National Unity: Essay Outlines by Students

How effective were government policies towards ethnic minorities in independent Southeast Asia?

Introduction

Government policies towards ethnic minorities, generally would see success when the policies are dealing with the ethnic assertiveness of the minorities through accommodative and multicultural policy by bringing on social stability On the other hand, the policies are less successful in building a collective identity and social stability when violence and forced assimilation are employed. Regardless, policies were less successful in bringing ethnic distinctiveness to bring about a broader national identity due to more fundamental reasons such as the lack of common shared experience which affiliated even countries with social stability. The exception is Vietnam, where it had managed to do both with the communist ideology and the Communist Party Vietnam (CPV).

Arguments Elaboration Case Studies Thesis: Government policies towards ethnic minorities in independent Southeast Asia was effective Social stability In states where the Singapore: The different ethnic groups were and the absence governments are guaranteed political representation via the of separatist multicultural and GRC system introduced in 1988 while movements in accommodative Chinese, Malay and Tamil were also countries which towards minorities, they recognized Mother Tongues along with adopted generally were effective English being the official language under the accommodative in promoting social 1966 Bilingual policy. Pains were also taken approach stability and minimise to downplay the dominant Chinese on the separatist tendencies island by merging the Chinese Nanyang by giving them space University to form the English-medium and political National University of Singapore. representation. Malaysia: Institutional guarantees for freedom of religion were present and the state allowed use of Chinese and Tamil as tools of instructions of private schools and even English in 1997. Hence, both had seen no occurrence of ethnic tension since 1964 and 1959 respectively.

Forging of a In states with dominant Philippines: Under the more conciliatory strong and cultures, the approach of Ramos and Aquino from 1986 common national government policies onwards (as opposed to Marcos harsh identity forged in towards the ethnic treatment of the minorities), the Moros saw a countries which minorities were brief period of negotiated peace in the 1990s adopted successful when they with the establishment of the Autonomous assimilative adopted more flexible Region of Muslim Mindanao and the approach and accommodative founding of the South Philippines Convention responses as well. This of Peace and Development, where local was so, as concessions leader Misuari was made the governor. given to the ethnic minorities had the effect Vietnam: The presence of the majority Kihn of placating them. did not stop the CPV government from being conciliatory to the mountain people, allowing them to develop their own writing system and even aiding them with the building off schools and colleges. This explains why Vietnam saw little resistance from even the indigenous minorities, enhancing social stability which allowed them to maintain a united front during their war against the US until 1975. Government policies Thailand: This was done through education were also effective in since the 1960s using the centralized Thai managing ethnic syllabus in the North East as despite minorities when their sporadic Hmong rebellions in the 60s, dominant cultural general acceptance of Thai rule prevailed policies had led to the and they have accepted the central national setting up of the strong identity of “Nation, Religion and King”. central identity which was adgered or Indonesia: ethnic minorities and even accepted by the opposition groups had not questioned the minorities, even as it central role of Pancasila Democracy and sidelined the minority Gotong Royong as they were ingrained into culture, developing a th very core of the education system, with the collective sense of values being imparted since Kindergarten identity, and the 1989 National Education Law which ensured that all teachers had to possess the appropriate Pancasila national ideology and identity which can even be related to by the minorities as seen from how even opposition political members and political critics did not challenge it and instead called for it to be more open instead. Anti-thesis: Government policies towards ethnic minorities in Southeast Asia was not effective Social instability Assimilative policies Burma: The Burmese failed to bring about and the presence had failed to bring social stability in minority areas as they not of separatist about social stability only tried to convert hill tribes to Buddhism movements in and a collective national as part of the national religion, forced them to countries which identity given that it had use Burman as the official language of adopted given minorities the administration, and even incorporated the assimilative impression that the minority constituencies into a unitary state approach majority was through the 1974 Constitution so as to encroaching into the facilitate centralized control. This explains space of the minorities, the rise of separatist groups like the Mong heightening resistance Tai Army and the Karen National Union. of the minorities due to the increase in Philippines: The policy of transmigration of assertions of ethnic the Catholics from Central Luzon to the distinctiveness. Muslim Mindanao Islands relegated the Moros to minorities such that they made 22% by 1998. Coupled with passing of laws which allowed for the expropriation of their ancestral lands for resettlement projects, it increased ethnic agitation and assertion which partly explains why the Moros Independence Movement (MIM) was so readily formed following the 1968 Jabaidah Massacre. Lack of strong and Even in countries with Singapore: National ideologies like “Shared common national social stability, Asian” values and the Four Core Values identity forged in government attempts to implemented in 1988 failed to resonate with countries which build a collective Singaporeans, most of whom had ancestors adopted identity beyond the own who were immigrants and not native to the accommodative ethnic distinctiveness country. The lack of a common national approach was met with little identity can be observed from the success due to the lack establishment of ethnic self-help groups, of a common historical such as Sinda, MENDAKI and the CDAC. experience which provided the Malaysia: Attempts by the government to foundations for a forge a national ideology similar to the common national Pancasila in Indonesia through the identity to be built on. Rukunegara ideology in 1970 failed to gain traction amongst the Chinese and Malay communities. Minorities continue to express dissatisfaction against special rights of the Malays enshrined in the 1970 Constituional Amendment Act. Malay privilege continued to be present in many aspects such as education and employment. Factors determining the effectiveness of government policies towards ethnic minorities Government policies success can also be explained by more underlying factors which either hindered or facilitated management of the ethnic minorities. Nature of Apart from the sharing Indonesia and Philippines: In both countries, minorities of a common where the Chinese controlled 72% of the experience which economy despite only making up 4% of the explains the Communist population in the former and more than 50% Party Vietnam’s of the economy and only 1.3% of the success in managing population, the Chinese minorities were the both the indigenous pliant and did not cause social instability. and immigrant Chinese as a result of the experience they had shared in the 1st and 2nd French Indochina wars despite 2 decades of partition, the nature of minorities also affected the relative effectiveness of government policies. Generally, the immigrant minorities could be managed more easily for they were generally content with economic predominance offered to them by the governments, most of whom saw value in them as strong economic and political allies. They also had greater social acquiescence to mono- ethnic policies, causing them to lack a strong sense of territorial affiliation which the indigenous minorities possessed, explaining their lack of ethnic assertiveness. Degree of ethnic The degree of Indonesia vs Vietnam: In contrast to homogeneity homogeneity of the Indonesia which population comprised 40% society also influenced of Javanese, Vietnam’s population the effectiveness of comprised 85% of Kihns, suggesting why government policies Vietnam not only saw relative stability and towards the minorities, the absence of separatist movements. as in countries where there was greater Concession: However, this is not a strong homogeneity, factor determining the success of government policies government’s policies for despite the relative were more successful. homogeneity of Philippines with more than 90% of Filippinos, separatist movements , like the MIM, still existed.

Government policies which were more multicultural and accommodative in nature tend to be effective in maintaining social stability but not so much as building a collective national identity. Yet, dominant approaches tend to be more successful in bringing about the collective identity at the expense of pockets of resistance as the dominant approach would inevitably sideline and marginalize some minority culture. Ultimately, policies are more successful in resolving and minimizing ethnic assertiveness by removing the impetus to assert the distinctiveness but were less successful in removing the ethnic distinctiveness due to a deeper set of factors like the nature of the minorities, the composition of the population and also, the presence of lack thereof a common historical experience.

Why has national unity been stronger in some states than others in SEA since independence?

QUESTION ANALYSIS A. “Why”: Examine reasons B. “National Unity”: Territorial Unity + National Identity C. “Stronger”: Comparison between clusters D. “Since independence”: Time frame

HANDLES Territorial unity: S,M,V vs I,B,T,P National identity: I,V,T vs S,M,P,B FACTORS Territorial Unity

1. Government policies: Accommodative vs Assimilative Assimilative policies bred discontentment and triggered uprisings which sometimes threatened to disintegrate the nation.

. Political - Assimilative policies did not allow for representation of the minorities in the government. This means that their concerns were not taken into consideration in government actions, breeding discontentment and cause for rebellion in an attempt to get the government to recognise their rights. Accommodative policies on the other hand allowed for minority representation in the government and ensured that their concerns would be considered in government actions, reducing cause for discontentment.

- Burma: (1962) Ne Win arrested Shan leaders when they attempted to further the Panglong constitution for more autonomy. This led to the escalation of rebellions calling for Shan autonomy, e.g. rise of guerrilla fighters like Mong Tai Army, Noon Seek Harn and Shan State Independent Army

- Thailand: (1948) The government rejected the Pattani Muslim’s proposal to be appointed to the governorship of the Muslim provinces, 80% of administrative positions and a Muslim Board to control Muslim affairs. Led to regional insurrection seen in the Dusun Nyiur Incident.

- Singapore: (1988) Under the Group Representative Constituency (GRC) scheme, it is mandatory for each GRC to consist of a stipulated number of minority candidates, hence ensuring that minority rights and representation are secured. With such sensitive and accommodative political policies, there have been no ethnic clashes since independence.

. Economic – Policies which failed to meet the economic interests of minorities or even exploited them bred discontentment and forced them to rise against the government as their livelihoods and survival were being threatened. Policies which took into account the economic interests of minorities removed a cause for uprising since their economic survival was not threatened.

- Philippines: (late 1970s) Marcos’ hydroelectric dam project along the Chico and Pasil Rivers would submerge vast tracts of land including rice fields critical to the economic survival of the indigenous Cordillerans. Furthermore, Marcos awarded logging rights of >200000 acres of pine forest to crony firm Cellophil Resources Corporation for paper and pulp manufacturing along the Cordilleran range. This has led to concerted resistance in the Cordilleran region to protect their economic livelihood.

- Thailand: The economic underdevelopment of the Northeast Isan region—it was allocated only 18% of the budget when the it formed 34% of the population—led to discontentment, sparking off the Hmong rebellion in 1967-1973 - Malaysia: (1971) The New Economic Policy (NEP) aimed at boosting bumiputra economic rights was sensitive and balanced in that it did not redistribute existing wealth from the minorities to the Malay majorities, but served to grow the economic pie such that more growth was distributed to the bumiputras. This has successfully prevented backlash from the minorities while ensuring the economic interest of the majority are met.

. Social – Assimilative policies which imposed dominant culture onto minorities made them feel through rebellion. Accommodative policies which gave space for minority culture removed this cause for discontentment.

- Thailand: Under Phibun, the Thai Customs decree prohibited sarongs, use of Malay names and Malay language, Shariah law and Islam instruction, which bred discontentment and gave rise to the demand for more autonomy over their region’s affairs, contributing to the Dusun Nyiur insurrection.

- Vietnam: Article 3 of the 1960 Constitution ensured rights for minorities in the two autonomous regions Tay Bac and Viet Bac, putting in place a 10-year education which included 4 years of schooling in their ethnic minority language and 6 years in the Vietnamese language to ensure a gradual assimilation into the Vietnamese society.

. Military – Military suppression of minorities turned political problems into military confrontations which forced minorities to take up arms against the government.

- Philippines: (1968) Moro Muslims were massacred in the Jabidah massacre when they declined to infiltrate Sabah, leading to the start of Moro insurgency, e.g. rise of Muslims (Mindanao) Independence Movement (MIM) and the militant Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF)

- Burma: Constant tatmadaw harassment and brutality in minorities’ villages that were suspected of aiding local minority insurgents, and the “Four Cuts” program which sought to cut food, funds and information and recruits between insurgents and their local populace bred resentment which were manifested in the formation of an Alliance by the Karen National Union, Shan State Army, Arakan Liberation Party, Karenni Progressive Party and Chin National Front to fight the central government.

2. Different types of minorities

. Immigrant culture vs indigenous culture – Immigrants knew their place in the country and often prioritized economic gain before other rights, and were hence very tolerant even of oppressive policies towards them and had less tendencies to rebel. Indigenous minorities on the other hand believed they had a right to their land and had more tendencies to rebel to assert their rights in the face of oppression.

- Malaysia: Despite social discrimination against the Chinese in certain areas such as biased university quotas, the Chinese were still tolerant of such pro-Malay policies as their wealth was not compromised, and various forms of economic cooperation between the Malay and Chinese have developed e.g. Ali-Babaism and accommodations between the MCA’s “Multi-Purpose Holdings” and Bumiputra organizations in the 1980s.

- Burma: The Karens which have been native to the lands were very vocal in their demands for a separate state as they believed that they had a right to the land.

National Identity

3. Unifying ideology

. Presence of a common ideology that is widely accepted formed the basis for national identity.

- Indonesia: Pancasila has its roots in the revolutionary struggle and held widespread appeal, and coupled with pervasive usage since independence (e.g. during Suharto’s rule every party had to adopt Pancasila as the sole party ideology and Pancasila was incorporated into the education syllabus), was indoctrinated in the minds of the people. Furthermore the ideology did not distinguish or discriminate against any religion (“One God” but no mention of which god” hence was neutral and accepting of all religions

- Thailand: The monarchy had always been a respected authority and was a strong unifying influence. Furthermore, the ideology “Nation, Religion, King” was adapted to keep up with the changing contexts and increased demand for democracy—King Bhumibol propagated the ideology of “democracy with the king as head of state”.

4. Common experience of revolutionary struggle

. In some countries the common experience of struggling against the Japanese/colonial powers rallied the people together, while countries where independence was achieved easily lacked that common struggle and history to unite the people

- Indonesia: Common struggle during the 1st and 2nd Police Action served as a common unifying experience that helped in forging national identity

- Vietnam: Decades of struggle under the French (and during WWII, the Japanese) suppressive and brutal rule, plus the common violent struggle during the 1st and 2nd Indochinese War knitted the people together and established a strong national identity

- Philippines: On the other hand, independence was given to the Philippines on a silver platter by the U.S and they did not have to fight for it, contributing to the placidity of Philippines’ nationalist sentiments. Furthermore, politics revolved around the elites’ personal rivalries and the masses had no part to play in nation building or politics, making it difficult to build a coherent national identity.

5. Different colonial experiences . The deliberate divide-and-rule policies of colonial masters cemented the differences between ethnic groups. Different groups were treated differently, leading to suspicion and jealousy, and separate rule minimized the chances of contact and interaction, resulting in lack of understanding of each other.

- Philippines: Different rule of the central vs Mindanao regions caused a divide between the Mindanao Muslims and Filipinos. Mindanao was never under Spanish colonial rule and did not share the common struggle against the Spanish with the Filipinos. Furthermore, an experience with harsh U.S. rule (removal of Islam from central authority, ancestral lands falling into U.S. hands, etc.) in contrast to the benevolent rule of central Philippines cemented the divide between the Mindanao Muslims and the Filipinos.

Evaluation

1. Territorial disunity was more prevalent in oppressive governments as their policies were often restrictive and discriminatory, often resorting to the use of force which forced minorities to rebel. On the other hand, liberal government were often sensitive to minorities’ needs, hence removing the need for minorities to rebel. In fact under maximum governments their repressive policies not only forced minorities but also various other groups to rebel against the incumbent government.

2. Inherent conditions created the tensions and animosities between different groups while government policies exacerbated (or mitigated) the differences and were often the most direct trigger to rebellions.

3. Out of all countries, Vietnam was the only successful one in achieving both territorial unity and a strong national identity due to the convergence of various factors—a generally homogenous culture, a common unifying experience in their revolutionary struggle, inclusive socialist ideology (adapted to the Vietnamese culture) and apt government policies

To what extent do you agree that national unity was fostered through economic development in independent Asian states?

Introduction:

 National unity can be measured based on the ability to garner territorial unity, peaceful co-existence and the ability to foster a widely-accepted national ideology.  While countries such as Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia adopted a spirit of pragmatism and pursued economic development to forge national unity, only territorial unity was achieved.  Compared to Thailand or Burma, economic development was unable to bring about a widely-accepted national ideology.  Moreover, other factors such as the spread of national ideology, religion and education policies also came together to foster national unity. In this sense, economic development could only be said to have contributed to national unity amidst the backdrop of other factors. A) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BROUGHT ABOUT NAITONAL UNITY

1. Economic development was useful in bringing about peaceful co-existence and territorial unity since it redirected the attention of the masses away from factious political or ethnic differences, and satisfied their basic needs.

- Economic development provided legitimacy for the government as it ensured that minimally, the bread-and-butter issues of the population were addressed. This allowed for relative social stability since the living standards of people rose, and hence, resulted in national unity.

 Indonesia: Suharto’s drive towards economic development and depoliticisation enabled him to draw the people’s attention away from the factiousness of politics. He was able to lead the country to achieve an annual growth of GDP of 7.6%, which was almost twice that of the preceding decade, resulting in a source of pride for most Indonesians.

 Singapore: The fourth richest country in the world with its capital GNP of US$32, 940 in 1997, below only Switzerland, Japan and Norway, and this prosperity helped to ensure national unity.

B) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DID NOT LEAD TO NATIONAL UNITY

1.Often, minority regions were neglected and underdeveloped, or worse yet, were exploited in order to propel the economic development of other parts in the country. As a result, only particular areas were developed, while the minority regions were left behind, creating widespread dissatisfaction that led to strong separatist tendencies, compromising territorial integrity.

 Indonesia: The resource exploitation of copper, gold and silver in Irian Jaya by the Indonesian government confirmed Papuan perceptions of marginalisation, further fuelling discontent under the separatist group Free Papuan Organisation.

 Thailand: The White Hmong community in the Northeast suffered unequal official investment outlays, and in 1976, Northeast was allocated 18% of the budget even when it had 34% of the population. This allowed the Communist Party of Thailand to gain a foothold in Thailand, causing instability during the Cold War era.

- Hence, uneven economic development instead worsened national unity.

2. While economic development was successful in breeding social stability, such farcical national unity did not permeate to the level of a collective national identity being constructed.

- In fact, the two countries, Singapore and Malaysia, that prioritised economic development as a critical nation-building tool, were seemingly successful in retaining territorial integrity, but were less successful in the creation of a national identity.

 Singapore: Their economic basis of existence gave rise to utilitarian mindsets and little sense of inherent identification with the country. In fact, internationalisation of Singapore’s economy has led to a cosmopolitan younger generation alongside a non-English speaking older one, further contributing to Singapore’s cultural ambiguity and a lack of national identity.

 Malaysia: Economic development and the growing income gap between the upper and lower class in Malay community led to the rise of Islam as a religious force, with the rise of Islamic study groups such as the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (ABIM) in the University of Malaysia. This further led to an isolation of the other races and strained the creation of a collective, non-ethnic based national identity in Malaysia.

- Even in Singapore, in which economic development was arguably inclusive, we find that national unity was definitely wanting, as the country remained sorely in need of an ideology that could truly unify its people - granted, the PAP’s success at stabilising Singapore’s economy as well as its multicultural and multiracial approach to governing the country had managed to ensure a reasonable degree of territorial unity and a relatively peaceful state of coexistence, but the continued presence of ethnic ambiguity was a certain indicator of the fact that the level of cultural unity within the country left much to be desired. We thus see that economic development alone was not sufficient to bring about national unity, especially if it was not inclusive and only increased the disparity between different regions, exacerbating tensions which undermined territorial integrity.

C) OTHER FACTORS LED TO NATIONAL UNITY

1.National ideology helped to unify the citizens with a common belief or agenda and hence aid in the formation of a recognisable national identity.

- In fact, unlike economic development which only eliminates negative sentiments, national ideology goes beyond this and helps to create a sense of belonging to the state in the citizens.

- In the countries which saw economic development, such as Singapore and Indonesia, they were able to develop some form of national unity as their economic development was built upon the foundation of a successful national ideology.

 Singapore: The PAP ruled with unifying principles based on common Asian values and emphasized on multiculturalism. This was a crucial step for fostering territorial unity as all races and religions were equal unlike Malaysia’s Bumiputra Policy.  Indonesia: Also had a unifying national ideology of Pancasila, which ensured rigid ideological uniformity. The “unity in diversity” policy subordinated individual interests to the greater interests of society. This was important in melding national culture that helped to unify the masses.  Thailand: national ideology would be best explained with Thailand’s “Nation, Religion, King”. State propaganda of Thai culture and history were developed to rally the Thais. National holidays were given in honour of the King, Thai culture and Thai history was promoted to foster nationalism and unity. The successful combination of traditional components of monarchy, religion with modern political democracy was unifying and assimilative. Thus, a strong Thai identity was created, which permeated all aspects of Thai life. - The extent to which the creation of a national ideology was successful in helping a country attain national unity was to some degree contingent on the manner with which this national ideology was disseminated to their people, as we can see that even the ideology of Pancasila failed to unify the Indonesian people completely due to it having been forced upon the people living in Aceh and Irian Jaya, who already saw themselves as being discriminated against by pro-Javanese policies and who were thus opposed to accepting an ideology imposed by the ethnic majority - in effect, therefore, the imposition of Pancasila upon the people of these regions helped to strengthen rather than weaken their desire for separation from Indonesia.

- Overall, however, the presence of a unifying national ideology was still a crucial contributor to national unity within independent SEA states.

2. Religion played a part in fostering national unity. In countries where religion formed a significant part in the people’s way of life, the government established a link between the state and the dominant religion in the country so as to secure the loyalties of the citizens, who tended to be more traditional and respectful of religion.

- Religion was a valuable tool in which the emotions and loyalties of the people could be subconsciously tethered to the state.

- Religion was infused with the national ideology to appeal to the dominant ethnic group, creating legitimacy for the state and inextricably linking their sympathies with the state. This ultimately helped to create a widely-accepted national identity that fostered national unity.

 Thailand: In the 1910s, King Vajiravudh brought the ideas of Buddhist kingship and prathetchat (nation) in a powerful reconceptualization of “Nation, Religion, King”, which was highly successful given that the dominant religion was Buddhism and the monarchy had a long and rich history and was widely respected.

 Indonesia: Pancasila with its five principles under Sukarno was strictly adhered to by Indonesians. This was ensured by the attendance of Pancasila Guidance courses, especially among civil servants who wish to gain promotion since 1978. Pancasila has been deeply ingrained among Indonesians as their national ideology and was - and is - hardly seen as a tool of propaganda or control, a belief which was sustained through Suharto’s regime. Sukarno’s Islamic credentials were also played up to appeal to the majority Muslims through his widely publicised pilgrimage by Sukarno to Mecca.

3. Education policies were also responsible for fostering national unity. Education was used to propagate state ideology, and in imparting the knowledge of a shared history and experience to the people, it helped to foster a sense of national identity amongst them and hence aid in achieving national unity.

 Indonesia: All schools had to propagate Pancasila values, as seen in its inclusion in university admission tests. In fact, the 1989 National Education System Law required teachers to have a formal Pancasila qualification. From 1974, the Armed Forces History Center was also tasked with preparing the history curriculum in schools, stressing the role of the military.

-At times, education was also used as a common experience in itself to unite the people of a nation together.

 Singapore: The daily flag raising ceremony created a common experience for all Singaporeans and inculcated patriotism towards the state. History textbooks were written in all four language with accounts of immigrant races, and the Bilingual Policy in Singapore ensured the transmission of cultures and traditions to younger generations.

Conclusion:

 Economic development did lead, in some ways, to national unity, as it resulted in a higher standard of living for citizens and therefore eliminated resentment or ill sentiments arising from bread-and-butter issues. This meant that there was a reduced chance of divisiveness in society, and resulted in territorial unity.  However, while economic development did lead to territorial unity in Malaysia and Singapore, the same cannot be said for Indonesia. It also seemed to have a limited impact in forging a collective national identity.  Instead, it can be seen that national unity was not contingent on economic development alone, but in order to explain national unity, we have to examine the presence of other important factors that led to the formation of a credible national identity as well, such as national ideology, religion and education and language policies.  National ideology helped to establish a unified belief or idea that connected the people with the state, and religion, which was sometimes integrated into the national ideology, also helped to strengthen the citizens’ sense of belonging.  Education policies played a more important role in creating a shared experience for the people and forging a national identity.  Therefore, economic development on its own did not create national unity, rather it was the combination of it along with other tools such as other government policies that led to national unity being achieved both on a territorial level as well as in the creation of a national identity.

Why have independent Southeast Asian governments failed to win over the minorities in their nation-building efforts?

Introduction:

 The most relevant indicator of failure to win over is the presence of separatist movements, in which case it is also clear that not all SEA governments have failed to win over their minorities.  Nation building efforts refers to government policies to achieve territorial unity and forging national identity.  Thesis Statement: ultimately, government policy was the most important reason for the failure of governments to win over minorities. Governments that implemented dominant and forceful policies that failed to take into account the different inherent conditions for each minority group ultimately saw the most separatist threats. Main Handles

 Government policy/implementation VS nature of minorities VS external factors.  Managing minorities’ resistance VS eradicating ethnic tension.

A) ARGUMENT 1 - DUE TO NATURE OF GOVERNANCE

1. Dominant culture policies magnified ethnic distinctiveness

- Some SEA governments pursued assimilative policies which sought to extend the dominant language, religion and culture into minority space. The pursuit of a mono-ethnic policy in these multi-ethnic SEA states was perceived as an expansion of the dominant culture and as such it is met with resistance from the ethnic minorities.

 Burma: Administrative powers of Shan Sawbwas were officially terminated in 1959; 1974 Constitution had delineation of separate administrative divisions for ethnic minorities to facilitate centralised control, use of burman as official language in frontier areas; spread of Buddhism to hill tribes as the official religion. (Char - show Minority resistance)  Indonesia: Despite a secular constitution, transmigrasi from densely populated Java, Madura, etc, into the Outer Islands led to marginalisation of and intensification of the ethnic distinctiveness of the ethnic minorities.  Philippines: Similar transmigration programmes led to the Moros constituting only a minority 22% of the Mindanao population by 1988. Official laws were passed which appropriated Moros ancestral land for resettlement projects, further agitating Moro ethnic assertiveness.  Thailand: Strict control against minority culture with Thai Customs Decree and secular state education where traditional pondok schools closed down, since the 1930s until its repeal by Thanom in 1961.

2. Government’s use of force escalates minority violence

-Forceful and suppressive policies against the ethnic minorities led to persistent minority resistance. In some cases, suppression resulted directly in the formation of resistance groups.

 Philippines: The 1968 Jabaidah Massacre of Mindanao Muslims by the Philippines army had directly led to the formation of the Moros Independence Movements in the same year.  Indonesia: suppressive military rule and monitoring of East Timor in the 1990s after the 1991 demonstrations and suppression had led to louder cries for independence. Similarly, the military crackdown of GAM in 1990s which led to 3000 killed, had the same effects. Government’s economic exploitation of minorities foments resentments

-Economic policies which exploit the minority areas led to different paces of development which leads to center periphery tensions. Most ethnic lines coincides with geographical boundaries and are often endowed with better natural resources.

- However, central SEA governments focuses their economic developments in the central cities, and they deliberately extract resources from outlying areas to beef up the economy of the central cities. Hence, the economic hardship hardens ethnic minorities’s resentment against central government’s effort at nation building.

B) ARGUMENT 2 – DUE TO THE NATURE OF MINORITY

1.Lack of common historical experience

-Where the majority and minority groups lacked a common historical experience, ethnic groups would lack a shared foundation on which to build a collective identity. As a result, ethnic distinctiveness of the minority groups tended to be heightened, which in turn stiffened their resistance.

-The lack of common historical experience can be attributed to other inherent conditions such as geographical distinctions. The coincidence of geographical boundaries with ethnic lines has deepened the ethnic distinctiveness of ethnic minorities, leading to historical majority - minority tensions that made management of these groups difficult.

 Indonesia: Irian Jaya being on far east off the Banda Sea, was the least influenced by Dutch rule. The Timorese were under Portuguese rule until forceful Jakarta takeover in 1975 instead of Dutch rule, and similar to Aceh, they shared a common history of both anti Dutch and anti javanese resistance.  Burma: Frontier areas were under indirect British rule with the preservation of their traditional chieftains such as the Shan Sawbwas and little penetration of Brtish rule while the Ministerial Burma was under direct British rule. Anti British resistance was therefore most vociferous in Ministerial Burma while the Karens were in fact fighting with the British against the Burmans since the JO.  Philippines: Mindanao under harsh direct US rule in contrast to the other Philippine islands, after the Muslims resisted US control with resistance wards in the late 1890s. o As such, the different experience of the ethnic minorities and in many cases against the ethnic majority groups, have led to their agitation or indepednece form the majority as the majority fought for their independence from the colonial powers during the decolonisation period - Karens went to London in 1946 asking for independence as a nation while GAM leader Hasan di Tiro organised a reading of their own Declaration of independence of Aceh Sumatra.

2. Indigenous VS Immigrant minorities. -Governments were generally more successful with winning over the immigrant rather than indigenous minorities. The immigrant minorities, in particular the Chinese, were content with economic prominence and were socially acquiescent despite mono-ethnic official policies.

-Therefore they lacked the strong sense of territorial affiliation of the indigenous minorities. As a result both of their capital and non threatening stance, governments were also more accommodative of the Chinese than of the Indigenous minoritIes.

 Indonesia: Despite suppression of the Acehnese and Timorese, Suharto’s closest economic cronies were chinese capitalists such as Liem Sioe Leong. The extent of economic accommodation was clearly evident through disproportionate Chinese control of the economy - 4% of the population controlled 73 % of the economy.  Philippines: Despite suppression of Moros, Chinese were given substantial economic leeway resulting in 1.3% of the population controlling more than 50% of the economy.

-Where indigenous minority groups have a rich historical tradition of their own, the fundamental ethnic distinctiveness of minorities contributed to their assertiveness against majority culture, making them impervious to government efforts to integrate them into the majority culture.

 Indonesia: Acehnese assertiveness in part stemmed from the distinctiveness of the strong tradition of the Aceh sultanate.  Thailand and Philippines: Muslim identity of the Pattani and Moros respectively are inherently distinct from the Buddhist and Catholic majority of the rest of the country.

C) ARGUMENT 3 – DUE TO EXTERNAL FACTORS

-External pressure/intervention made minorities more difficult to deal with but it’s secondary at best, external support for minorities made them more difficult to manage only at specific junctures.

 Vietnam: Sino-Viet relations determined CPV’s policies towards Chinese directly. Deterioration of Sino-Viet relations in the late 1970s resulted in the anti-capitalist campaign. Chinese fled the country in droves as 2/3 of the boat people were Chinese, and social instability resulted. In contrast, economic liberalisation and improvement in Sino Viet relations in the 1980s saw the establishment of Chinese in Vietnamese economy.  Indonesia: UN intervention in the 1990s strengthened Timorese impulse for independence and led directly to the failure of the Indonesian government to hold onto East Timor.  Philippines: The support from OIC for Mindanao Moros led to Marcos agreement to create an autonomous region in mindanao. As an oil importer, Philippines needed to maintain friendly relations with Arab and OIC countries.

Evaluation: - The durability of minority resistance across decades regardless of government policy changes suggests that while the government can control or manage the extent of resistance in the short term, policies are unable to address the heart of minority discontentment and hence cannot truly win over the minorities.

 Indonesia: Irian Jaya separatist with their distinctive flag and anthem since 1961. Clamoured for full independence since the 1990s; intensification of violence from Free Aceh Movement in the early 1990s.  Philippines: Violence from Muslim Independence Movement and Moros National Liberation Front from 1968 and then the Moros Islamic Liberation Front from 1981.

- Ethnic distinctiveness is inevitable and harmless, whereas ethnic assertiveness leads to separatism. Government policies can manage the extent of ethnic assertiveness but it cannot eradicate ethnic distinctiveness, which is determined by an inherent set of factors unique to each minority group. Hence, countries that did not experience a separatist challenge had not necessarily won over the ethnic minorities, as minorities in these countries could simply have been ethnically distinctive but not assertive.

 Thailand: A supra village identity among the Northeast hill tribes and the ethnic assertiveness of an Isan consciousness even though they are content to remain part of Thailand, in contrast to separatist Pattani groups.  Singapore: Collective identity continues to be challenged by the ethnic distinctiveness of main ethnic groups. Evident in the little traction behind collective ideas such as Asian values, four core values and a national ideology.

Conclusion:

 While generally the indigenous ethnic minorities in SEA were not successfully incorporated into the society, the immigrant ethnic minorities were largely won over by the SEA governments.  Furthermore, despite not entirely winning over the ethnic minorities, the tension between SEA governments and ethnic minorities had generally dampened down as compared to the immediate post independence period, with the exception of Indonesia, which saw the only case of a successful secession in SEA.  While government policies contribute to the worsening of ethnic relations, it is the nature of ethnic minorities that really determines the outcome of the relationship, i.e. if the ethnic minority is inherently divergent in terms of religion, cultural and historical background, it is almost impossible to win them over to the majority.