The emerging globalized world brings with it new global threats. Various forms of advancement have made the threat of terrorism a global threat. As a result, leaders of democratic states have been forced to work together to contain such threats. This paper examines the extent to which the Indonesian leadership transition from 2004 to 2009 affected security policy relations with Singapore. First, this paper takes a brief look at the new leadership transition of Indonesia and Singapore in 2004. Second, this paper examines whether the new leadership was able to strengthened regional security through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
New Leadership in Southeast Asia
The year 2004 was of significant change not only for Indonesia, but also for Singapore. Both, Indonesia and Singapore, went trough a leadership change in 2004, which allowed them to realign their relationship and interest in the region. On August 12, Lee Hsien Loong was sworn in as Singapore’s third prime minister since independence. Lee Hsien Loong preceded Goh Chok Tong’s 14-year leadership. Lee had long been expected to have some sort of leadership because his father, Lee Kuan Yew, was Singapore’s first prime minister. More notably on October 20, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, was sworn in as Indonesia’s sixth president since independence. Mr. Yudhoyono was the fourth president in six years, but was the first directly elected president since the fall of President Suharto in 1998.
The leadership transition of 2004 is crucial to understanding foreign relations between Indonesia and SIngapore because it laid the platform from which they could renew, strengthen, and expand their regional ideals. In the aftermath of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Singapo...
... middle of paper ...
...nd Southeast Asia: Australia, the U.S., and ASEAN’s
Counter-Terror Strategy.” Asian Survey 48, no. 4 (July/August 2008): 626-649.
Chow, Jonathan T. “ASEAN Counterterrorism Cooperation since 9/11.” Asian Survey 45, no. 2
(March/April 2005): 302-321.
Febrica, Senia. “Securitizing Terrorism in Southeast Asia: Accounting for the Varying
Responses of Singapore and Indonesia.” Asian Survey 50, no. 3 (May/June 2010):
569-590.
Kassim, Yang Razali. Transition Politics in Southeast Asia: Dynamics of Leadership Change
and Succession in Indonesia and Malaysia. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish, 2005.
Lee, Kuan Yew. “The United States, Iraq, and the War on Terror: A Singaporean Perspective.”
Foreign Affairs 86, no. 1 (January/February 2007): 2-7.
Narine, Shaun. “ASEAN and the Management of Regional Security.” Pacific Affairs 71, no. 2
(Summer, 1998): 195-214.
Widodo, A. (1995) The stages of the state: The arts of the people and Rites of hegemonisation. Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs, 29, pp.1-35.
Being a Singaporean, I believe there were two ‘crucible’ events that affected leaders in Singapore. They are WWII and the Independent Day. The devastating effect left behind by WWII served as reminder to the leader not to start WWIII. The Independent Day of Singapore was the marked that we no longer belong to any other people but ourselves. The day that Singaporean found an identity for the first time and beginning of the journey to become a proud Singaporean of who we are today.
Budiono Kusumohamidjojo (2008) stresses the fact that Australia and Indonesia must behave in the same attitude towards each other. He states that ‘do not hurt us because we do not hurt you’ (p. 145). This illustrates that due to the closeness of these countries, Australia must come to terms with the Indonesians. It is critical to note that countries such as India and China exert influence on Indonesian nations. According to the Foreign Minister Mochtar Kusumaatmadja, ‘Australia expects much more from Indonesia’ (p.144) this indicates that Australia’s insincere and turbulent attitude is the destructive force in this connection. For instance, Indonesians assume that the Western countries will allow access to education and work. As Australia seems to be a nation that allows individuals to have a better chance to achieve a better future; however, this is an area of discussion. Kusumaatmadja states ‘Australia should understand us (Indonesia and South-East Asia) better and should be aware that they belong to this part of the world’ (p.145). This demonstrates that if Australia was to show more care and comfort to other countries, it would allow relations to flourish. In addition, Kusumohamidjojo mentions that most Indonesian leaders are resistant to the idea of commitments made with the Western countries. It is clear that ‘in many cases, Indonesia does oppose the Western countries
The Associated Press, ‘Key dates in Indonesia’s modern history’, Associated Press Newswires, 2004, pp. 5
Southeast Asia has been controlled by Imperialistic powers since 1400s. These nations become prized for the various countries natural resources, strategic location, and the new markets to be found. The geographical locations become one of the most important factors that lead to the development of each country separately. As we reach the 19th and 20th century, European, American and Asian imperialism still has its claws deep in Southeast Asia. Imperialists are the ones who decide and shape the nation’s leading them down the path to where they are now. Their location to other Southeast nations becomes another reason of interest, which eventually lends a hand in forming a nation.
Suharto’s New Order regime was blatantly corrupt and filled with nepotism, this mixed with the aftermath of the Asian Financial Crisis left a legacy of socio-political challenges for subsequent reformasi governments. These challenges include the legacy of authoritarianism, corruption, depoliticised civil society, a powerful military and an inefficient judiciary and government. (Pohlman) The different reformasi governments failed to comprehensively resolve these challenges, leaving Indonesia riddled in uncertainty, and thus leading to its economic sluggishness.
The political instability probability in Singapore is altogether low. The political and economic risk consultancy (PERC) stated that Singapore revels the lowest political risk in the continent. We are a democratic county. Singaporeans elect representatives to lead the country. Since its independence from the British and Malaysia, Singapore have appreciated political stability. The stability today is seen as peace and one of the best standards of living. Furthermore, Singapore today has become one of the most improved business opportunities.
I am pursuing a Master’s in International Affairs through American University’s Global Governance, Politics, and Security Program. My emphasis is on security risks that arise from great powers and non-state actors in the international system. To these ends, I have taken courses on great power politics, countering terrorism, insurgency/counterinsurgency, and intelligence in foreign policy. The takeaways
Singapore has grown from being level with the rest of the world average in the 1950s and 1960s to a steady rise in growth starting in the 1970s all the way up to 2008. Singapore has rapidly began to close the gap between them and the United States as far GDP per capita is concerned, and with this begs the question to what is going on with Singapore’s economy? Mitchell states that Singapore has found that a “small government and free markets are a recipe for strong growth and rising levels of prosperity”. Singapore has found this as the best way for them to thrive and they have taken this to full advantage as they have slowly climbed to the tops of the charts of the worlds’ economies and have not looked as though they have turned back. (Mitchell
Since Singapore gained sovereignty in 1965 from Malaysia, its politics has been dominated by the People Action Party. Under the leadership of People Action Party, Singapore has a “distinct political culture: authoritarian, pragmatic, rational and legalistic.” Economic growth and political stability were maintained by the People Action Party’s guidance. Thus, Singapore is corruption- free government where power is gained through skill and performance that attracted investments from other countries (“Introduction to Singapore’s political system”, 2011). Singapore scored the point of 1.33 in the 2009 World Bank’s governance indicators for the factor political stability. The government also opens a number of sectors such as financial services o, telecommunications, power generation, and retail to increase competition and foreign firms (eStandardsForum, February 2010).
Singapore as a country has had various transformations throughout its history, however the period 1950 and 1970 was quite critical. Much of these changes had a lot to do with the development of trade and manufacturing. This is without forgetting the financial sector where the intention was to come up with a financial hub that could be used in economic development. Looking at the case of Singapore, we would say that it is a productive economy with a very high market competition. This observation has been further clarified by the Swiss International Institute for Management Development, going with their report that they released in the year 2001 (Chellaraj & Mattoo, 2009). In this study, we intend to evaluate the case of political economy of development in Singapore and examine the tensions between the state and various economic institutions. In additions to examining this institution, we would also like to examine how these variables have contributed towards the attainment of favorable growth rates and economic prosperity.
Far across the Pacific Ocean and the familiarities of the West is a region wildly different from conventions akin to liberal democracies; the region of the Asian South-Pacific encompasses the area from China to the south, and India to the east. While each country included may have similarities beyond geographic location, it is important to distinguish between each as they are, due to state sovereignty and the prevailing issue of nationalism. Main superpowers in the area are, aside from India: China and Japan. The major superpowers of the region have, of course, directly influenced the ways in which smaller countries conduct themselves domestically – through ideology and economic strength, for example – and in foreign politics within the region and abroad. While China’s recorded history is millennia older than that of the continental United States, one could argue that, due to political instability, globalization, and the development of technology, China’s own government and politics have been diluted into a pseudo-democratic, nationalistic state. Since the 1990’s, the leadership of China has strongly been influenced by nationalism; therefore, when dealing with issues surrounding the country, it is essential to examine the essence of nationalism within China, and why a country focuses on strengthening nationalism as a way to secure stability within. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to examine the relationship between China and others in the regional – especially where tensions often rise and disputes occur. In studying the essence of nationalism within the Southeast Asia (SEA) region, one of the best examples of national identity creating clashes between states, in the modern era, would be the disputes over the Senkaku/Diaoy...
Moreover political resources in comparison with Malaysia are said to be an instruments of nation-states thereby use of political resources often interacts particularly with economic resources vice versa. However to the mere of international realists, a nation-state’s international status is often reflected by its national power, including its military, economy, national will, social cohesion, literacy rate etc. As a matter of fact there is a notion which says that if a country’s looks stronger is dependent upon the country’s national power which improves international status level with greater ability to influence the global arena. Indeed international standing can be established in the decision-making process of unilateral organizations. Another example of international relations strength is on economic resources which are upon foreign trade; overseas deal and foreign aid are the most popular economic resources...
50 years in which Singapore has progressed decisively, from Third World to First World. 50 years in which we have experienced peace and security, while being updated every day about flare-ups, terrorist attacks, and wars in many places of the world. Singapore today's success to where it is fits in with the assistance of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew. He advocates the needs to acquire freedom is to first have the capacity to create an impression to others that Singapore is powerful and not easily suppressed. To uphold an impression of deterring any danger from external country, an example would be the National Service where the citizens come together as a whole to defend its security. Singapore also unite with Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand in creating the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with the end goal of promoting regional stability, economic development, and cultural exchange. In 1968 Britain announced its decision to withdraw from its military bases in Singapore within three years. Over the years, the PAP developed a stable and corruption-free government, marked by strong central development planning and social policies where investors would enter relations with Singapore’s trading and economy that results to its economic success
Using Singapore to debate has an interesting point of view. After it separation from Malaysia at 9 of August 1965. The nation became an independent state. Singapore was on her own, a tiny island lack of natural resource such as oil and rubber plantation, and on the other hand Singapore own a strategic harbour location.