bs_bs_banner

Rethinking Democratic Practices in

Southeast Asia: Corruption and
Political Scandals in the Early
21st Century
Mario Lopez*
Jafar Suryomenggolo

This special issue deals with how corruption and political scandals impact upon Southeast
Asian societies. It is concerned with the ways in which both influence the perceptions of
democracy within the region, and whether recent transformations have furthered democratic liberalization. This article offers a brief overview of recent academic discussions that
have taken place within Southeast Asia, foregrounding the two issues of corruption and
political scandals as part of the debate on the diverse forms of democracy in the region.
Key words: contemporary politics, corruption, democracy, political scandals, Southeast Asia

Introduction

his special issue brings together a group of young scholars who are
concerned over how corruption and political scandals impact upon Southeast Asian societies. The common threads in their research reflect ongoing concerns with how both phenomena influence perceptions of democracy within
the region, and whether recent transformations have furthered democratic
liberalization.
Since the mid-1990s a number of societal and economic changes have swept
across Southeast Asia, raising awareness of the democratic possibilities for
citizen-oriented participation in politics. First, in terms of the potential of the
liberal model of democracy, some scholars have argued that Southeast Asia
presents an anomaly to this ideal and that moreover, the region is recalcitrant
when trying to draw generalizations from political diversity across the countries
(Emmerson, 1995, p. 225). Within this diversity, states in the region have
*Mario Lopez, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies
(CSEAS), Kyoto University.

Jafar Suryomenggolo, PhD, is a Research Fellow at the Center for Southeast Asian
Studies (CSEAS), Kyoto University.
Asian Politics & PolicyVolume 6, Number 4Pages 515522
2014 Policy Studies Organization. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

516

Asian Politics & PolicyVolume 6, Issue 42014

forwarded claims that what they now have is democracy. In the process, they
have built institutions and mechanisms perceived as necessary to legitimize
regimes, party rule, and political dynasties. What we see now are multiple forms
of political practices that do not have parallels to Western ones, and which in
some ways may appear to be tied to the discourse of Asian values.1
Second, these changes have been accompanied by an increasing awareness
of and demand for accountability that underpin idealized bureaucratic and
democratic standards. At the heart of the thinking about accountability are
notions of what good governance should be: a vision of ways in which democratic institutions should function and deal with corruption and political scandals when they break out in society (see Tarling, 2005). Yet the push toward
accountability has been contradictory. Entrenched political power groups
have run up against aspirations for change and openness, especially apparent
in the media that play a crucial role in shaping perceptions in the public
sphere.
An underlying current in the articles in this special issue is the ways in which
corruption, scandals, political patronage, and their perceptions converge to shape
discussion on forms of democracy and how they should be practiced in the
region. There have always been scandals and corruption in contemporary politics
in Southeast Asia.2 However, the intensification of communication and speedy
dissemination of events in real time through regional and global media reports
have meant that increasingly, it is difficult to hide these developments from
discerning publics. In addition, ASEAN regional integration is expected to lead
to the expansion and deepening of ties between marketsmeaning that domestic
politics will have to accommodate a growing regional political perspective. Even
as regional level changes take place, corruption and scandals incessantly appear
at a national level (particularly in Indonesia and Thailand) and raise discussions
about accountability. Against this background, this special issue addresses how
scandals and corruption account for political turmoil in Thailand, affect democratization processes in Indonesia, compound perceptions of illegality perpetuated by elites in the Philippines, and interface with the political patronage
reshaping social relations in Cambodia.
The contemporary political developments foregrounded in the articles in this
issue also lead us to reflect upon some frustratingly simple questions that Manuel
Castells had raised when discussing how technology changes the way we engage
with politics: why is scandal politics so prevalent? and where does it come
from? (Castells, 2009, p. 247). Scandals in our contemporary networked societies
no longer play out only in the traditional mediasphere. Rather, they do so in
social networks, embedded in the transformative power of technology over
political practices. Political corruption can be about competing factions and aspiring individuals who can maintain (or break) unity, morals, and values of social
groups (Gluckman, 1963). They tell us much about the nature and flow of power,
the changing nature of public life, and how state-society dynamics play out.
Equally important is the discourse of proper behavior that is often appealed to
in discussions that center on scandals. They inform us about the fragility of
power, about the ways in which power is exercised in society, about the kinds of
resources on which it is based, and about the speed and suddenness with which
it can be lost (Thompson, 2000).

Rethinking Democratic Practices in Southeast Asia

517

Such discussions challenge us to provide a definition of scandals and political

corruption. While we understand the need to define the topic at hand, a definition
can limit our understanding of the grounded realities and of the multiple cultural
and political practices particular to Southeast Asia. Indeed, the very framework
that delineates a unified Southeast Asia as a regional entity has been queried
(Emmerson, 1984) and the question of how to accommodate a generalized discussion on the diversity of scandals and political corruption is complicated by this.
This raises another question: does Southeast Asia distinguish itself from other
regions through its history of dynasties, oligarchies, modes of corruption, coup
dtats, or periodic disruption? Or does it share commonalities with other regions
in the way in which the countries practice democracy, strengthening structural
checks and balances, overcoming barriers, and promising accountability? These
questions require us to place Southeast Asian nations on the agenda and to
include their experiences in a broader framework, one that takes a critical look at
scandals at a global comparative level. Framing the question differently, what
could the experiences in Southeast Asia give back to the broader discussion on
democratic governance?
In this special issue, we argue that Southeast Asian nations experience scandals
to similar degrees experienced in other regions. But we ask readers to remain
sensitive to Southeast Asias sociopolitical contours and its diversity of political
contexts, economic practices, and forms of government (both idealized and practiced). Southeast Asian nations are no more or no less implicated in scandal and
political corruption that often take center stage in everyday politics. The transgression of shared morals and norms in the public domain, the frequent impunity in the breaching of laws, and the hypocrisy of practices that contravene
ideals all converge to constitute corruption. By putting forward these Southeast
Asian experiences we enrich our understanding of the nature of scandal and
corruption in our contemporary world. We believe that political corruption and
scandals in Southeast Asia help shed light on the discussion of how politics is
practiced in the public sphere, and how publics engage and respond to them.
In the mid-1990s, Pasuk Phongpaichit and Sungsidh Piriyarangsantwo wellknown Thai political economistspublished a series of studies that created a
political storm in Thailand (Phongpaichit & Piriyarangsan, 1996; Phongpaichit,
Piriyarangsan, & Treerat, 1998). Their analysis of corruption emphasized the
intricate relationship between centralized power and its localized financial
support. The originality of their study ultimately forced attention onto the connections between politics and scandals in public appraisals of Thai political
institutions. This pioneering study made clear that the flows of power were
multidirectional and embedded in societal practices: ones that are well recorded
in other Southeast Asian countries. Ultimately, it offers scholars an opportunity to
reflexively engage on how power is distributed and how scandals and political
corruption act out in a Southeast Asian context.3
Our concerns arise as a response to discussions that scholars often engage in,
but do not adequately approach academically. Both themes of scandals and political corruption present opportunities for a serious academic discussion on the
different forms of misconduct4 within a larger political framework that occurred
especially after the financial crises that rocked Southeast Asian economies at the
end of the 20th century. The studies here allow us to clarify the broader political

518

Asian Politics & PolicyVolume 6, Issue 42014

contexts of financial scandals, public fraud, pork-barrel projects, and environmental mismanagement that have been part of political practices in Southeast
Asia. They look at various political incidents, the different arenas they play out in,
the individuals and groups who dominate political life, and the state mechanisms
that collaborate or negotiate with those who are involved in scandals. This issues
ultimate aim is to extend analysis of politicized connections to case studies from
within the region and to examine the ways scandals differ from how they are
represented in public media and in official discourse.
We are left with one final question at this point. What are the forms and content
of democracy, especially in Southeast Asia? Analyses to date show different
interpretations and understandings of democracy in the region. Trocki (1998, p. 12)
has described Southeast Asian forms of democracy as the interplay between
liberal economic power and political power in developing societies that the
gangster often finds a relatively free field of action . . . that the alliances between
transnational corporate interests and local strongmen create a political terrain that
is not all conducive to popular participation or the rule of law. Thus, gangster
democracy, as Trocki (1998) emphasizes, is identified through everyday relations
between political actors, economic interests, and the play of power that shape
forms of governance. Scholarship on the Philippines has also highlighted the
nefarious relationship between elites and political power (McCoy, 1993, 2009)
while Quimpo (2008), discussing the transition to democracy in the Philippines
after the first People Power, highlights how politics plays out in a contested
arena where different parties compete over resources through patronage.
Post-authoritarian democratic experimentation did not curtail the proliferation
of corruption, politicians embroiled in scandals, or their inability to make comebacks after scandals have subsided. In the case of Indonesia, Hadiz and Robison
(2005) have forced us to rethink the political transition after 1998 and its (un)expected results that brought out widespread corruption and scandal cases at a
local level. Hence, they are correct to suggest that postNew Order politics
should not be seen as transitory teething problems, that is, the mere growing
pains of a slowly maturing liberal democracy (Hadiz & Robison, 2005, p. 231).
There are indications that this ongoing change is defined by political violence and
contestation where forms of democracy develop at a regional and local level,
inflecting everyday politics. These interpretations offer us a topography within
which to situate the articles in this collection in order to analyze the tensions that
are apparent between public desires for democracy and the reality of its practice.
When we consider the tensions between what are idealized notions of democracy and the practiced forms, this inevitably leads to criticism, frustration, and
disappointment that become most apparent when scandals directly impinge
upon peoples everyday lives. As Southeast Asia expands and moves toward
regional integration through ASEAN, its resources will become part of a local and
regional political and economic battlefield. Increasingly, regional actors will
define the terms of engagement over resources leading to contestation over
perceived shared commons.
These tensions are not unique to Southeast Asia. Experiences in other regions
see similar forces shaping politics in Latin America and Equatorial Africa. Mismanagement and the illegal appropriation of lands by local actors who often
transact with regional/transnational actors and corporations, define the rules of

Rethinking Democratic Practices in Southeast Asia

519

engagement over property rights to shared commons. These features are, what
David Harvey (2010) has suggested in neo-Marxian terms, accumulation by
dispossession, and we find this a salient common thread across regions. Daniel
Jordan Smith (2007, pp. 1113), in his ethnography on corruption in everyday life
in Nigeria, highlights how the social reproduction of corruption is an inherent part
of the political economy of patronage: it forms part of a cultural logic, which
ascribes values to moral economies in which everyone is assumed to be complicit.
Keeping the analytical lens on Africa, Olivier de Sardan (1999, p. 26) describes
corruption as part of a network of social norms embedded in societies that
communicate with or influence their practices. These engagements inform our
reading of the cases in Southeast Asia. However, we do not want to take a
culturalist stance on scandals and political corruption in the region. They should
not be read as examples of localized forms of patronage or as social norms
expressing cultural patterns, nor as cases that suggest unrealized democracy.
Rather, they are specific expressions of the internalized nature of political mechanisms that continually develop in response to struggles and conflicts that arise over
resources.
In the above context, does the lack of accountability in politics within the
region mean that discussions on scandals and political corruption appear as
white noise? For example, how do rumors, gossip, and commentary taking
place under the radar at an everyday level feed back into potentially shifting
opinions in society? These questions insinuate that the practice of sharing rumors
and gossip in Southeast Asian societies directly represent social anxiety and
frustration over the inability to openly express opinions on the misuse of power.
They point to a wider undercurrent in Southeast Asian experiences and current
practices of different forms of democracy; the tensions that at times erupt to
contest power within these forms; and the silences that sometimes inhabit political discussions where contestation exists in limited spaces of participation.
The new digital age means that forms of circulating information gain a different kind of momentum through the fast-paced development of social networking
technology and the spread of Internet usage in the region. This produces major
changes in attitudes and responses to scandals and corruption, in part through
the supposed anonymity that the Internet promises. Whereas some polemical
corruption issues do not normally find themselves unfurling in both print and
television media (due to state media restrictions or intervention), the rise of the
Internet has permitted the development of illicit spaces for social commentary.
These spaces have created an underground commons to share information and
opinions which have, to varying degrees, democratized the understanding of
issues. This has meant, for example, that in Malaysia, the state has no longer been
able to maintain the same levels of control over information as it did prior to 1997
(Kalathil & Boas, 2003, p. 177). More and more citizens turn to the Internet for
both official news and alternative voices shared and circulated within the public
sphere. The state is forced to respond to voices that challenge official discourses.
Thus, the Internet offers an arena for multiple voices to be heard, especially in
regard to sensitive details of scandals and political corruption cases that implicate public officials, the state, and its apparatuses in perceived abuses of power.
There are five articles in this special issue. Aim Sinpeng examines electoral
corruption in Thailand and how morality and nationalism, intertwined in

520

Asian Politics & PolicyVolume 6, Issue 42014

discourses surrounding the Peoples Alliance for Democracy (PAD), led to the
overthrow of the Thaksin Shinawatra administration in 2006. The author shows
how ideas of morality were deployed in official discourse that helped fuel the
2006 coup leading to the downfall of the then democratically elected government.
Lisandro E. Claudio examines the ouster of the former Philippine President
Joseph Estrada in 2001 and dissects the bottom-up processes that saw the practices of criminality scrutinized and gradually turned into a public scandal. What
Claudio shows is that acts of illegalityperpetrated by the political elitesare an
embedded everyday feature of the Philippine state. Yet it is only when the acts
become legible that scandals are observed and reacted upon in the public sphere.
Claudio shows how the ousting of Estrada played out in civil society through the
inflection of the values of the middle class and what they considered scandalous.
In the period of transition to democracy in contemporary Indonesia, Elisabeth
Kramer looks at the case of the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) and the scandal
that led to its downfall. Kramer shows how official moral values put forward by
the party fell short of public expectations in light of the Beef-gate scandal. In
2013, a series of public allegations linked key members of the PKS, including the
Party chairman, to the acceptance of bribes from a local company attempting to
increase its beef import quota. What she shows is how public perception,
refracted through the mediascape, can significantly alter the political landscape.
Meanwhile, Abdul Hamid discusses and offers a detailed case study of family
rule over local politics in Banten province. Over the years, the family of Chasan
Sochib developed a strong kinship network within local government and political parties that helped maintain their political power in the province. Banten had
seen a number of cases of political violence, money-politics, elite bribery, and
embezzlement of state budgetsa common pattern as noted by Hadiz and
Robison (2005). Hamid sheds light on how one ruling family was able to freeze
the prospect for political change at the local level. He then raises questions about
what these cases may mean in the broader context of Indonesian politics.
Finally, Mak Sithirith examines the politics of corruption in Cambodias
patronclient system using a case pertaining to resources management in the
country. Focusing on the Tonle Sap Lake, a tributary of the Mekong River,
Sithirith examines how the commercialization of resources use has fostered the
emergence of private actors including fish traders and middlemen in resource
use and management leading to increasing state intervention and exploitation.
He illustrates how local politics have become subsumed to ever-evolving patron
client relations, with the state and its officials guilty of degrading resources. One
of the drivers of exploitation and the fostering of corruption has been the intensification of market relations through growing competition for resources between
and within communities. Indeed, corruption itself is fostered and amplified by
the encroachment of state-led market forces.
In sum, this issue aims to foster debates on the types of corruption, scandals,
political patronage, and their public perceptions within the scope of Southeast
Asia and its diverse of forms of democracy, and how their formation, practice,
and contestation shape discussions in the region. We hope that by stimulating
debate on these issues, we can enrich the theoretical discussion that conceptualizes scandals and political corruption in the context of democratic practices in the
region and beyond.

Rethinking Democratic Practices in Southeast Asia

521

Acknowledgements
Three articles in this special issue arose out of a panel presented at the 3rd KASEAS-CSEAS Joint
International Symposium Border-crossing and Connectivity of Southeast Asia, sponsored by the
Korean Association of Southeast Asian Studies and the Southeast Asian Studies for Sustainable
Humanosphere Research Program, Center for Southeast Asian Studies (CSEAS), Kyoto University, at
Mokpo National University, Korea on May 1011, 2013. We would like to express our thanks to the
organizers of this event, and to Yoon-Hwan Shin, Hee-Ryang Ra, Seung-Woo Park, Jeon Je Seong, and
Loh Kah Seng for the helpful suggestions and comments that led to the conceptualization of this
special issue. We would also like to offer special thanks to Caroline Sy Hau, Okamoto Masaaki, and
Kusaka Wataru for their insightful advice and support.

Notes
1

Some proponents of immutable Asian values such as Malaysias former Prime Minister
Mahathir Mohamad have suggested that Asians, or to be more specific, Southeast Asians, possess a
cultural inclination toward strong leadership in government to justify the economic development
of the East Asian Miracle. Loh Kok Wah and Boo Teik (2002), however, highlight how this concept
was ideationally flawed in the sense that it proved unable to explain the 1997 economic crisis in the
region. Other scholars have also argued that at the core of Asian values was crony capitalism that
legitimized authoritarian rule and developmental states (see Hoon, 2004).
2
We have chosen to limit our analysis to start from the mid-1990s, when information technologies
started to radically alter how information was divulged and circulated in the public sphere through
new forms of media. This also raises concerns in regard to the transnational nature of corruption in
the region in general, for example, with money laundering, illegal logging in Borneo island, illicit
trade in the Strait of Malacca, and drug-related cases in mainland Southeast Asia. We limit our
analysis to cases that occur within national boundaries but acknowledge that a transnational approach
to the above issues is long overdue.
3
We do not suggest that the analysis that emerged back in 1990s Thailand be the de facto starting
point. Part of the reason for us to return to this work is to reflect upon how the political terrain has
transformed over the past 20 years.
4
Misconduct itself has its own history. Where publics were previously scandalized or affronted
by scandal or corruption; societal shifts in the acceptability of behavior can also leave them inured to
them (Thompson, 2000).

References
Castells, Manuel. (2009). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Emmerson, Donald K. (1984). Southeast Asia: Whats in a name? Journal for Southeast Asian Studies,
15(1), 122.
Emmerson, Donald K. (1995). Region and recalcitrance: Rethinking democracy through Southeast
Asia. The Pacific Review, 8(2), 223248.
Gluckman, Max. (1963). Gossip and scandal. Current Anthropology, 4(3), 307315.
Hadiz, Vedi, & Robison, Richard. (2005). Neo-liberal reforms and the illiberal consolidations: The
Indonesian paradox. The Journal of Development Studies, 41(2), 220241.
Harvey, David. (2010). The enigma of capital and the crises of capitalism. London: Verso.
Hoon, Chang Yau. (2004). Revisiting the Asian values argument used by Asian political leaders and
its validity. The Indonesian Quarterly, 32(2), 154174.
Kalathil, Shanthi, & Boas, Taylor C. (2003). Open networks, closed regimes: The impact of the Internet on
authoritarian rule. Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Loh Kok Wah, Francis, & Boo Teik, Khoo. (2002). Democracy in Malaysia: Discourses and practices.
Richmond: Curzon Press.
McCoy, Alfred W. (1993). An anarchy of families: State and family in the Philippines (new perspectives in
Southeast Asian studies). Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
McCoy, Alfred W. (2009). Policing Americas empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the rise of the
surveillance state (new perspectives in Southeast Asian studies). Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin
Press.
Olivier de Sardan, Jean-Pierre. (1999). A moral economy of corruption in Africa? The Journal of Modern
African Studies, 37(1), 2552.
Phongpaichit, Pasuk, & Piriyarangsan, Sungsidh. (1996). Corruption and democracy in Thailand. Chiang
Mai: Silkworm Books.

522

Asian Politics & PolicyVolume 6, Issue 42014

Phongpaichit, Pasuk, Piriyarangsan, Sungsidh, & Treerat, Nualnoi. (1998). Guns, girls, gambling, ganja:
Thailands illegal economy and public policy. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.
Quimpo, Nathan. (2008). Contested democracy and the left in the Philippines after Marcos. Yale Southeast
Asia Studies Monograph 58. New Haven: Yale University.
Smith, Daniel Jordan. (2007). A culture of corruption: Everyday deception and popular discontent in Nigeria.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tarling, Nicholas. (2005). Keynote speech: Corruption. In Nicholas Tarling (Ed.), Corruption and good
governance in Asia (pp. 519). Oxon: Routledge.
Thompson, John. (2000). Political scandal: Power and visibility in the media age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Trocki, Carl A. (1998). Democracy and the state in Southeast Asia. In Carl A. Trocki (Ed.), Gangsters,
democracy and the state in Southeast Asia (pp. 716). Ithaca: Cornell Southeast Asia Program.