am not aware of any Malay racist that does not invoke Islam and I am aware of Muslim converts to Islam, like “Dr” Tee that can only pretend to be Malay. One cannot separate out Ketuanan Melayu from Islam today, and those Malays who are tolerant and accept multiculturalism tend not to be ardent Muslims.
A rise in anti-Chinese rhetoric
Thailand is the only country in SE Asia which has not become a colony of a European nation. Its historical and cultural background is different from Malaysia or Indonesia.
A rise in anti-Chinese rhetoric
The best Malay is spoken by Chinese-Malaysians. I hardly think Abdullah Tee is an example of Chinese failing to assimilate and the Lims in DAP bend over backwards to indicate that there dispute is with UMNO and not Malaysia. Lim senior is practically obsequious in his devotion to Malaysia. Such comments that Chinese fail to adapt are rubbish. There are always people who fail to adapt, even Malays and Indians. Adapt to what, when you have an openly racist and felonious government ?
A rise in anti-Chinese rhetoric
Lumping Indonesia and Malaysia together may have some advantage but it also leads to statements that possibly apply well to one of the countries and not to the other. For example, ‘the suspected growing political power of ethnic Chinese’ hardly applies to Indonesia beyond the case of Ahok.
Similarly, to compare the ‘demographics’ of two countries which have such vastly different populations is asking for trouble. ‘Muslim majority countries with a sizeable Chinese minority’ in any case hardly fits as a description for Indonesia since many other ethnic groups are non-Muslim, not just the Chinese. And how large is the ‘sizeable Chinese minority’ in Indonesia, 5%? If that.
Focus on Ahok, irrespective of how representative of growing Chinese power he really is, is going to intensify over the next few months as the Jakarta elections approach. It is interesting that the Muslim parties, which one might have expected to unite behind a single candidate opposing Ahok, are not going to do that. At least not for the time being.
PKS remains locked into its marriage with Prabowo Subianto and thus supports the candidacy of former Education Minister Anies Baswedan, so recently a liberal pin-up figure who has now forgotten any reservations he once had about Prabowo. Jakarta may not be ‘worth a mass’, as Henry IV once said Paris was before converting to Catholicism to secure the French throne, but Jakarta may well be worth tossing away some old principles or hang-ups.
PPP, PAN and PKB are backing another candidate, SBY’s elder son, Agus Harimurti. Agus dramatically emerged last week from behind the curtain with which king-maker Ibu Ani was screening him to achieve maximum surprise. He then took his place centre-stage as her husband’s preferred successor, despite only having reached the rank of major in TNI. Not in even the worst days of dwi-fungsi did a mere army major ever seek to govern a giant city.
Ahok, the Chinese incumbent governor, has the support of his former chief, Jokowi, and the PDIP, Golkar, NasDem and Hanura, the latter named so appropriately, we should not forget, the Party of the People’s Conscience. One of the redeeming features Jokowi has shown since winning office has been an apparently completely lack of anti-Chinese prejudice.
If Ahok wins the first round in February, the Muslim parties will have a new opportunity to fall together behind an anti-Ahok candidate, be it Agus Harimurti or Anies Baswedan. Whatever happens in Malaysia, however, one should be careful about predicting that this confluence will lead to a strongly anti-Chinese environment in Indonesia. It may do but it is too early to be sure.
Why the NLD needs deft diplomacy
I disagree.
“Trade” has always been assumed to be good and could do no harm. But there is no such thing as “free trade” or “free market” (Read Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade). One thing Myanmar should learn from China is Chinese know what they can do and what they can’t do. For example, China knows creating tools like QQ and Weibo is within its reach. So instead of relying on USA’s Facebook, and passing through NSA’s “deep package inspections,” it fosters domestic companies.
Most of the Chinese investment are in resource extraction and long-term construction. This creates “leverage” for Myanmar as any deterioration in relationship hurts China. On the other hand, most of the Western investment are or will be in finance and technology, which create dependency and if withdrawn, hurt Myanmar. This creates “leverage” for the West and gives leeway to interfere in Burmese affairs.
Empirically, the West has been proven to be a very “unreliable partner” several times in the past century. Look at what happened to Gaddafi, Sadam, and other former “Western allies.” Hugging the West with open arms would be a recipe for disaster, especially in the future when “climate refugees” would flock Burmese borders in millions. A nightmare for Burmese financial sector would be when ALL Myanmar banks rely on Washington’s tech. Sanctions—toothless as they were in the past—in the future would create an immediate economic disaster. Of course, no President, not even ASSK, would dare to risk such a catastrophe, in so doing becoming effective Western puppets.
But neither resource extraction nor dependency is good for Myanmar in the long run. So Myanmar must pave her own way. This calls for abandoning the myth of free trade and other neoliberal agendas. Rely on trade for beneficial technologies you can’t create on your own for now. But never depend on the West (or China) for must-haves and technologies that are within your reach as “human rights issues” can be created out of thin air.
Myanmar should not be closed off, nor should it be “free for all.”
A rise in anti-Chinese rhetoric
The idea that Thai-Chinese face persecution in Thailand and through forced assimilation have lost their Chinese culture is part of Peninsular Chinese mythology and prejudice.
The only real difference is that Thai-Chinese often adopt Thai Buddhism. Apart from occasional intermarriage, Thai-Chinese are completely separate from the Thais, and totally Chinese.
The only discrimination they have ever faced is from Thai government efforts to make them appear Thai, which amount to little more than a change of surname. Ordinary Thais do not discriminate against Thai-Chinese because they speak Thai and anyway amount to one sixth of the country’s population. They may have issues with individual Thai-Chinese businessmen, but it never becomes a matter of race as it does in Malaysia.
A rise in anti-Chinese rhetoric
Very interesting update, written from the perspective of Singapore’s dominant Chinese. Cohen is fuming on his latest anti-Malaysia rant. But I’m surprised by Hew Wai Weng’s narrow perspective. If he’s going to bring in socio-political aspects – as distinct from religious – then doesn’t China’s rising warrant at least brief mention ? This would give wider perspective.
A rise in anti-Chinese rhetoric
In Cambodia the Chinese have intermarried with the Khmer for generations yet still preserved their Chinese culture and identity. Thailand’s Chinese population are also, despite a change of surname and temple, entirely Chinese.
What is true is that 90% of businesses in Thailand are owned by Thai-Chinese and they therefore tend to look down on native Thais as rustics and mercantile lightweights. Apart from this minor prejudice, the Chinese have no issues with either Thais or Malays. Islam is also not an issue. The only problem is Malay racism.
Lifting US sanctions: right or wrong?
Sadly your garden of Eden-like vision of a natural, unspoiled Myanmar doesn’t conform with twenty-first century realities. You talk of “better ways out there” – please share some examples.
In Myanmar meanwhile apatr from a tiny elite, people live in abject poverty. They crave development and the benefits it brings.
A rise in anti-Chinese rhetoric
One of the sane comments here. People always blame Malays but these critics fail to see that some Malaysian Chinese intentionally refuse to assimilate with the dominant culture and speak proper Malay. I know some Chinese parents who scold their kids if their kids speak Malay.
A rise in anti-Chinese rhetoric
While it is true that one can speak of predominantly “Chinese areas” and the colonial root to such segregation in Indonesia, I think you will find that the interaction/socialisation between the so-called Chinese Indonesian (which in itself is far from being a homogenous group) and the “local Muslims” is a lot more nuanced than you seem to be suggesting. Apart from the business elites such as the likes of Budi Hartono, most average Chinese Indonesians are not “settled down almost separately from the local Muslims” (especially true to those from a merchant class background). Besides, I’m not sure how much of the exclusivism of the business elites can be attributed to ethnicity since most rich people live a fairly exclusive lifestyle.
Furthermore, while there is indeed a widespread perception that Chinese-Indonesians are “wealthier” than “pribumi,” a lot of that can be traced to the myth that Chinese Indonesians are somehow a homogenous group of Soeharto-era tycoons. I’ve yet to seen any compelling empirical evidence which substantiates the notion of a “growing economic disparities” between the “Chinese” and the “Muslim.” Not to mention the fact that both of these categories are so general that I doubt if there’s much analytical utility to them.