出处 ∶星洲日报
原题 ∶The emergence of Indonesia
作者 ∶凯林拉斯兰（Karim Raslan）
发表日期∶18-04-09
翻译 ∶陈莉珍
我一直对东南亚4个国家：马来西亚、新加坡、泰国、印尼的政策深感兴趣。近来，这些国家更经歷了戏剧性的政治发展。
就拿马来西亚来说吧。上周新首相纳吉上任，他领导的政府一开始就面对两场补选失利，还有不太受欢迎的內阁名单所打击。
新加坡方面，我们看到了內阁重组。李显龙让人民行动党里的一些老臣子退休，例如副总理贾古玛退位让贤给国防部长张志贤。当然，这些改变无法平息普通老百姓心里的愤怒，目前环球经济危机影响，他们迫切想知道国家的財富何去何从。
泰国也有它的隱忧，阿比希首相无法控制亲塔辛的红衫军，他们攻击东盟峰会，对曾经引领东南亚的泰国和东盟而言，是个打击。阿比希没有办法拉近泰国社会內陆和城市地区的距离，现在他靠泰王和军方来巩固势力，而非通过选举贏得民心，將使情况恶化。
这一片混乱当中，印尼却是崛起的新星。最近结束的国会选举，由总统苏西洛领导的民主党获胜，也证明该国的民主是充满生机的。很多人对印尼的地方分权和解放过程存疑，但印尼承受环球经济危机的能力，却证实这是个可行的方法。
这让我们不得不思考，其他3个国家纷纷面对政治动荡，反观印尼却在崛起，开始在全球取得地位。为何有如此显著的分別？是甚么让印尼与眾不同？
如我之前所说，印尼崛起的力量是从其开放公共领域开始。开放言论自由、新闻自由的法令，再加上地方分权政策开启了很多机会之门。虽然这个共和国还是被很多其他问题缠身，例如贪污和选举里假选民的事件玷污了这次选举。
不过，是印尼而非新加坡受邀参与G20的伦敦峰会，印证了印尼的崛起和新加坡的没落。苏西洛看似崛起成为「苏丹」，但不像苏哈多，苏西洛的势力是通过人民对他的支持，如果他连任后无法表现，人民绝对有能力淘汰他。
其他东南亚国家面对难题的主因，是他们的领袖拒绝摒弃过时的思想或执政方式。马来西亚和泰国的领袖过於恋栈权力，以致他们无法看见自己的囂张和不公。
在新加坡，新晋的人民行动党领袖里人才济济，但这已不足够了。新加坡在李氏王朝下，仰赖邻国的弱点（尤其执法政策）来推动发展，但这明显无法持续。这个政经模式需要改革，但他们的领导层可有发觉这种需要？如果发现了，他们有改变的意愿吗？
所以，当我们可以保持乐观的態度展望印尼在危机后的表现，我们却无法断定新加坡、马来西亚或泰国是否有一样的命运。危机之后，一切都会改变，那些以人民为本的国家，肯定会昌盛，反之，那些不以民为本的就会灭亡。
老旧经济成长为主，人权自由有限的模式显然行不通了。早就发现这个道理的印尼，现下开始修得正果，反观那些从前漠视这个道理的国家则开始自食其果。
喜欢与否，东南亚势力都將重新定位，且让我们猜猜谁会名列榜首？雅加达未来几年可能成为这个区域里最具影响力的首都！
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve always been interested in the strategic fortunes of four Southeast Asian countries: Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia. All of these countries have recently undergone some dramatic political developments.
Malaysia, for instance, got a new Prime Minister last week, with Najib Tun Razak’s long-forecast ascent to power finally taking place. On the other hand, his fledging administration was struck by two bye-election defeats and an overwhelmingly so-so reception to his first Cabinet.
Singapore, too, will soon a Cabinet reshuffle of its own. Premier Lee-Hsien Loong is to put several long-serving PAP workhorses to pasture, most notably DPM Shunmugam Jayakumar, who has been replaced by Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean. Again, however, this hasn’t done much to assuage the resentment of ordinary Singaporeans who want to know what has happened to their nation’s wealth as the Republic totters under the global economic crisis.
Thailand has also had its share of political drama, where Abhisit Vejjajiva’s fledging government appears to have failed to contain the pro-Thaksin ‘Red Shirt’ movement. Their storming of the East Asia Summit in Pattaya is a blow to the former’s prestige and to Thailand, which previously had pretensions to lead Southeast Asia. Abhisit has failed to close the disastrous gap between the rural and urban divides in Thai society- which will only be exacerbated by his reliance on the monarchy and military to shore up his power rather than seeking a legitimate popular mandate.
Amidst all this turmoil, however, Indonesia, long-despised as a morass of instability emerges as a bright spark. The recently concluded legislative elections there, which was won by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s (SBY) Democrat Party is proof that democracy is alive and well there. Many were sceptical of the process of decentralization and liberalisation that Indonesia embarked upon, but the fact that it is weathering the economic crisis better than other Asean nations is proof that this has been a source of strength.
So consider, therefore, the three nations that are going through political doldrums and the one that is fast-rising to regional, even global prominence. Why this contrast? What separates Indonesia from what has been going on in Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand?
As I’ve argued before, Indonesia’s new-found resilience lies in its opening up of its public space. Its provision for open debate and a free press, as well as the decentralization of power to the provinces and districts has thrown open a world of possibilities. Now, it is true that many problems still plague the republic- such as corruption and the fact that the last elections were marred by voter fraud.
Nevertheless, the fact that Indonesia, rather than Singapore was invited to the G-20 London Summit is indicative that the former’s star is on the ascent while the latter’s dims. Also, SBY may be emerging as a ‘Sultan’, but unlike Suharto his authority is derived by the support of ordinary Indonesians which can very quickly be withdrawn if he fails to perform in the second-term he seems to be assured of.
The other Southeast Asian countries, on the other hand, flounder because its elites refuse to abandon their outmoded ways of thinking and governing. The Malaysian and Thai elite seem to be so obsessed with retaining power that they no longer see the manifest arrogance as well as injustice in how they are conducting themselves.
In Singapore, the new cadre of PAP leaders bear the usual talented imprimatur of the party but this is hardly enough anymore. Singapore under the Lee dynasty has relied on the weakness of its neighbours (especially in terms of regulatory policy) to fuel its own development but this simply cannot last. The entire politico-economic model across the Causeway needs to be reworked but does its leadership see this, and if so do they have the will to carry it out?
So while one has every reason to be optimistic about Indonesia’s prospects in the post-crisis world, one cannot say the same thing about Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. The post-crisis world will be one that is vastly different, and if the last couple of months are anything to go by, the countries that empower its people will prosper while those that don’t shall perish.
The old model of a combination of top-down, economic growth and limited civil liberties simply doesn’t work anymore. Indonesia found that out a long time ago and is now reaping the benefits- the other countries in the region conveniently chose to ignore this and now taste their bitter harvest.
Like it or not, there is going to be a major reordering in Southeast Asia, and guess who will end up on top? Jakarta could well be the region’s capital of power and influence in the years to come.
没有评论:
发表评论