I was debating whether to respond to this or not and how to respond to this.

Mandatory general reading:

Orientalism, Edward Said and Eurocentrism, Samir Amin

I will link this article again, titled: Gay universalism, homoracialism and « marriage for all » by Houria Bouteldja.

I can also list various writers and works across the Islamic world, from Islamic feminism, Islamic liberation theology, decolonial marxists, to Islamic socialists. But I think that may not be helpful because again we are stuck in this false dichotomy of “liberal” and “conservatism”. Of a rigid notion of “progress” and “reaction”, which I might add spits in the face of dialectics.

I can’t fault those that believe in a linear progress of history. Early Marxism itself was tainted with such notions until the 20th century.

So instead I will posit this question:

If we are to believe that gender and sexuality are socially situated within a specific cultural and time dependent context, then why do we assume that terms derived from such contexts like “homophobia” and “misogyny” are universally applicable and can be compared across different regions and areas of the globe?

This is not to discredit the admirable goal of internationalism, of universalising the struggle, but we then have to ask ourselves if this “internationalism” is based on actual applicability of it’s critique to the entire world or merely a projection based on false conceptions, with aid from the cultural and political hegemony of US-led Capital?

Also I’d like to note: if the Communists and “Progressives” were correct and listened to the masses in the Islamic World, they would have won. But they did not. So who is at fault here?

In Malaya, the position is even more complex. In the first instance, we are, as yet, a communally fragmented people with neither history nor traditions which can generate emotional factors that would make for unity despite the fact that no common economic interests exist.

in On the Future of Socialism in Malaya (1958)

By kneecapping Chinese capital — the most advanced section of the Malaysian bourgeoisie — [The Malay-Muslim Feudal Class] had no choice but to seek new sources of capital that would not threaten its political hegemony. British capital diminished as East Asian capital — primarily from Japan and the newly industrializing economies of South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore — was becoming an important source of funds and technology."

in Malaysia’s ‘incomplete’ revolution (2023)

I was able to organize my life enough that I have some free time. As a result, I wanted to restart my project of compiling a digital list and references of Malaysian and Singaporean history, with particular focus on introducing the left-wing movements and debates in the country.

The top 2 quotes is the current introduction to the project.

I am just posting this to further incentivize me on finishing my current readings and the project.

Okay, to make this post more news-megaworthy, let me discuss this paper:

The Business Times - 4 Asean members among those said to have Putin’s blessing to join Brics as partners

BRICS leaders have agreed on a list of nations that will be invited to join as partner countries, as the bloc seeks to strengthen its role as a counterbalance to Western political and economic influence, and South-east Asian nations Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam are reportedly on it.

A lot of fan fare about this. Odd considering that out of the 4, 2 of them Indonesia and Thailand, also seek to be part of OECD.

I maintain a welcoming but skeptical view of ASEAN member states joining BRICS.

… The Philippines and Singapore are unlikely to join [BRICS].

The joke writes themselves but we all know this already.

The paper then goes on about Malaysia-Russia relations with not much substance.

Another article notes in it’s introductory line:

150 years ago, a Russian explorer made his way to the Malay Peninsula, not to colonise the territory, but to carry out scientific expeditions. In the 1870s, NN Miklukho-Maklai arrived in Johor to begin his exploration.

Colonialism is still a large part of national consciousness, even if it get’s subdued by neocolonial state narratives.

I am going to violate my posting break just to leave this article:

Gay universalism, homoracialism and « marriage for all » by Houria Bouteldja.

I have had arguments over this on here and Lemmygrad and so I am not going to engage further.

Just know that there is a different set of arguments and realities that we in the global south have to deal with it, away from the tired (and often orientalist/chauvinist) liberal-conservative dichotomy.

Hey folks! I will be busy for a long while and will probably be inactive on this site for the same period. I am starting my final year of university - very exciting times ahead.

As a result I’d like to leave a short primer about Malaysian and Singaporean politics on a highly contentious issue: race. Feel free to DM for further elaboration or sources regarding Malaysian/Singaporean politics. I am happy to oblige (whenever I have the time).

Alright, here it goes.

Class, race, culture, community, ethnicity and religion. All are jumbled up when talking about politics in Malaysia and Singapore.

How so? Firstly we have to take a civilisational approach: Chinese, Indian, Malay and Orang Asal (“Original People”) all have their own unique history of thousands of years, and within each there are defining characteristics that define their social structure.

What happens when this long overlapping cultural exchange in the Straits of Malacca gets disrupted by more recent and numerous immigration from South and East Asia under colonization?

This leads to stratification and polarization of the Malayan political economy (old name for Peninsular Malaysia that includes Singapore).

The Malayan Left had many arguments and debates on how to handle these fundamental cultural issues that have plagued the region for centuries. The debate is still ongoing.

However, there, perhaps 2 main strands can be identified:

1. Those that defines cultural autonomy as the primary contradiction.

2. Those that defines class and national liberation as the primary contradiction.

Many organisations can be labelled as one or the other but those within the same camp may not necessarily agree with each other with everything.

For an example, those that fall into

1. often fall into communal fights with other groups. An example of this would be the Chinese Literacy Movement that sought to maintain the existence of colonial era Chinese Language Schools, which more often than not, are also not under the purview of the colonial government (ie. in effect are private schools).

2. often underestimate the role of culture and race in the social reproduction of the Malayan economy. An example of this would be the MCP (Malayan Communist Party). In many of their party debates, it was often assumed that after national liberation was achieved, racial/cultural/communal issues would vanish. Unfortunately for us, we did not achieve true independence and the racialised political economy remains.

Prologue -

I can continue of course but I hope this short glimpse can help you understand why in my arguments I often involve terms such as “racialised”, “culture” or “chauvinism”. Because it is an essential part of understanding Malayan politics.

But understanding Malayan politics also requires some understanding of South, East and Southeast Asian politics. Under the global hegemony of US-led Capital, Eurocentrism and Orientalism pervades many thinkers, even in the Global South. There must be acknowledgment of this fundamental inequality of intellectual production which is overwhelmingly skewed to the West.

Only then you can finally understand and deal with the material realities of what we, the peoples of the Third World, have to face everyday.

See Read you all later.

The Diplomat- India’s Struggle to Find a Meaningful Role in Southeast Asia

I sometimes read The Diplomat as a guilty pleasure because between their tainted liberal platitudes showcases a deep insecurity and incoherence characteristic of Liberalism.

To establish itself as a significant actor in the region, India needs to consciously seek common ground with Southeast Asian countries on fundamental questions of regional order.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Singapore and Brunei Darussalam in early September once again underscored Southeast Asia’s enormous significance in Indian foreign policy – not only for strategic and economic reasons but because India cannot credibly claim to be a global power until it demonstrates that it can play a meaningful role within its own extended neighborhood. The Indian government has pursued the Look/Act Eastpolicy for three decades with the aim of strengthening its security, trade, and culturalpresence within the ASEAN region. “For India, no region now receives as much attention as this,” Modi declared at the Shangri La Dialogue in 2018.

Yet, after 30 years of the Look/Act East policy, the relationship has failed to gain momentum on its own, and India is struggling to define a meaningful role for itself in Southeast Asia. For the last six years, the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute’s The State of Southeast Asia surveys have found that the region’s elites consistently rank India lowest among all major powers in terms of its strategic, political, or economic influence in Southeast Asia. In 2024, nearly 2,000 respondents from academia, governments, and civil society across the region ranked India ninth out of 11 major powers in its strategic relevance to the ASEAN countries.

These are just stating some facts which are more or less true.

A key cause of India’s inability to carve out a greater role for itself in the region is the fundamental divergence in their international approaches. Although Southeast Asian countries are not a monolith, they have developed a broad consensus on four key questions. India maintains a markedly different outlook on all four.

Okay I would actually agree with this at face value. But let’s get into the details.

First, as small countries facing significant external threats, Southeast Asians support and wish to strengthen the existing U.S.-led rule-based global order, some misgivings aside. The ISEAS-Yusuf Ishak survey shows that the regional elites continue to favor U.S. leadership of the world. India, on the other hand, espouses a multipolar world. Despite its improving relations with the United States, it has often expressed skepticism toward U.S. global leadership. The ongoing Ukraine War provides a clear instance of the stark divide between India and Southeast Asian countries. While most of the region has supported United Nations resolutions condemning the Russian invasion, India had consistently abstained from voting against Moscow’s interests.

??? And in an instant the article reveals it’s liberalism. Obviously wrong in multitude of fronts.

Perhaps the author has not gotten the memo of multiple ASEAN leaders specifically utilising the word “multipolarity” in their speeches? India has no power in Southeast Asia not because they did not condemn Russia silly liberal. There is no “stark divide”.

Southeast Asians support and wish to strengthen the existing U.S.-led rule-based global order, some misgivings aside

You will find that anti-US sentiment in SEA is not merely just “misgivings” nor as easy to brush over because outwardly most SEA nations engage in bilateral relations with the USA.

Second, Southeast Asian countries have pursued a relatively firm but friendly approach toward China. While wary of Beijing’s rising assertiveness, they have sought mutually beneficial economic cooperation and tried to avoid sustained confrontation with it. They have been careful not to be swept up in the emerging China-U.S. rivalry.

Meanwhile, India’s relations with China have sharply deteriorated following their border skirmish in 2020. New Delhi considers Beijing to be its strategic and economic rival, and it increasingly sees its presence in Southeast Asia as a direct competitor to China. This zero-sum mindset has made many in the region uncomfortable.

Yes, even the annoying liberals in Southeast Asia recognise where the wind blows.

Third, export-dependent Southeast Asian countries broadly support liberal international trade, while India is often ambivalent and hesitant to open up its markets. While calling for an “open” Indo-Pacific, the Modi government has also promoted protectionist policies under its “Make in India” campaign. As per the latest data from the World Trade Organization, the average import tax in India is 18.3 percent, while in Southeast Asia it ranges from 0 to 11.5 percent. In 2019, India backed out of the ASEAN-centered free trade agreement called the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) at the last minute. India’s trade deficit with Southeast Asia has grown rapidly in the last two decades to reach nearly a quarter of the total trade, which makes it all the more hesitant to keep its market open to the manufacturing hubs of the region.

Classic free market liberalism that many of the intellectual elites in Southeast Asia regurgitate due to their own moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

The vacuous hole that is liberalism and its understanding of international relations. It can never shed its western bourgeois origins and the compradors in the region lap it up like the obedient dogs they are.

The final point of difference is regional multilateralism, a highly-prized feature of Southeast Asian politics. ASEAN is one of the most successful regional organizations in the world, instrumental in fostering peace and economic cooperation in the region. In contrast, India is a reluctant regionalist. Historically, New Delhi has preferred to deal with its smaller South Asian neighbors bilaterally rather than multilaterally. South Asia is one of the least integrated regions in the world, with moribund regional forums. While New Delhi has sought to act as a constructive partner to ASEAN, it has yet to demonstrate that it can champion regional cooperation and lead the establishment and management of regional institutions.

The divergence between the international outlooks of India and Southeast Asia places limits on what the Look/Act East policy can achieve. India’s incremental investments in the region through trade deals or military exercises are unlikely to bridge the divide. In fact, as the international order comes under growing strain, differences over such first-order principles will become increasingly salient. To establish itself as a significant actor in the region, India needs to consciously seek common ground with Southeast Asian countries on fundamental questions of regional order. Rather than assuming that others will follow its lead by default, it has to invest in understanding the needs and perspectives of its neighbors in order to encourage a united front to confront future challenges.

To lead Asia, India may need to rethink some of the basic precepts of its worldview.

Guest Author Sandeep Bhardwaj an independent researcher based in Singapore. His doctoral dissertation was on India’s relationship with Southeast Asia during the Nehru years.

Ah that explains it. I was already suspecting Singaporean brainworms from the 5th paragraph.

So in the end the guy got 2/4 of correct but only by coincidence. I think he may need to switch careers since he evidently has failed to do his own job’s namesake.

The Jakarta Post - Broadening the prospects for shared future of China-ASEAN community

*Note: I would rate The Jakarta Post to something like SCMP. Sometimes the article itself is fine, sometimes it is Liberalism. The paper itself has ties to the Indonesian ruling class and intellectual elite.

…As Chinese ambassador to ASEAN, I would emphasize that the resolution not only has a profound impact on the future of China, but also pools of vast opportunities for the development of ASEAN countries. It thus will open broader prospects for the China-ASEAN community’s shared future.

First, China’s reform will help China and ASEAN achieve common development. During the past 33 years, the two parties have joined hands to pursue modernization.

…The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects such as the China-Laos Railway and the Whoosh Jakarta-Bandung High-Speed Railway have helped promote regional connectivity and economic development along the line. The successful and vibrant China-ASEAN relationship has brought tremendous tangible benefits to the 2 billion people in the region.

…Second, China’s further reform and opening up will inject new impetus to China-ASEAN relations. The resolution outlines plans for fostering new quality productive forces, nurturing new areas for international cooperation, including next-generation information technology, artificial intelligence, aviation and aerospace, new energy, new materials, high-end equipment, biomedicine and quantum technology.

ASEAN is drafting the ASEAN Community Vision 2045 and its strategic plans, and making great efforts in developing the digital economy, green economy and blue economy, as well as other emerging industries. With more and more confluence of interests, China and ASEAN can align their strategies to explore more potential cooperation in the future.

China-ASEAN cooperation on clean energy has continued to expand in recent years. Chinese brands account for 67 percent of electric vehicles sold in ASEAN, contributing to the energy transition in our region.

…China stays committed to fully implementing the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative and the Global Civilization Initiative, and calls for an equal and orderly multipolar world and universally beneficial and inclusive economic globalization. China will continue to implement the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in a high-quality manner and promote regional economic integration. China will continue to unleash the opportunities of BRI cooperation to further enhance regional connectivity.

Global Times - ‘For the sake of Filipino nation, we should not take any side’: Philippine scholar at Beijing Xiangshan Forum

“We have been historically very friendly with each other for centuries long before the Western colonizers came. Let’s go back to where we have been.”

This was true for the entirety of Maritime Southeast Asia.

On the other hand, Tabunda suggested that relevant parties should "abandon the ‘territorial perspective’ on the South China Sea, and adopt a new one similar to China’s concept of “pursuing joint development while shelving disputes.”

Joint development has proved to be a robust way to ensure peace while negating Western imperialist meddling.

Express Tribune - US itself pushing Asean closer to China

A peaceful, stable and resilient region is the lifeblood of ASEAN Community Vision 2025, which is built upon three pillars: Political-Security Community; Economic Community; and Socio-Cultural Community. To implement this vision, the bloc strives to maintain peace and stability, integrate markets and build a community with enhanced capacity and capability to respond effectively to challenges and seize opportunities.

China’s Global Security Initiative (GSI) – underpinned by six commitments, including respecting territorial integrity of all countries; abiding by the principles of the UN Charter; and peacefully resolving differences through dialogue – is believed to challenge the US-led security. It fits well with ASEAN’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation that embodies universal principles of peaceful coexistence and calls for mutual respect for sovereignty, non-interference and settlement of disputes peacefully.

There is another striking similarity between the GSI, which seeks to build partnerships based on mutual trust, inclusiveness and win-win cooperation, and consolidate the political foundation for regional peace and ASEAN’s vision that aspires to collaborate and cooperate with like-minded partners to promote stability in the region.

Final paragraph which summarises it all quite nicely:

The bloc’s view of China radically varies from the West, which interprets the BRI as an emblem of its expansion strategy. Most Southeast Asian nations don’t see Beijing as expansionist or a military threat and aspire to benefit from the world’s second largest economy. This fundamental asymmetry in the respective approaches will continue to dominate the regional geopolitics and, to the dislike of the US, will cement China’s position as ASEAN’s comprehensive strategic partner.

Train gang stays winning

The Strait Times - New freight train service between Selangor and Yunnan set to spur Malaysia-China trade

VNExpress - Thailand develops dual rail tracks

Devdiscourse- Vietnam-China Railways: A New Era of Cooperation

The Star - Malaysia acquires 62 train sets through RM10.7bil [2.4 billion USD] leasing deal with China

A bit late but wanted to share, a 10minute talk by Taimur Rahman

YouTube - Imperialism and Historical Conjuncture Today

This is why understanding the opportunities that multipolarity places before the revolutionary movements of the world is crucial to turning the tide of history in our favor. BRICS represents an economic magnetic pole that for all those countries that want to escape the grip of IMF led austerity.

People’s Army Newspaper (Viet Nam) - ASEAN remains China’s biggest trading partner

ASEAN remained China’s largest trade partner, with bilateral trade volume reaching CNY 3.92 trillion (USD 546.6 billion) in the first seven months, up 10.5% from a year ago, according to statistics by the Chinese General Administration of Customs (GAC).

Of the sum, China’s exports to ASEAN stood at CNY 2.36 trillion, up 13.7% year-on-year, the agency said.

China has been ASEAN’s largest trading partner for 15 consecutive years, while ASEAN has risen to become China’s largest trade partner for four years in a row.

Last year, the two-year trade revenue accounted for 15.4% of China’s international trade value, and the number was 15.8% in the seven months.

Among the 10 ASEAN member countries, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia were China’s top trade partners, with turnover up 24.1%, 13.7%, and 4.1% respectively in the reviewed period.

You know, I’ll just mirror your low effort reply.

I support a Global South government when it bans reactionaries, and not support them when they ban revolutionaries.

Great. Now instead of continuing to speak past eachother, I just stopped the thread right here and we can both move on.

Why must we tail western liberals and their funded propagandists?

Is the world not govern by a Global Capitalist economy led by US capital? The least we can do is analyse the class forces at play, nationally and internationally before simplifying certain parties as just “anti-monarchy”.

As the OP’s linked article clearly states:

Coming back to Bangkok, the Thai generals are evidently circling the wagons sensing the Time of Troubles ahead as the Five Eyes is creating a cauldron in Myanmar that can ensnare the neighbouring regions. Bangkok, a western ally previously, is traditionally a hotbed of western intelligence — Five Eyes — and the authorities are well aware of the resentment in the US that their ties with Beijing have expanded and deepened and assumed a strategic character in the recent years.

And later on,

Washington is livid that its proxy, Move Forward led by a young man educated in the US and groomed to spearhead a colour revolution, has been banned. The Thai authorities understand that the western intention is to break up the ancient crust of their country’s polity, which is the only way to make inroads into what is otherwise a deeply Buddhist culture — specifically, to demolish the so-called lèse-majesté law protecting the institution of monarchy, an institution that dates back more than 700 years and is a pillar of stability in the country symbolising the unity of the Thai communities. By the way, Christian missionary work is active in both Thailand and Myanmar — as in next-door north-eastern region of India. And the evangelicals are an influential pressure group in the US politics.

The Thai authorities have shied away from confronting the US. Thai culture values serenity and avoids conflict and displays of anger. Even disagreements are to be handled with a smile, without assigning blame. Hence the circuitous route to squash Move Forward on legal grounds.

You can disagree with this narrative, but there is truth in this description. A similar thing happens in Thailand’s neighbouring countries. Call it culturalist, or idealist, but it’s an observable reality that the Southeast Asian Left has had to confront.

The question now arises, are we to support (and what would “support” even entail if it’s just a random comment on an niche online board?) the Western ideologues who espouse the virtuous nature of liberal democracy, when 300 years of history has shown that it was built on colonization and imperialism, or atleast be cognizant of the fact that the Global South countries face overwhelming odds and to fullfil your personal idealist notions of democracy may actually hamper the larger goals of anti-imperialism and communism?

Why are there so many racialist parties?

Colonial capitalism. The British.

One large point I think is also the failure in developing a national vision to dissolve the communal differences between groups. As a result the parties take on a parochial character.

And what do indonesians make of it?

Most Indonesians in Malaysia and Singapore (ie, those with MY/SG citizenship) would be counted as Malay in classifications and often continue to identify as Malay rather than individual ethnic groups (Orang Minang, Bugi etc) as a result. There is a reason for this but I’ll keep my answer short.

As for Indonesians in Indonesia or migrated to Malaysia and Singapore after independence - I am not too sure.

Indonesian national identity was developed through efforts by anti-colonial Indonesian nationalists (many where also Chinese) in establishing a Malay-based national language (Indonesian), and so racial classifications had little effect after independence. The Dutch also had not imported as much foreign labourers as the British did, and often utilised the plentiful population surplus in Java for their colonial economy.

A somewhat similar trend could be seen in Indonesia’s history with their Chinese minority and the indigenous populations of the islands outside of Java but that would not fall under racism or racialism - a colonial construct with extensive roots in Western Modernity and Colonization.

So when I say particularity, it genuinely is a particularity found only within Malaysia and Singapore in Southeast Asia, but can be seen in many examples across the wider Global South.

I know that there is some level of racialist tension between malaysia and singapore (and brain drain of malaysian chinese into singapore)

Brain drain is somewhat of a concern due to uneven development and the higher wages seen in Singapore. This is the result of the semi-peripheral nature of the Malaysia in the World Economy. Other than that it’s not much of a political issue - as in, it is not covered as much in the political theatre of both respective nations (usually).

Malaysia sometimes complain about brain drain but that is the nature of Capitalism when you are imbedded in global trade networks. The neoliberal leaders follow the mercy of International Capital, and so backlash faced is due to their own subservience and nothing more. Having the 11th most powerful passport in the world has its downsides.

Singaporeans also have a nascent anti-immigrant base, something along the lines of “they are taking our jobs” but that is also the reality of being a city-state for Western conglomerates to park their headquarters in. Capitalism is the root cause. Not that I expect the labour aristocrats in Singapore to take heed.

I truly hate the word racialism, please find an alternative

I can’t change the literature unfortunately.

Communalism is also sometimes used as a synonym but I prefer racialism because everyone here uses the word “race” and it is immediately understood what it means.

And I also use communalism to refer to movements that generally do not fall under the “3 Race” umbrella (Malay/Indigenous, Chinese, Indian) or for more specific ethno-cultural chauvinism within the aforementioned racialised categories.

All they need to do is just start accepting chinese refugees when Malaysia is destroyed by climate change.

Actually Malaysia will fair quite well with climate change due to being richer than our neighbours. The position of the country in the middle of the tectonic plate also means that typhoons, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions also are not much of a concern.

Most major cities are also not threatened as much by rising sea levels.

If anything we will see more climate refugees enter Malaysia as time goes on. 10% of the population are already immigrants, mainly from South Asia.

I know your point should be mainly taken in jest but Chinese identity in Southeast Asia and especially Malaysia and Singapore is complicated, I do not necessarily think they will be willing to move to the mainland just due to identifying as Chinese. The most vulnerable to climate change would be indigenous groups that live in/near the coasts. The Sea Nomads (Orang Laut) and certain Orang Asli groups comes to mind.

Since I am bored with all the Yankee electoralism, here’s a general profile of Malaysian electoral parties

Most of these parties and coalitions also form larger coalitions and/or are splinters/mergers of each other.

I use “Malay-Muslim” to denote a racial-religious political identity unique to Malaysian and Singaporean politics. “Malay” has multiple meanings and various contestations throughout Nusantara (Maritime Southeast Asia).

“Racialism” is also used to highlight the particularities of how race plays out in Malaysia and Singapore, which is different (but interconnected) to how “Racism” plays out in the West and other colonized regions (Latin America and Africa). Malaysia and Singapore’s closest comparison will probably be East Africa as a result.

Barisan Nasional (aka The Tripartite Alliance or the OG compradors, racialism and anti-communism):

UMNO - Malay-Muslim feudal lords and now national bourgeoisie. Racialism with neoliberalism, original progenitors of “Ketuanan Melayu” (Malay-Muslim Supremacy/Dominance) which simmered down the past decade

MCA - Chinese bourgeoisie, had contacts with the KMT, Chinese racialism

MIC - Tamil and Hindu communalism, Indian racialism

KIMMA - Muslim Indian communalism, minor party

Perikatan Nasional (Malay-Muslim racialism):

PAS - Political Islam with racialised characteristics, used to be anti-colonial anti-neoliberal left, drifted more to big-tent for racialised rural Malay-Muslim politics with current leader

Bersatu - splinter because of perceived faults in UMNO, racialised “indigenous rights” (more akin to “nativist” in American context) with focus on “indigenous” Malay-Muslim politics, full membership exclusive to “indigenous” people

Gerakan - Global South Social Democracy

Pakatan Harapan (Capital L Liberalism, mostly urban base, allegedly “reformist”):

PKR - Social Liberalism

DAP - Western Social (Liberal) Democracy, key proponent of “Malaysian Malaysia”, a racialised liberal compromise

Amanah - Splinter faction of PAS, Political Islam with Social Liberalism

Others

GRS - coalition with many component parties, Racialism with regional characteristics

GPS - coalition with many component parties, Racialism with regional characteristics

MUDA - Global South Social Democracy, youth politics

Warisan - Social Liberalism, regional

Pejuang - Malay-Muslim Dominance/Supremacy “Ketuanan Melayu”

PSM and PRM - Marxism/Socialism

Pakistan, Indonesia and Sri Lanka has also condemned.

I double checked for Indonesia and the article was only written 1 hour ago, with the referenced twitter post being sent https://x.com/Kemlu_RI/status/1818619190678626578 1.5hrs ago.

Malaysian reaction to the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh by the Zionist Entity

As per usual, Singapore is silent and will probably be late and say something close to what any European power would say. Indonesia’s national news agency Antara is also quiet and only reactions from individual politicians (in Indonesian) have happened (atleast from what I know).

Politicians across the divide slam killing of Hamas chief

All these politicians barely even have 1% of the courage and strength of the Palestinian Resistance.

How I would characterise the parties mentioned:

PAS - Political Islam with racialised characteristics

The other MP is from PKR - Social Liberalism

Bersatu - “Recent” splinter of the traditional comprador party UMNO, focusing on “indigenous rights” (it means something different here, more akin to “nativist”).

Amanah - Splinter faction of PAS, Political Islam with Social Liberalism.

If I were to generalise the political landscape of Malaysia, it would be similar to other semi-peripheral nations like Thailand, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa and Russia.

Malaysian Cabinet demands swift justice over Ismail Haniyeh’s assassination

MALAYSIA STRONGLY CONDEMNS THE ASSASSINATION OF ISMAIL HANIYEH (Press Release by Wisma Putra aka Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

All mosques under Jakim to hold funeral prayers for slain Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh

I have thoughts on this but I will not voice them because it will be misinterpreted and distract from the main point.

Bernama - World Leaders Denounce Killing Of Hamas Political Bureau Chief Ismail Haniyeh

Good rundown from the national news agency of Malaysia.

Global Times - Peace and development are firm consensus reached between China and ASEAN: Global Times editorial

The 57th Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Foreign Ministers’ Meeting and related meetings were held in Vientiane, the capital of Laos, from July 21 to 27. The main purpose of the meetings was to prepare for the political and outcome achievements of the Leaders’ Meetings on East Asia Cooperation in October later this year. Against the backdrop of global economic slowdown and geopolitical tensions, the overall situation in East Asia remains stable, with regional economic integration continuing to advance. It is the common aspiration and universal voice of the people of the region to remain an engine of development and highland of cooperation. This consensus was prominently reflected in these series of meetings.

In addition to the 10 ASEAN member countries, this meeting was attended by many countries and regional organizations such as China, the US, the EU, the UK, Russia and Japan. It has become an important platform for direct communication on bilateral and multilateral diplomatic issues. The 57th ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, with the theme of “Enhancing Connectivity and Resilience,” emphasized promoting infrastructure connectivity, narrowing development gaps, promoting economic integration and cultural exchanges, and emphasized resolving regional disputes based on international laws such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. These signs all indicate that peace and development have become the biggest consensus and firm choice of ASEAN countries. China is a fellow traveler in this vision of ASEAN. This is rooted not only in the historical genes of mutual recognition and pursuit of independence and mutual respect between China and ASEAN countries as developing countries, but also in the practical need to further strengthen relations in response to turmoil and challenges.

Reading this article I can’t help but think of Kim Il Sung’s words in 1985:

South-South cooperation is a noble way for the developing countries to strengthen their economic independence and achieve complete economic freedom through close economic and technical cooperation.

Only when they are economically independent can the developing countries free their peoples from backwardness and poverty, starvation and disease, the consequences of imperialist colonial rule, and consolidate the political independence which they have already won.

In FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT.

I know there is this belief that Chinese foreign policy isn’t as progressive as the Soviet Union’s, but speaking from a region of the world that was more influenced by Chinese Marxism than European, I don’t think that’s the case. This does not justify every single policy decision made but Chinese foreign policy has been especially pragmatic and beneficial for those in the Global South.

Ultimately I do wish for Deng Xiaoping’s theory of “joint development” to be the mainstay in the South China Sea as the waterway continuously becomes a chokepoint for imperialist aggression through the Philippines and Taiwan Province.

SEA Headlines

The Bangkok Post - Oil Workers Protest Wages

CGTN - Wang Yi: China to build East Asian community under ASEAN Plus Three mechanism

The Diplomat - Indonesian FM Criticizes Myanmar Junta Over ASEAN Peace Plan

Bloomberg - Asean Chief Sees Chance to Ramp Up Diplomacy in South China Sea

The Hindustan Times - Malaysia: A fulcrum for a new improved ASEAN-India-China strategic relationship

TASS - Russia-ASEAN strategic partnership contributing to stability in Asia-Pacific — statement

VietnamPlus - Vietnamese Deputy FM calls for stronger partnership between ASEAN and partners

TASS - Lavrov hopes ASEAN countries see risks of deploying intermediate-range missiles in Asia

SCMP - Southeast Asia and the Global South: rhetoric vs reality

This is another ISEAS banger. Everything they said is not necessarily inaccurate but the overall narrative is painfully liberal.

The Bangkok Post - Rifts surface at East Asia meetings