PSPA 3103: Politics and Governance in Southeast Asia Issue Memo No.

DEMOCRATIZATION OF
SOUTHEAST ASIAN COUNTRIES
AN OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS

1
PSPA 3103: Politics and Governance in Southeast Asia Issue Memo No.3

PART I. INTRODUCTION: Objective of the Paper and Overview of Democratization

Process in Southeast Asia

Evidently, Westerns colonizers helped the Southeast Asia Region to shaped the politics. One of
the example is the modern law of Thailand where King Chulalongkorn based the laws of the Western
colonizers to draw up a part of the laws of the country. Philippines based the primary laws to the
Christianity’s Ten Commandments which Spaniards religion influence to the country and patterned its
government to United States of America from the executive to judicial branch with some exemptions like
the jury trial and the Philippines is a unitary not federal unlike USA. Even though researchers had
differentiated the type of rule of the western colonizers by indirect and direct ruling it cannot be denied that
the influence of western colonizers left a footmark to the southeast Asian countries to the economy.
Western colonizers had a great role in improving the economic status of Brunei Darussalam as it was the
westerners discovered the oil reservoir and started trading it which boosted the economy of the country.
Japan has also played a role in helping the economy of the Southeast Asian countries after the
World War II by creating the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere where Japan invested in the
countries to boost the economy which unfortunately Philippines didn’t get to benefit due to the internal
conflict during this time. China and USA has become major investor to the Southeast Asia Region.
Economy is one of the factors that shaped the government of the countries.
The Southeast Asian Region countries struggles to achieve a democratic government. Some of
the countries are still in the transition of reforming their government, from authoritarian or military controlled
government just like Thailand, into a democratic one. One of the basis of democratic rule is a free election
yet many rulers like Thaksin Shinawatra sees elections as one of the basis to solidify his political hold to the
position and gain a near-dictatorial power 1. These transition from authoritarian rule doesn’t happen on one
night. The first country to adopt democracy was Philippines when most of the middle class protested on the
streets of EDSA in the People Power Revolution which overthrow the more than twenty-year regime of
Ferdinand Marcos in 1986. Corazon Aquino was hailed as the president of the Republic of Philippines
which was followed by Indonesia when the authoritarian president stepped down in 1998. And the latest
movement of democratic movement when Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) rode
a popular wave in sweeping victory in Myanmar’s parliamentary electionso 2. Thailand is labeled by
Croissant and Lorenz Vicious Cycle of Civilian Government and Military Rule due to the repeating coup
d’etat that happened to the country. Since1932 when the bloodless coup d’etat they were several attempt
to over throw the government.
USA seek to balance the communist threat in the Asia to prevent it from adopted by countries, it
was one of the powerful outside power intervening in the Southeast Asia. USA spend around $100 million
to $700million to sponsor the government democratic movement. It made alliances to the Philippines and
Thailand, later on Singapore became a de facto ally of the USA even though they didn’t have a formal
agreement. Which Singapore benefitted from military-military cooperation and diplomatic cooperation. In
the late 2000’s the political environment shifted which allowed the reemergence of authoritarianism. After
1
Page 13, Joshua Kurlantzick
2
Simandjuntak, Deasy 2018

2
PSPA 3103: Politics and Governance in Southeast Asia Issue Memo No.3

the attacks on USA they shifted the focused from democracy and human rights to counterterrorism. In
Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra has made himself an important ally to USA in the anti-terrorism war which
gave him a leeway to dominate the government and little censorship from USA when Thai military
committed some significant human rights abuses. When the 2006 coup d’etat happened the USA
pressured Thailand to democratic path. The same method was used to other Southeast Asian countries
except the Myanmar.
Southeast Asia was part of the third and fourth global wave of democratization; the third wave
begun before the end of Cold War and accelerated after 1989 which removed remaining authoritarian
regions of Asia which included the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Myanmar and eventually Indonesia.
Followed by the fourth wave during the late 1990’s and which swept through the rest of the Asia. Just as
the Southeast Asia were from the third and fourth wave of democratization, its regression to democracy is a
part of a lager reverse wave of authoritarianism which concentrated in developing countries.
These cycle of attaining democracy and reversal to the authoritarian rule is seen as a pre-dominant
pattern to some countries in the Southeast Asia. Democratic movement had cause several bloody
revolution and at the same some bloodless coup d’etat. The real question in attaining the democracy is
whether free election is the basis to obtain full democracy but it was not the case in some countries.
The questions as follows; why was democracy declined in some countries in Southeast Asia, what
is the reason why democracy has reverse to authoritarian to some countries, what is the effect of
democratic movement to the economy, and what has become of the economy of the country under the
democratic rule and under the authoritarian rule, will be the guide in the discussion on discovering the
state of democracy in the Southeast Asia countries These questions will be answered on the conclusion
and as this paper discusses some strain points of democracy in the Southeast Asia Region.
These paper will not just discuss the Southeast Asia political movements but also the economy of
the countries in the region. Whether it was not affected by internal conflicts or not. It will discuss the
influence of the Western colonizers in shaping the politics and economy of Southeast Asia Region, as well
as the intervention of USA to balance the communism/authoritarian rule in the region and the financial crisis
shaping the region’s economic growth and economic decline. The Japan “economic miracle” affecting the
economy instability of the countries in the region after the World War II. The China investment to Southeast
Asian to support the communist movement opposite to the USA that supports the democratization of the
Southeast Asia.

3
PSPA 3103: Politics and Governance in Southeast Asia Issue Memo No.3

PART II. DISCUSSION: Leading Cases (Countries) which Pursued Democratic Reforms
(focused on the major reforms that were introduced- constitutional, monarchy, and military,
and economic reforms).

I. THAILAND
In 1932, Thailand transition from an absolute monarch to constitutional monarch after the Great
Depression of 1929 which weakened the power of the monarch. The military and bureaucrats planned a
coup d’etat which succeeded and a bureaucratic polity emerged. In the following year, 1933, the first
election happened for the legislative. After the transition to democracy in the early 1930’s to late 1940’s and
a series of coup d’état to the 1950’s up to the early 1970’s and several interim constitutions created an
unstable government along the long term processes of economic and social changes created a new
socioeconomic groups such as provincial capitalist, urban educated middle class, and industrial workers
with the new political demands and ideologies and at the same time rural poverty and underdevelopment,
increasing tenancy, and debts among the farmers and communist agitation, especially in the north and
northeast (Isan) regions turned the Thai peasant into political action.
After the 1932 bloodless coup d’état there are series of coup d’état, in 1973 there are a series of
student protest along the streets of Bangkok for three days of violence which led to downfall of the corrupt
and repressive government of Gen. Thanom Kittikachorn and the following regime was a democratic one.
Just after three years, another coup d’état happened, the 1976 was particularly a bloody one when the far-
right paramilitary groups and security launches a massacre to the students of Thammasat University,
Bangkok Campus and the military uses the chaos to justifies the usurpation of the power. During the term
of Thanin Kraivichien in 1976-1977, thousands of intellectuals, student protesters and trade unions fled to
the mountains to join the Communist. In the fear of rural communism and of the shifting balance of power in
favor of more moderate military elites, civilian bureaucrats and the king, whose political authority increased
and this led to overthrow Thanin in a military coup d’état in 1977.
And in 1978, a new constitution was passed and in 1980 Gen. Prem Tinsulanonda became the
unelected prime minister and a new electoral authoritarian regime emerged under Prem. The elected
House of Representative has to share the its powers to the appointed Senate which ranks primarily came
from civil service and armed forces. The government reintroduced the parliamentary election and legalized
the political parties, provincial capitalists turned their economic interest in politics by financing political
parties and candidates and mobilizing the rural voters, who built vast majority of the national electorate. In
the gradual liberalization under Prem opened a short-lived democratic interregnum with an elected prime
minister Chaticha Choonhaven. The relaxed authoritarianism led by Prem brought increased foreign
investment and period of economic growth along the introduction of social reforms. Chaticha became the
first elected prime minister since 1976. In his rule, Chaticha headed a broad based coalition government
which the business elite played a major role. In his premiership he continued his policy which brought
Thailand economic development and limited social reform. This last until 1991 when the 17 th military coup
d’état happened. This was led Gen. Suchinda Kraprayoon, Suchinda declined to stepped down from seat in
the favor of the duly elected prime minister this led to the three-day protest, May 17-20, 1992 in Bangkok.

4
PSPA 3103: Politics and Governance in Southeast Asia Issue Memo No.3

In the attempt to suppressed the anti-Suchinda demonstrators, soldiers killed numerous protestors leading
the king to intervene and ease Suchinda out of the office. This massacre was known as the “Black May”.
The anti-Suchinda parties won a narrow victory when the September 1992 parliamentary election, under
the elected prime minister Chuan Leekpai of Democrat Party along with anti-Suchinda formed a coalition
government. With the series of short-lived coalition took turns to govern in the following years.
At the height of Asian Financial Crisis, a People’s Constitution of 1997 came into force. It
established the democratic regime with the king as the head of the state. This would pave the way to
deepened and consolidate Thailand’s democracy turned out to be unfounded. At this time the economy
status of has reach rock bottom. With the Democrat Party prime minister Chuan Leekpai was put into office
at the end of 1997. Under Democrat Party coalition Thailand has adopted International Monetary Fund
policies, poverty and inequality increased significantly. The coalition lasted until the 2001 parliamentary
election amidst the economic stagnation and the mounting social protest. In the 2001 parliamentary
election a wealthy media business and politician Thaksin Shinawatra formed a new party TRT or the Thai
Rak Thai. Combining the populist pledges aimed the rural especially at the impoverished northeastern
region (Isan) and urban poor with the promises of more decisive and effective government it rapidly
gathered support and by the election Thaksin’s party won by landslide which was the first ever absolute
parliamentary majority in Thailand. Many attempted to throw allegations to Thaksin especially in the issues
of graft and vote buying during his campaign however social programs introduced by Thaksin’s
administration proved extremely popular and the economy performed relatively strong. In his premiership
he threatened to weakened the informal, monarchial that had formed since the 1970’s which was
connected to the royalist elites in politics, military, civil service, economy and society, and which checked
the powers of elected officials in government and parliament. Along with this, the monarchial network and
Thaksin is at war in winning the people’s hearts and by doing so Thaksin implemented several welfare
schemes including his war on drugs and Thaksin even won the 2005 election. And in 2006, while Thaksin
was traveling abroad the opposition with newly formed People’s Alliance for Democracy, the military seized
the power. Thaksin’s party TRT was banned from ever entering politics. The return to electoral democracy
didn’t diminish the polarization and confrontation. Yet, in 2011 election, a pro-Thaksin affiliated party won
the election, Puea Thai Party, under the nominal leadership of Yingluck Shinawatra, Thaksin’s sister. This
rekindled the anti-Thaksin protest and on May of 2014 another coup d’état happened and until the present
day Thailand was under military junta led by Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha. Thailand unstable government were
created due to the cycle of civilian government and military regime and the death of King Bhumibol
Adulyadej added to instability of the country and depriving them of social unity.
With Thailand unstable government, about 24 coups, 20 constitutions, 27 prime minister in 88
years of democracy despite the political turbulence Thailand managed to be prosperous by regional
standards. Thailand had transform from low-income traditional agriculture economy into an upper middle-
income industrial exporter in the space of generation. Even though Thailand relies on external force on its
economic prospects but due to the well capitalized financial sector and government stimulus program it
bounced back from global downturn. By 2010, Thailand’s economy was fastest to grow according IMF in
the last 15 years. This was due to the recovery of global trade and also due to the relatively low public debt,
the Thai government had room to fiscal stimulus through direct cash transfers and subsidies for the poor
and investment to the infrastructure projects. Political turbulence didn’t deter the foreign investors with
reason of, first with the sound economic fundamentals that enabled Thailand to weather the financial crisis,

5
PSPA 3103: Politics and Governance in Southeast Asia Issue Memo No.3

second was the consistency of the policies with respects to trade and foreign capital and lastly, protest was
taken away from Thailand’s economically critical trade infrastructure and industrial estates. Foreign
investors ambivalence to political turbulence and perceptions of economic resilience within the country
drives stability.

II. MALAYSIA
Malaysia had big influenced by Britain, the Britain extended their rule over all the peninsular
Malaysia as well as the North Borneo over the Treaty of Pangkor. The Strait Settlements and indirect rule in
the form of Malay royal sovereignty were reflected in the administrative patchwork of “Federated Malay
States”, “Unfederated Malay States”, “Strait Settlements” and British protectorates of Sabah and Sarawak
in North Borneo. The British established a resident system under which the Malay rulers has to follow the
advice of the British resident who possessed the facto authority over all the political excepts those matters
were local customs and of religion. In 1895 the Federated States were put into a centralized system while
the Undeferated Malay State kept their traditional political order dominated by Malays and it was only in the
early twentieth century that the resident system was installed in the states. Introduction of the Western legal
system and emerging modern economy contributed a significantly higher levels of socioeconomic
development at independence than in the rest of Malaysia. In the early nineteenth century the Malay
population is at the 90% and with the migration of Chinese and Indians hired as the laborers created the
plural society. The ethnic division was reinforced with cultural differences and economic inequalities when
British Malaya became independent in 1957 Chinese household income double than the Malay household
income.
When the World War II happened British Malaya was under the Japanese and during this time
local rulers lost its influence and the Malaysia’s collapse export economy escalated ethnic tensions as
Chinese and Indians were force into subsistence farming laid claims on arable land which is preserved for
Malays. British tried to find ways to reconcile ethnic tension and begin preparation for eventual transfer of
power. The Malay elite opposed creating the Malayan Union from the Federated and Unfederated States
fearing that they would lose their traditional privileges. With these 41 Malay organizations merged to create
the United Malay National Organization in 1946. And on 1948 the British dissolved the Union and installed
Federation of Malaya which left the sovereignty of Malay Sultans untouched and gave constituents more
authority. Malays kept the preferential administrative and only 10% of Chinese was granted citizenship.
This incited resistance from the newly formed Malayan Chinese Association. The conflict was resolved in
the first general election for the Federal Legislative Council in 1955, when the UMNO, MCA, MIC decided
to form a political coalition – “Alliance”, it was known today as the “Bargain”. This enshrined Islam as the
official state religion and Malay as the national language and guaranteed the authority of the traditional
Malay rulers as well as the selection of a Malay prime minister, in return Chinese and Indians inhabitants
were granted citizenship and secured property rights under a market economic system.

The Federation of Malaya became independent in 1957, Singapore’s ruling party People’s Action
Party endangered the “Bargain” when PAP demanded the creation of Malaysian’s Malaysia with the equal
rights for all the ethnic groups. In 1965, Singapore moved away from the Federation, amidst the accusation
that its leaders were seeking to provoke inter-communal conflict. In the 1969 parliamentary election, Malays

6
PSPA 3103: Politics and Governance in Southeast Asia Issue Memo No.3

and Chinese clashed in Kuala Lumpur which left 196 people dead. The government immediately imposed a
state of emergency, suspend the parliament and completely abolished the local elections. And then
employed the British Internal Security Act to shift Malaysia’s political regime towards autocracy. Almost all
of in opposition and component parties of the Alliance were co-opted into a multi-party coalition under
UMNO leadership and formed the Barisan National in 1974. Then the government introduced the New
Economic Policy, which aim to ensure that by 1990, 30% of the commercial and industrial would be owned
by the Malay (bumiputera) and to reduce the income inequality between Chinese and Indians.
In the following years, Malaysia became a competitive authoritarian regime which multi-party
elections are the main route of power yet the ruling coalition has the stronghold of power. With the strong
boost of economic, the government were able to solidify the authoritarian regime and co-opt important
elites and groups into a regime coalition. And at the same time the close relationships between economic
elites and BN politicians led to the “money politics”. NEP helped to improve socioeconomic well-being of
Malay (bumipetura) but the income inequality persisted. Malay working in the agriculture sank in number as
years passed between 1957and 2000 but this created a new poverty gap between rural and urban
population, as well as middle class and entrepreneurs, and of the workers and peasant. When Asian
Financial Crisis hit Malaysia in 199, it had created a reformasi reform government but unlike Indonesia’s
Suharto authoritative government, Barisan National remained in power. Malaysia in response to Asian
Financial Crisis was quick to implement capital control and the government rejected the IMF prescription,
the country survived the crisis relatively unscathed. NEP was rebranded into New Development Policy in
1989, that pursues of the goal of becoming fully developed and democratic country by the year of 2020 by
UMNO leader Dr. Mahatjir Mohammed.
The greatest source of political turbulence in Malaysia is the UMNO itself. The 2000 election,
UMNO facing their greatest electoral challenge with Party of Islam in Malaysia growing, and Mahatjir
responded aggressively. The election was conducted at the end of 1999 and the Barisan National won
another election despite the decline of vote. In mid-2002, Islamic law was forced for both the Muslim and
non-Muslim in the states, the prevailing federal responsibility for the criminal law under the constitution
meant that it would be implemented in that sphere. In the 2004 national elections, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi,
the successor of Mahatjir, won the elections. He was willing to contemplate a more democratic
dispensation appeared him to be an ideal replacement. He began with a determined anti-corruption and
political liberalization in which there are some progress. There were growing agitation with the Chinese and
Indian communities about the commitment of the still largely Malay political elite to communal harmony-
one particular concern was the unauthorized periodic demolition of the Hindu temples by the local
authorities and the rising opposition of the NDP. In March 2008, BN experienced its worst election results
since 1969 by falling below the two-thirds majority in parliament and also ruled in eight of the Malaysian
thirteen states. By 2009, Abdullah agreed to stepped down and was replaced by Najib Tun Razak. Najib
introduced a new concept, iMalaysia that emphasizes communal harmony, national unity and improved
punlic governance. The Malay elites were increasingly tempted by the appeal of the politics of race and
religion, Najib has called for everybody in the country to view themselves as “Malaysian first”. Najib has
introduced a Government Transformation Program and an Economic Transformation Program in the first
half of 2010 that were based on New Economic Model. The new economic strategy was driven by private
entrepreneurship than by the government.

7
PSPA 3103: Politics and Governance in Southeast Asia Issue Memo No.3

In 2011, an opposition rally was met with some excessive force but Najib has taken some steps
aimed at reviving reformist credentials. Measures to enhance media freedom and unban student politics
have been announced, Najib also announced that the ISA would be repealed. Conservatives expressed
their concerns over the steps taken by the government. And in 2013, the opposition parties Pakatan
Rakyat, Party of Islam in Malaysia, Democratic Action Party and the People Justice Party won narrow
plurality of the popular vote and even though the BN prime minister Najib managed to hold on to the
majority seat.
Malaysia was the same as other country in the Southeast Asia Region which started as agricultural
sectors which being gradually displaced by industry and services, rural habitation giving way to
urbanization and privatization replacing state ownership and the economy become export oriented.
Malaysia’s long term economic planned was rooted to Vision 2020 which aimed that Malaysia become fully
industrialized country by the year 2020 and increased their GDP in real times eight-fold. Since the
introduction of the plan, the country’s GDP increased three-fold in real terms. The New Economic Model
and the five-year Economic Transformation Program intended to facilitate progression to develop nation
status by 2020.

III. PHILIPPINES
Philippines were under the Spanish colonial rule for about 300 years and the Kingdom of Spain has
established a unitary-rule by delegating a governor-general. Philippines was in clerical-secular state due to
the inseparability of state and church. When the Philippines gained its independence from with the Treaty
of Paris but the country fall to another colonizer. United States got hold of the authority from Spain. The
U.S. congress passed the Philippine Act installing a civilian administration with the supervision of the
American governor-general. American government allowed limited self-rule, modernized the bureaucracy
and judicial system and invested heavily to education, infrastructure and economic development. New
political and administrative structures such as an elected legislature co-opted local elites into the colonial
system but also consolidated the decentralized nature of political power in the Philippines. With the passing
of Tydings-Mcduffie Act of 1934 and the inauguration of the Philippine Commonwealth Government under a
democratic constitution patterned after the United States bicameral system in 1935 has laid a groundwork
for the transition to full sovereignty. The transition was interrupted when the Japanese invaded the
Philippines in World War II. Some of the Filipino elites has collaborated with the Japanese under the puppet
state of the Second Philippine Republic. In 1943 a guerilla movement, Hukbalahap, was created under the
Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas to fought the Japanese occupation. After the World War II, the Third
Philippine Republic was the first Western colony to become independent in July 4, 1946, even though the
country remained closely associated with the U.S. militarily, economically and politically.
In 1965, Ferdinand Marcos became the president, he was the first president to be reelected in
1969. Nearing the end of his second term, he declared Martial Law establishing personalist authoritarian
regime. The goal was transforming the Philippines into a “New Society”. In the early 1980’s, Philippines
economy deteriorated due to the increasing foreign debts, declining economic growth and spiraling
combine inflation caused by combined external shock and government policy failures, and crony capitalism
driven by self-enrichment of Marcos and his ruling coalition. The opposition started a guerilla movement
with lack of the regime’s counterinsurgency further aggravated the political crisis in Marcos regime. And
8
PSPA 3103: Politics and Governance in Southeast Asia Issue Memo No.3

with the assassination of Benigno Aquino the opposition leader, exacerbated the political crisis in 1983. In
1986, Marcos allowed a snap election to happen in the hopes to retain his power but opposition candidate
claimed to won the election. There was attempted coup d’état among the ranks of disloyal troops led by
then Gen. Fidel V. Ramos, Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and with the supports coming from the
junior officer of Reform the Armed Forces Movement led by Col. Gregorio Honasan using the advantage of
political turmoil but it failed. When the coup d’état failed it triggered the EDSA People Power Revolution, a
three-day protest along the streets of Epifanio de los Santos Aquino. Marcos fled to exile in Hawaii after the
mass protest and people installed Corazon Aquino, widow of Benigno Aquino, became the first female
president of the country and of the whole Asian Region. After she assumed office, Aquino established a
revolutionary government and issued an interim constitution. The newly installed constitutional drafted a
new basic law by referendum in 1987. And the election of the Philippine Congress in the same year, May
and July of 1987, completed the transition to democratic government. Enactment of freedom of press and
abolition of the repressive laws paved way for the restoration of the democracy elites and reemergence of
entrenched political families starting the political dynasties. The subsequent presidents would be elected by
legislators and only allowed a one six-year term and cannot be reelected again
Aquino remained in power until 1992 and endorse Fidel V. Ramos. And Ramos was inaugurated,
promising that he would bring stability, renewed growth through economic liberalization and tackle
corruption. He had some progress with the first two. In this time, there are on-going peace talk with the
insurgencies in the South. The 1996 autonomy deal with MNLF created the ARMM (Autonomous Region of
Muslim Mindanao) but the MILF continued its military operation in the reason that the government fell short
in secession. Ramos attempted to revised the constitution so he can serve second term but opposition
stand against it. In 1998 national election, Ramos incumbent vice-president, Joseph Estrada, won the
election. Estrada’s victory was seen as an indication of the Philippine weak party system that collapsed
later on. Estrada portrayed himself as mans of masses promising the continuity of the Ramos’s free market
economic policies and address poverty and land reform. By 2000, there are political strain in the south as
peace-talks with NDF and MILF stagnated and a scandal erupted accusing Estrada of receiving large sum
of money from illegal businesses. Eventually Estrada was convicted and impeached. The presidential seat
was taken over by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo the incumbent vice-president and the second female president
of the country. Arroyo administration was in political turmoil. In 2003 there was an attempted military coup
d’état. After she finished the rest of the years as a replacement to Estrada she run again for presidential
seat despite that she stated she will not run for the office. Arroyo narrowly won against her opponent
Ferdinand Poe Jr. in the 2004 national elections. Arroyo’s administration faced several political turmoil, in
2006 and 2007 there are several attempted military coup d’état. There is a relative political calm between
2008 and late 2009 which in this period there are peace-talk with the MILF but Supreme Court the halted it
declaring that the talks lack consultation and eventually the talks freeze. Nearing the end of Arroyo
administration, a massacre happened killing a 57 people in the Maguindanao Province and the primary
suspect was the stronghold power of the province, the Ampatuans one of the ally of Arroyo.
In 2010 national election, by then senator Benigno Aquino III was urged to run for presidency and
he declared his candidacy under the banner of Liberal Party and won the election. Aquino III administration
was also faced several political turmoil. Facing the same problems as before, insurgency in the south,
corruption and poverty. In 2011, Aquino III launched the controversial new military campaign against
lawless elements in Mindanao that targeted some claimed was aimed at a rebel MILF faction opposed to

9
PSPA 3103: Politics and Governance in Southeast Asia Issue Memo No.3

the talks. Aquino III was seen as having commitment in terms of improving economic management and
combating corruption and he was also illustrated also as a dynastic politics seeing his background coming
from a politician family. Aquino III administration was also tainted of heavy blood when SAF 44 happened
where 44 soldiers died on a combat; and Yolanda hit the country leaving millions of damages and leaving
about thousands of deaths. In the 2016 national election, the first Mindanaoan president rise to seat at the
urges of the several sectors. President Rodrigo Duterte won the 2016 national election by popular vote and
launched several radical changes especially in combating crimes and illegal drug trades in the country. The
starting of his administration, he launches several war on drugs program which caught the eyes of the
international arena in the rapid rise number of deaths in the war on drugs program. The country also
experienced several higher inflations compared than the last years. And the current administration some
cabinet members were retired armed forces personnel, in the speculation the country was leading to
militarization.
Philippines is much less successful in fighting poverty than its neighboring countries. The economy
has been dependent in exporting electronic and agricultural goods. Fast growth in population and
emigration has led to a major destination for overseas remittances that supported high levels of domestic
consumption. Turning the Philippines as largest exporters of cheap labor worldwide. Labor exports proves
that the government fails to provide sufficient employment. Philippines’ future growth and development is
likely to be constrained by low domestic savings and investment rates, and a failure to translate the
proceeds of growth into meaningful reductions in poverty and improvements in education. In the 2008-2009
when a financial crisis hit the country, economy recovered strongly in 2010 in the highest rate for over thirty
years. The Philippines has seen a sharp increase in capital starting towards the end of 2010.

IV. SINGAPORE
In 1913, Singapore has the highest GDP per capita in Southeast Asia and the highest among all
Asia-Pacific economy. In 1942 to 1945, Japanese occupied the city much like others countries during the
World War II. In 1955, the first election was held for a predominantly elected legislative assembly. The
election triggered the formation of People’s Action Party and Labour Front, the PAP provided the chief
minister for Singapore when the election ended. By 1959, Singapore adopted a new constitution and
attained self-government. PAP under Lee Kuan Yew won the elections in May of the same year and
powerful until the present day. Singapore joined the Federation under a set of special conditions, including
wide-ranging political autonomy and relatively minor contributions to the federal budget. September 1964,
there were communal riots in Singapore. Lee tried to form an alliance with opposition parties across
Malaysia, leading the central Malaysian Government to force Singapore to leave the Federation in August
1965. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that Lee’s thinking had been moving in this direction too.
Republic of Singapore immediately joined the UN and the Commonwealth and committed itself to
multiracial, non-communist, democratic socialist principles and to cooperated with Malaysia. The strategy of
binding the Singapore economy to that of Malaysia was now in tatters. The challenge faced was soon
compounded by a British decision to close its naval and military base, which took place in 1971. Lee’s
response was to design a new survival strategy based on rapid export-based industrialization. In 1968 the
PAP again won election in which it pledged to restrict trade union activity and so encourage foreign
investment. Lee moved towards a mixed economy in which the government was to play a key role in
10
PSPA 3103: Politics and Governance in Southeast Asia Issue Memo No.3

planning and implementing Singapore’s ambitious industrialization strategy. In the mid-1970’s, following a
decade of strong economic growth, confidence was strong that Singapore could prosper on its own.
Between the 1968 and 1981, PAP won every seats in the succession of elections. Social provision had
increased markedly, although Lee was strongly opposed to ideas of a ‘welfare state’, judging this to be
incompatible with the state philosophy of self-reliance. However, Lee, who by this time was delegating
more of the day-to-day responsibilities of government to his ministers, remained intolerant of opposition and
obsessed with political stability. Singapore became one of the most affluent and developed societies in
Asia. The PAP government provided for continuously high investment and saving rates, secure property
rights and political stability, a highly effective state bureaucracy, and low levels of corruption, resulting in
the provision of public goods like education, housing, social security, and health. Due to a conjunction of
several conditions, such as a dedicated and benevolent, yet authoritarian, government, as well as favorable
historical legacies of British rule, including a professional civil service, a reliable legal system, and statutory
boards such as the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the Central Provident Fund (CPF). The
CFP was created to secure pensions, housing development, and medical services, and is financed through
a mandatory contribution paid by all Singaporean employees and self-employed citizens.
A direct presidency election was introduced in 1991 and in 1998 Singapore’s political prisoners
were released. Talk about the need for an active civil society never extended to tolerance of forthright
criticism and freedom of association and assembly remained restricted. There was a strong preference was
for the development of apolitical, technocratic forms of increasing public participation. In elections, a
significant proportion of PAP candidates continued to be elected unopposed. Singapore came through the
Asian financial crisis relatively unscathed. In elections in 2001, despite a significant economic downturn at
the time, the PAP won 82 out of 84 elected seats. The government redoubled its efforts to promote a
multiracial Singapore in response to the enhanced perceived threat. Lee Hsien Loong’s first years as Prime
Minister were dominated by his decision to allow casinos to open in Singapore. While public criticism of this
decision was tolerated, no steps were taken towards greater political pluralism. In 2007, the government
announced that it would no longer prosecute homosexual acts by consenting adults, although it refused to
repeal the attendant colonial-era legislation. It responded to the challenge posed by the rise of ‘new media’
by increasing its own presence on the Internet.
The last 50 years of in Singapore have seen both remarkable continuity and change. Economically
the country has changed. Singapore’s future wealth and stability is guaranteed and are still reluctant to go
too far down the road of political liberalization. Singapore’s ascent from third world to first world status have
been dramatic since gaining its independence in 1965. Singapore was among the first to see inflows of
foreign investment thanks to a government that aggressively encouraged capital from the industrial world,
providing tax concessions to foreign investors and removing trade barriers. The economic architect of
Singapore, Goh Keng Swee, described Singapore as ‘a socialist economy that works’: however, even
though the Government pursues active economic policy, in comparison with most Western governments,
state expenditure on education, health and social services is limited. Its maintenance of colonial trading
relations, which many newly independent countries broke off following independence; relentless
diversification into more capital and skills-intensive industry, motivated by government infrastructure
investment (chemicals and biomedical production are now displacing electronics as the key manufacturing
subsectors); and incentives for domestic producers to invest overseas to ‘open-up’ closed markets in
China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Alongside high-end manufacturing, the government is also

11
PSPA 3103: Politics and Governance in Southeast Asia Issue Memo No.3

fostering high value added services: it hopes to attract 1 million foreign medical patients to Singapore by
2012.

12
PSPA 3103: Politics and Governance in Southeast Asia Issue Memo No.3

PART III. ANALYSIS: Specific Reforms Introduced; causes, the significance of these
reforms, the challenges/difficulties of implementation, reasons for their failure and success.

After transitioning to constitutional democracy, numerous coup d’état and about 20 constitutions.
Thailand regression from democracy was rapid. From democratic regime and elected parliament, Thailand
was under the military junta. One of the reasons why there are a cycle of civilian government and
militarization was due to the struggle of power in government between the civilian officials and the military.
One of the example is the Thaksin government, the economic reforms implemented was one of the reason
why Thaksin was still popular among the middle class but personalist authoritarian regime Thaksin tried to
installed was viewed by the opposition hence, he was ousted through the coup d’état. This cycle happens
and the people of Thailand viewed coup d’état as one of the solution to reform the government. Aside from
this, when installing a new prime minister and parliament coup d’état happen and there are just a handful of
prime minister were duly elected that were able to take the seat. The average the prime minister that lead
Thailand was just about 2 to 2 and half years which causes big instability to the country.
Freedom House graded Thailand 32 points out of 100 which is partly free. Thailand got 26 points
out of 60 in civil liberties and 6 points out of 40 in political rights due to the recent happenings in Thailand.
Philippine elite settlements between different elite groups was pivotal for the survival for the
imperfect democracy after 1986. Emphasis on the institutional checks and balances, institutionalized veto
points, and diffusion of power has also limited effective governance, whereas dominance of elite politics
limited the value of elections as a mechanism to secure democratic accountability and ensure substantive
representation. Thus, the electoral process remained anarchic. The prevailing one-term limit for the
presidents might be seen as “quasi-institutionalizing” such a system facilitating alternation between these
families and their proxies. Filipino politics is less unruly and chaotic than it seems at first sight. Whether this
is a sustainable political arrangement in the medium and long term is another question.
One of the major reason why Philippines is struggling in attaining a full democratic government was
due to lacked of right budget appropriation and correct management of government. It is also is a factor is
the so called trapos and political dynasties which hinders the new people to lead and make a true change.
For outside observer especially to political analyst, Singapore is a complicated puzzle yet
fascinating. First, the city-state contradicts the modernization theory, which states a causal link between
economic development, social modernization and democratization. Singapore possesses pre-requisites for
modernization theory considers necessary for sustaining a political democracy yet Singapore has an
authoritarian government. Elections are the only legitimate route to power, PAP government systematically
abuses the advantages of incumbency to insulate its monopoly on political power against political
challengers by imposing disadvantages on opposition parties, curtailing the development of civil society
and the media, and suppressing political dissent. Second, the description of Singapore as a “party regime”
points to the fact that the government since 1959 has consistently been in the hands of the same party.
And lastly, the characterization of Singapore’s political order as “soft authoritarianism” emphasizes the fact
that repression is of secondary importance for the longevity of PAP rule. The PAP government has created
a highly effective system of “calibrated coercion” and the depoliticization of its society.

13
PSPA 3103: Politics and Governance in Southeast Asia Issue Memo No.3

Thailand has undergone a rapid and severe regression from democracy and is now ruled
by a junta. Malaysia’s democratic institutions and culture have regressed as well with the long ruling
Barisan National Coalition cracking down on dissent and trying to destroy what had been emerging, and
increasing stable two-party system. Singapore’s transition towards contested politics has stalled. In
Cambodia and Myanmar, hopes for dramatic change have fizzled. Only the Philippines and Indonesia have
stayed on track but even in these two countries democratic consolidation is threatened by the persistence
of graft, public distrust of democratic institutions and continued meddling in politics by militaries. The
Southeast Asia’s rollback from democracy reflects a worrying global retrenchment toward anti-democratic
political change more of the world’s people are living today under authoritarian regimes. There are major
reforms that creates big impact in shaping and supporting this nations, one of this is the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) founded in August 1967 and has its first members; Philippines,
Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei.
It promotes inter-governmental cooperation and facilitates economic, political, security, military,
educational and socio-cultural integration among its members and other countries in Asia. There are also
pro-reform civil society organizations like the region-wide Asian Network for Free Elections and the
Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO) an organization
mandated to promote human rights and monitor human rights violations in Cambodia. The Philippine
Center for Investigative Journalism a non-profit media organization specializing in investigative journalism.
Established in 1988, the organization funds investigative projects for both print and broadcast media.
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) a non-profit group that functions independently of any
government. Sometimes called civil societies, are organized on community, national and international
levels to serve a social or political goal such as humanitarian causes or the environment. It plays a major
role in international development, aid, and philanthropy. Promotes a groundbreaking constitution, which
guaranteed many new rights and freedoms. It created new national institutions to monitor graft and
strengthened political parties at the expense of unelected centers of power. These reforms also set the
stage for elections in 2001 that were probably the freest in Thailand’s history and which resulted in a
political system dominated two parties. Thai Rak Thai and the Democrat Party it was before military junta.

PART IV. CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATIONS

.

14
PSPA 3103: Politics and Governance in Southeast Asia Issue Memo No.3

CONCLUSION
There are guide questions given in the introduction and the conclusion answers will be given.
Why was democracy declined in some countries in Southeast Asia? / What is the reason why democracy
has reverse to authoritarian to some countries?
One of the reason why the democracy regress in some of the countries in Southeast Asia is the
internal political turmoil. Insurgency, corruption, and struggle of power is one of the major reasons why
government regress to authoritarian from democratic. Thailand was one of the example in terms of
corruption. In Thaksin’s government he was accused of corruption and abuses of human rights and the
movements of the opposition showed no choice but to usurp the power through coup d’état. The same case
happened when Thaksin’s sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, was ousted to the office and the military took over
the government since 2014 until the present.
In the greater part, the major reason why government leaders wanted an authoritarian regime is for
personal purposes as Thaksin and Marcos tried to installed a personalist authoritarian regime. And the
unquenched demands of the middle and working class.
What is the effect of democratic movement to the economy? / What has become of the economy of the
country under the democratic rule and under the authoritarian rule?
Singapore was declared democratic country but authoritarian in nature. Economically Singapore
was the highest in Southeast Asia in terms of GDP. It defies the modernization theory wherein, the
economically stable country was leading towards democracy but Singapore was economically stable for the
last five decades but it doesn’t show any movements in obtaining full democracy as the country was led by
one party and only three leaders since its independence.
Even though Thailand were in cycle of political turmoil the economy was not greatly affected unlike
the Philippines. When the Philippines were freed from Marcos authoritarian regime it left a big amount of
debt which made the Philippines struggled economically.

RECOMMENDATIONS
 Southeast Asian countries needs to ratified and repeal constitution especially in voting systems.
 Countries that military holds the power needs to surrender government to civilians to foster more
growth in politics and economy.
 ASEAN should play a huge role in mediating internal conflicts, monitoring human rights abuses,
trading policies and promoting democratization.

PART V. REFERENCES

15
PSPA 3103: Politics and Governance in Southeast Asia Issue Memo No.3

 Simandjuntak, Deasy 2018, https://th.boell.org/en/2018/10/19state-democarcy-

southeast-asia).
 Croissant and Lorenz, 2018, Comparative Politics of Southeast Asia: An Introduction
to Government and Political Regimes,
 House of Commons Library, 2011, Southeast Asia: A Political and Economic
Introduction
 Kurlantzick, Joshua, 2014, Southeast Asia’s Regression From Democracy and Its
Implication

16