Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January-February 2009, pages 34, 45

Islam and the Near East in the Far East

Obama Election Prompts Question: Can It Happen Here?

By John Gee

	An ethnic Chinese woman walks past election campaign banners of Malaysia’s opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP) at a predominantly Chinese market in the country’s northern Penang state, March 7, 2008 (AFP Photo/Tengku Bahar).

BARACK OBAMA’S election was greeted with excitement in much of Southeast and East Asia. In every country, there has been speculation about what an Obama presidency will mean. Above all, there are hopes that the new president will come up with policies that can stem the tide of bad economic news—but in addition, each country looks to its own particular interests.

Indonesians followed the election campaign very closely. That Obama lived for four years in the country with his mother and Indonesian stepfather is known by everyone. People were impressed to hear that he could still manage conversation in their national language. Anyone with a recollection of encountering Obama as a boy in Indonesia has been interviewed at length. The current owner of the house where he lived held off redeveloping it until the election result came out: would it be a bar or a museum?

Certainly, no previous U.S. president has had such personal connections with Indonesia, and there are hopes that this could promote closer relations between the countries. Perhaps it will make a difference in how much interest the new administration takes in Indonesia. More important for relations with Washington, however, has been the political evolution of Indonesia. The withdrawal from Timor Leste, a peace settlement in Aceh, the development of democratic life, including free elections and an outspoken and varied press, have made Indonesia a much more congenial partner for a Democrat administration than it was during the Clinton years, when the country either lived under dictatorship or was still at an early stage of struggling to emerge from under the shadow it cast.

How well goodwill would survive an unwavering continuation of past U.S. administrations’ strong support for Israel is open to question. If Binyamin Netanyahu emerges as the victor in Israel’s upcoming general election and is indulged while he expands settlements and heaps further hardships on the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation and domination, it will not be taken well. Muslims in the region who pay close attention to the news were disturbed to see that one of Obama’s first appointments was of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff. Emanuel volunteered to serve in the Israeli army during the 1991 Gulf war and remains a zealous supporter of Israel.

In Singapore and Malaysia, Obama’s election prompted discussion about whether members of minority communities would stand any chance of being elected to their countries’ most powerful positions. In predominantly Chinese Singapore, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong commented that it was possible that a non-Chinese would become prime minister one day, but that he did not think it would happen soon. Online polls were less hopeful. When Stomp, the Straits Times’ online Web site, asked whether Singapore was ready for a non-Chinese prime minister, 477 respondents said “No” and only 40 answered “Yes.”

In Malaysia, the U.S. election result coincided with a debate about government policies that openly favor one community over others. Malays make up just over 50 percent of the population, Chinese 25 percent, Indians seven percent, and other nationalities the remainder. Most of these others are members of communities such as the Dyaks of Borneo and the Orang Asli of the interior of the Malay peninsula.

Malaysia officially regards Malays and the ethnic groups that have been established in its territory for thousands of years as “bumiputras” (“sons of the soil”), who should be given preferential treatment over those who migrated to the country later—i.e., the Chinese and Indians, now resident for well over 100 years. This was expressed through the New Economic Policy launched in 1971, which gave bumiputras a favored status in education scholarships, government employment and procurement; rich and powerful Malays could use the policy to secure stakes in private companies.

To an outsider, the terms in which this policy is discussed seem alarming. The nation’s communities are referred to as “races,” and when Zaid Ibrahim, a leading figure in the dominant United Malays National Organization (UMNO), criticized the way in which the party’s central concept of Ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) had been promoted, Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar called him “a traitor to your own race.”

Anwar Ibrahim, leader of the three-party opposition alliance Pakatan Rakyat, responded by saying that the agreement among his own Parti Keadilan Rakyat, the largely Chinese-based Democratic Action Party, and the Islamist Parti Islam SeMalaysia protected Malay and Muslim rights. He alluded to the “social contract” agreed to by community leaders when Malaysia became independent. This was an unwritten understanding that the Chinese and Indians would be given citizenship in return for accepting Malay political dominance.

So it is not surprising that when the Obama question was asked in Malaysia, the response was an overwhelming “No.”

Yet even among the region’s  “No”-sayers, there were many who, whether willingly or grudgingly, saw in the ability of the U.S. to elect its first African-American president a testimony of societal strength.

Bali Bombers Not Martyrs

Three men sentenced to death for their role in the Oct. 12, 2002 Bali bombings finally were executed by firing squad on Nov. 9. A thousand supporters came to their funerals to honor as “martyrs” individuals who were largely responsible for killing 202 unarmed people, mostly Australian tourists.

The treatment of the murderers prior to their execution contrasted with that of individuals held in the past for their involvement in separatist movements in Aceh and West Papua, who were largely cut off from the outside world. The Bali bombers were able to give media interviews in which they tried to justify their actions and even urged others to retaliate for their execution. Not only did they have Internet and telephone access, but one married while on death row. Television coverage of the funerals dwelt on weeping relatives and supporters who carried placards glorifying the three.

Subsequently, the Indonesian Council of Ulama denounced the bombers’ supporters, saying that they were executed for committing murder in a country at peace and were not martyrs. The two main Muslim mass organizations, the Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama, called on Muslims not to glorify the killers.

John Gee is a free-lance journalist based in Southeast Asia, and the author of Unequal Conflict: The Palestinians and Israel.

< Prev		Next >