How effective were maximum governments in SEA in establishing and maintaining political

stability?

Stand: Political stability is defined as the longevity and sturdiness of maximum governments. SEA
countries were able to establish political stability because they were able to benefit from a CW
geopolitical climate which enabled the rise of some and also because they were seen as the better
government to deal with challenges to stability as contrasted to the previously ineffective democratic
governments. Their sustenance can be understood because they were able to consolidate power
through the modifying or abolishment of the constitution (SG, Malaysia, to a smaller extent Thailand,
Burma, Indonesia, Philippines). Upon close inspection however, some maximum governments were
astonishingly able to sustain throughout the whole time and this can be understood because they
were able to achieve economic growth throughout the time period by implementing robust economic
policies that succeeded in fostering a prosperous middle class. These were key factors in the
sustenance of their government. On the other end of the spectrum, when SEA maximum governments
were unable to achieve national unity, economic growth and antagonised the middle class through
crony capitalism, it was perhaps inevitable that such maximum governments fell to the middle class
and ethnic tensions plagued the country, posing numerous secessionist threats.

South East Asian maximum governments achieved success in establishing political stability because
they saw their prestige enhanced during the previously democratic rule in many SEA countries as
they were seen as capable in dealing with secessionist threats it was perhaps inevitable that

EG 1: From 1950 to 1957, the parliamentary democracy in Indonesia struggled with the Indonesia
Darul Islam movement where Rebellion from South East Java spread to other parts of Indonesia
wanting to implement Islamic Laws for Indonesia to adhere to, but the military (future maximum
government) diminished such threats and were seen as much more credible. In the 1960s, that
threats disappeared because the maximum government under Sukarno who had proclaimed martial
law in 1957 with his guided democracy was much stronger than the previously weak democracy.

EG 2:

Some SEA countries were effective in maintaining political stability throughout the whole-time
period as they were able to generate political legitimacy through delivering economic growth and
enabling the middle class to prosper

SG:

Singapores maximum government was able to implement policies that effectively boosted their
economy to unprecedented rates, and this undoubtedly played a role in ensuring strong political
support from the middle class who benefitted to a large extent, allowing the PAP to continue power
without significant opposition from the middle class. The maximum government addressed the short
term and long term economic needs and implemented economic policies such as the 1955 Central
Provident Funds with resource derived from wages to raise capital for industrial development. This
enabled Singapore to achieve the highest saving rate in the world, causing 80 percent of house was
built on public funds. The middle class saw direct benefits through housing and infrastructure and a
prosperous economy which as a result, averaged 8 percent from 1960 to 1999.

MSIA:

Similarly, Malaysia was able to garner political legitimacy because they were able to do likewise with
the New Economic Policy in 1971. It helped the bumiputras, the Malay middle class emerge
prosperous and promoted foreign direct investments. Malay equity ownership rose from 1 percent
in 1969 to 20.3 percent in 1990. Malaysias population living below the poverty line from 49 percent
to 15 percent. Thus, Malaysias middle class benefited greatly.

They were also effective when they were able to consolidate their power and ensure the political
sustenance of their rule by modifying or abolishing the constitution to their advantage

SG/Malaysia - internal security act

Marcos ruled under Martial Law after abolishing the 1935 constitution. Under the 1973 constitution,
had vast powers including legislative powers, allowing him to make arbitrary arrests and weaken
political opposition

Ne Win from 1962 to 1974 suspended the constitution and used Revolutionary council to rule by
decree under the Burma Socialist programme

Phibun amended the 1932 constitution to extent political tutelage from 10 to 20 years because it
would allow him to appoint half of the national assembly and consolidate his rule

Sukarno suspended the 1950 constitution to revert to pre-presidential system of 1945 to consolidate
his power

However, on the other end of the spectrum, when they were unable to garner legitimacy to govern,
such maximum government could not sustain and fell.

Finally, maximum governments in SEA could not achieve political stability when they were unable to
achieve national unity in SEA

Moreover, their grip on power was to a large extent facilitated by the Cold War, which has enabled
them to come to power

How important were personalities in shaping SEA governments?

When they were committed to democratic ideals, they were limited in effectiveness

However, when they did not obey the constitution, they achieved more effectiveness

The decolonialization had a key impact on post-independent SEA politics. Discuss this view

The democratic form of government initially taken up by independent SEA governments were a
direct consequence of decolonialization

In, Singapore and Malaysia, both Lee Kuan Yew and Tunku Abdul Rahman had been educated in
Europe

In the Philippines, they adopted an American-style democratic institution

The military in certain countries emerged from the decolonialization process with their political
prestige and influence enhanced
In Indonesia, the Military which was seen as the guardian of Indonesia independence saw its role
alleviated. It had an important role in crushing the Madium revolt in 1948, foreshadow distrust of
democracy

To what extent were SEA countries effective in managing their minorities?

Criteria: separatist movements and protests. Assimilation refers to forcefully integrating the
population under a dominant culture of a majority group and multiculturalism refers to catering to
the various ethnic groups.

Assimilation states that tried to impose a dominant culture based on a majority group