I appreciate the PM not giving a damn about accuracy lmao

Thai baht surge sends shockwaves through economy

PATTAYA, Thailand – The Thai baht has surged to its strongest level in more than four years, unsettling exporters, tourism operators, and farmers alike. Analysts warn that the speed and scale of the currency’s appreciation could cause deeper and longer-lasting damage than policymakers had anticipated.

On September 9, the baht briefly touched 31.58 per U.S. dollar before easing to 31.74 later in the day, according to Kasikorn Research Center. Since the start of the year, the currency has gained 7.5 percent, making it one of the strongest performers in Asia. The rally has been fueled by a combination of a weaker U.S. dollar—down nearly 10 percent this year under political pressure on the Federal Reserve during Donald Trump’s presidency—rising global gold prices, and heavy foreign capital inflows into Thai bonds. Thailand’s significant gold reserves, together with speculative flows into local markets including cryptocurrency, have further boosted demand for baht.

The appreciation is rattling the country’s export-reliant economy. Thanakorn Kasetsuwan, president of the Thai National Shippers’ Council, described exporters as “shocked” by how quickly the baht moved from 34 to 32 per dollar within just a few months. He explained that every one-baht gain wipes out roughly 10 million baht in export value. For example, a $10 million shipment that would have been worth 340 million baht at an exchange rate of 34 now yields only 320 million at 32—a loss of 20 million baht, or 5.8 percent, on the same order. While large corporations can hedge against this volatility, most small- and medium-sized exporters cannot, leaving them exposed to significant losses.

There was this trending infographic on social media showcasing attempted color revolutions and general social instabilities of neighbouring countries surrounding China.

The notable countries that have not yet fallen into this being Mongolia, Laos, Vietnam and Malaysia.

I can’t comment much on the rest but let’s take a quick look at some statistics for Malaysia to see if the country has potential.

Unemployment rate: 3.0% (About a decade low)

Youth unemployment: 10.2%

2025 1H GDP Growth: 4.4%

Headline Inflation: Jul 2025, 1.2%, monthly YoY peak at 1.7% for 2025

And apparently >70% of the assets related to the infamous 1MDB corruption scandal has been recovered.

And of course: Nepal, US turmoil a reminder for Malaysia, says Anwar

Anwar reminded Malaysians that unity is the foundation of a nation’s peace which, in turn, drives economic development and the overall wellbeing of its citizens, Utusan Malaysia reported.

“Compared to many other countries, we are far better off,” he said.

“For example, in Nepal, there are riots everywhere … a minister was stripped, and his wife burned to death.

“Just two days ago, there was a shooting involving a leader at a university in the US.

“So let us pray that we can continue to preserve peace and unity,” he said when officiating an event in Iskandar Puteri, Johor, today.

… Don’t let development erode what truly matters,” he said.

“We may build malls and industries and record high profits, but if we ignore issues like income, housing, welfare and education, we destroy our values and morals in the process.”

Had to avoid commenting on Indonesia because of diplomacy it seems.

“Other countries are worse and so we should just be glad”. A .

I don’t know enough to give a confident answer about the particular politics but I can give a general picture.

I think there is just a lack of organization, or in other words, a concrete movement that are able to organise around class and apply any semblance of pressure in Indonesia. As much as it has experienced some level of industrialization, it suffers from this top-down level push and so ultimately the economy suffers from uneven development and there is no consensus being built to actually holistically build up the productive forces for example. It’s emblematic of a lot of Global South development, where conventional wisdom suggests a technocratic elite is all is needed for a country to be successful. You just need the technical know-how of industrial capitalism, they say, but without considering the underlying mass organisation needed to protect it from imperialist attack. That’s why financialization and rentierism (mislabelled as “corruption”) has sunken its teeth into many SEA economies.

Jokowi’s reign was quiet on the media end, but many of the Indonesia’s problems, whether economic, or national/ethnic/religious, still boils under the surface, just like in India or Nigeria. I am unsure if the distinction and description you provided between the two presidents is fully justified, but ultimately, to be an annoying communist, it’s because of capitalism.

I’ll refer to an article by Arah Juang, that published articles in both Indonesian and English.

The People Are Strangled by Taxes! The Political Elite’s Privileges Are Skyrocketing! Crush the Political Elite!

The Prabowo-Gibran regime continues Jokowi’s accelerated remilitarization efforts. In general, Indonesia’s political elites have a weak faith in democracy and are cowardly in confronting the military. The 1998 Reformation, or democratic transformation against militarism, was incomplete. Political elites, including the National Mandate Party (PAN), the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), the National Awakening Party (PKB), the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), and others, betrayed the 1998 Reformation. The ABRI faction was abolished, but many other elements remained, from extra-territorial commands to various military businesses and companies.

The strengthening of militarism also served to protect this policy of allocating power. Similarly, various new legal instruments were created to support it, such as the RKUHP (Criminal Code), the RKUHAP (Procedural Code), the TNI (Indonesian National Armed Forces) Bill, and policies related to general elections. Meanwhile, various legal instruments were created to strengthen the distribution of economic power to political elites, such as the Job Creation Law, the Minerba Law, and so on.

…Protest after protest that continuously erupted. August 13, 2025, Pati residents held a large-scale movement, organised by the United Pati Community Alliance, in front of the Regent’s Office. They demanded the cancellation of the PBB-P2 or Rural and Urban Area, and,  Land and Building Tax  increase and the removal of the Regent’s position. Tax protests then spread to other areas, with demonstrations occurring in at least Bone, Cirebon, and Cianjur.

On August 25, protests began in major cities, primarily protesting high taxes and the privileges gained by members of the House of Representatives (DPR). Demonstration took place in Medan, Jakarta, Pontianak, and Surabaya.

Regarding the issue of democracy in Papua, on August 27, 2025, Sorong residents organized a demonstration at the Sorong Police Headquarters. The Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) deployed 150 personnel, including two armored vehicles, to the protest site. Police sprayed the crowd with tear gas.  By the end of the demonstration, at least 12 Sorong residents were arrested and several demonstrators were injured. Authorities also shot a motorcycle taxi driver who was inspecting conditions on Jalan Sudirman.

…The readiness and accuracy of a revolutionary organization in responding to and leading such movement do not depend on its spontaneity but rather on the constructed historical character of that revolutionary organization. Which includes the correctness of its struggle program, its ideological perspective, and the traditions of leadership cultivated within the organization. If a revolutionary organization is built on the basis of only promoting normative issues or simply participating in actions, it is will likely get trapped in merely follow the steps of spontaneous movements. Likewise, if a revolutionary organization becomes stuck only theory work without ever practicing leadership, it will struggle to provide leadership in spontaneous movements. It is precisely during this non-revolutionary period that the work of building a revolutionary organization becomes crucial and important as it will be too late to build once the movement, uprise, or revolutionary situation occurs.

By then, the revolutionary organization must be in a state of readiness to launch action at any moment. This is a situation where something that took years to build can drastically change in a few days or even hours. However, to be tactically flexible, one must truly possess what can be called tactics. Without a strong revolutionary organization,  tested in political struggle across all situations and times, it is impossible for a systematic action plan to be considered a tactic. Tactics must be guided by strong principles and executed steadfastly, qualities derived from a strong and tested revolutionary organization.

Said Iqbal’s alignment with the authorities was displayed during May Day when he gave access Prabowo to speak, hold hands, and danced with workers. Said Iqbal’s statement misdirect the blame and perpetrators of the violence. Workers themselves have repeatedly experienced violence from political elites. The labor movement was sabotaged by the New Order military regime, as well as labour movements being attacked, as seen in the history of Omah Buruh and Saung Buruh. In essence, the state of these political elites is a tool of violence against workers and the people. There, resistance against them, including the use of violence, is a method of struggle for workers and the people.

Various groups often categorized as “civil society”– such as NGOs and several yellow unions, as well as students and Indonesian diaspora alumni, have adopted a reformist stance against the current radicalization of the people’s movement. They hope that Prabowo, the House of Representatives (DPR), the National Police (Polri), and the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) to remember they represent the people’s voice, obey the rule of law, stop repressive behavior, demand transparency, accountability.  Their rhetoric often culminates in intellectualised pleas ending with slogans like: “We Are Waiting. Prove The People”s Voices Are Heard.” These citizens or “civil society” actors seek change through strict adherence to the law and the rules set by political elite.

… Indeed, we must not be naive, assuming that political elites, regardless of faction, or even imperialist, regardless of country, will simply sit idly by. They will do everything in their power to ensure the movement aligns with their own interests, from outright massive repression to exploiting labor and co-opting people’s movements.This exploitation can be achieved through propaganda in the mass media and through infiltration of organizations and mass demonstrations. To some extent, they may benefit from the struggle for democratization. For example, regional political elites rejoiced the 1998 Reformation because it created opportunities for them to gain power in the regions after the fall of Suharto’s centralised militaristic regime.

The 1998 Reformation also demonstrated a similar trend: political elites, particularly those “outside” the New Order military regime, jostled for power by exploiting the 1998 Reformation for their own gain. However, the struggle for democratization ultimately benefits workers and the people. The more complete the struggle, the stronger the workers and the people confronting the political elites. While, the political elites will consistently uphold the historical waste such as militarism.

The article goes on and I do recommend giving it a full read.

Algeria-Malaysia relations?

I figured all you nerds would actually be interested in this and gives me an excuse to delay a write-up for a much more domestically contentious topic, Malaysia-Israel ‘relations’.

This came about after perusing through passportindex.org and reading an article in Middle East Critique on Saudi Arabia-Cuba relations a few weeks ago, which made me think a lot about the role of small and medium state diplomacy in multipolarity.

I was scrolling the passport index web-page, looking through various countries and comparing as it were. This made me realize something: firstly, Algeria, the 10th largest country by surface area, really doesn’t grant many countries visa-free access. Looking through the highest ranked passports, including Singapore and UAE, they both don’t have visa-free access to Algeria.

Something was amiss. I had to use the website’s “destination feature”.

And lo and behold:

Regarding this part, didn’t Mahathir (and I believe, Anwar, back then when he was a zealot) suppressed and eliminated nearly all of the Malay-centric labor movements back in the 1980s?

In Malaysia by the 70s and 80s, trade unions were dominated by Malays and Indians, mainly in the public sector, and Mahathir in particular sought to control these unions by introducing collaborators in their leaderships. However unions were already past their peak radicalization, which was prior to our independence back in the 40s and 50s. They were moribund through British colonial onslaught and lawfare from the “Malayan Emergency” when the Communist Party of Malaya was waging guerrilla warfare. Thus, labour unions are systemically weak in Malaysia, with unionisation rates below that of the USA, and with class collaborationist leadership.

In the 1980s, most of the Malay population still were not completely proletarianised. Malays were composed of mostly rural peasantry and some urban semi-proletarians and proletarians. In 1980, Malays (and other indigenous groups) constituted only around ~55% of the total population with 38% of that being urban. The statistics are a bit fuzzy but realistically if unionization rates in 1980 were at 17% of the total workforce, with about ~50% of that being Malay members, that meant that you couldn’t even say a neoliberal ‘deunionization’ crash happened like in the USA or UK. Historically though, trade unions weren’t ever Malay dominated, and for those that were, and were large like CUEPACS, the leadership was less radical than even the MTUC.

I think the classic Marxist-Leninist critique of trade unions still applies for most unions in Malaysia. They have never been a catalyst for larger positive change in postcolonial times because the Left itself has been so weak to leverage and channel union power.

See From a popular labour movement to a top-down managed organisation and The state and organised labour in West Malaysia, 1967–1980.

A couple weeks back @xiaohongshu@hexbear.net asked me about the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and I was a bit too brief about the party and why any genuine scientifc socialist would not ever rally behind the party so I’m here to rectify it.

At first I would like to highlight a 2 part article that holistically addresses the party, in which I will also quote heavily from with further commentary below.

Kit Siang and DAP – a response to Lim Teck Ghee

DAP and a multiracial Malaysia – a response to Lim Teck Ghee

The main issue that the Malaysian Left grapples with today is that the “left” in this country are chauvinists. In other words, they themselves perpetuate racialism and deradicalized “socialism”. This has been persistent issue since the start of the 20th century. For reasons that have been extensively discussed by many here, communist and socialist politics (in form) never took root outside Chinese and Indians. This meant Malays, but also large parts of other ethnic groups, whether Orang Asal or even mixed Peranakans.

This then sets the stage for the DAP, the favourite scapegoat for some parts of the mainstream elite, who continuously accuses them of being Chinese communists. The problem is of course that the DAP itself has never strayed too far from the neoliberal mainstream even as the “key opposition” of “Malay supremacy”. (Quick note, it is often translated as “supremacy” but ‘Ketuanan’ also is commonly translated to “dominance” or “premiership”).

Kit Siang [the leader of DAP for most of it’s life] has been a dominant figure in the DAP for a number of reasons. One, it had the support of the urban Chinese voters in the urban Chinese belt stretching from Perak to Negeri Sembilan and with pockets of Chinese support in Melaka and Johor.

…He was able to articulate the Chinese electoral concerns in a forthright manner, in some cases openly courting a Chinese chauvinist line, both inside and outside the Dewan Rakyat [parliament] and as an editor of the Rocket from 1965-1969.

…The Malay chauvinism was countered by the blunt Chinese chauvinism of DAP. This was despite DAP’s lip service for a democratic and socialist Malaysia

No party in the current coalition are truly anti-racialism. Even for the “progressives”. That is the nature of bourgeois parliamentarianism.

…Teck Ghee falls into the same trap that Kit Siang has made for himself, a pretence of DAP’s multiracialism and then hidden undercurrent of unadulterated Chinese chauvinism. There is no point in making passing references to the late Karpal Singh to show that DAP has non-Chinese credentials.

… There were no Chinese legal firms that were courageous or competent to take the legal briefs from DAP. If they were, I am sure DAP would have turned to them. There was none forthcoming and hence that relationship was a relationship of convenience, between Karpal and (now his family’s legal business) and DAP.

The superstructure of the Chinese capitalist economy in Malaysia is an important consideration to know here. It involves clan associates, paternal relationships, conscious disengagement with other ethnic groups and in a lot of aspects, right-wing Chinese nationalism. This is because the 1949 Chinese revolution, or even a 1966 cultural revolution, never took place in this country.

Instead, Chinese capital became a useful “opposition” of Malaysian capitalism, in which race becomes the focal point instead of class struggle. This is why of the top 50 richest people in Malaysia, 48 are Chinese. This is where you get stories of Chinese landlords refusing rent to non-Chinese people.

The usual rant about discriminatory NEP and discrimination has outlived its political usefulness as an intellectual narrative. The questions now posed are what did DAP do when it was in power? Not just in Penang or some of the states where it shared power, but at the federal level when it was in power, albeit briefly.

This can be said even more now that the DAP forms a large part of the unity government in power. Just recently, a member of DAP argued for a two-tier minimum wage structure between migrant workers and citizens. I guess this is the bare truth of their slogan “Malaysian Malaysia”.

In the end, class struggle continuously remains the only avenue for anyone seeking for genuine anti-racism and social justice. “Multiculturalism”, in actuality, remains to be bourgeois social contract theory, lacking the scientific materialist outlook necessary for revolutionary and lasting social change.

Semi-related, since it’s been a while I followed Malaysian politics, but how is the new Anwar government doing compared to the previous BN rule?

It’s not as straight-forward. Basically PH gained power after the 2018 elections but was based on a tricky coalition with certain smaller parties. After the so-called “Sheraton move” in 2020 which involved many members in the ruling coalition defecting to the opposition thereby disrupting the tenuous majority in parliament, lead to PN gaining power with help from BN for 1.5 years.

This temporary alliance was then also beset with problems that lead to the 2022 snap elections. But the problems didn’t stop there because the results again saw a deadlock in which the 3 main coalitions, PH, BN and PN unable to secure a majority of the parliamentary seats. After negotiations, PH finally rose to power with Anwar appointed as PM, with BN supporting his candidacy.

Outside the political spectacle, the government has continued it’s neoliberal trajectory for nearly 4 decades, for example the privatisation of public healthcare and corporatization of GLCs for profit-maximisation. The government has recently given a cash handout of 100RM (~170CNY), a populist measure to dampen the discontent many people on the ground feel despite official statistics of very low inflation. A clear band-aid that does not solve the structural issues that are facing the economy,

As a result, there has been a lot of disappointment within the activist-NGO circuit, even for the NED funded ones, who were hoping for larger reforms that failed to materialize.

I know that the socdem DAP has been completely neoliberalized, are there any left wing forces within the Pakatan coalition government these days?

The socdem DAP has never really escaped it’s “democratic socialist” identity which stands in stark contrast to anti-imperialist Communism and Marxism - from it’s beginnings (as the Malaysian branch of Singapore’s PAP) to it’s current formulation. Although I would admit, it has probably drifted definitively into the neoliberal camp for decades at this point.

I’ve mentioned this before but Malaysia has no existing parliamentary party that is willing to decisively break from neoliberal politics. Malaysia has heavily suppressed and disempowered mass movements that face multiple contradictions upon multiple axes, in which ever since the 80s the Left has never really recovered in terms of popularity and mobilisation. There are perhaps a handful of parties and organizations I can name that truly fit the Left label, but regardless it’s going to be a long road with no straightforward path before a credible Left alternative will rise.

My understanding is that Anwar himself used to be the NED candidate and supported by the US during his political imprisonment by Mahathir, so he’s very much a neoliberal, but has since “rebranded” himself as a repentant opposition leader.

Anwar’s history is mired with complications that go beyond just his NED and Westward-facing smiles. To call him “the” NED candidate simplifies the political situation, which in my opinion is like calling Putin a comprador in 2005. In some regards that is true, but material reality limit a colour revolution style capture of the Malaysian political scene.

Anwar Ibrahim’s first rise to power was through an Islamic activist current in the 70s and 80s, with ideological affiliations with the Muslim Brotherhood. His disagreement with Mahathir and subsequent detainment, and extensive engagements within the policy-making circles in the USA is well-known, but consistent with the Malaysian political scene, he does not fall into the classic US-funded comprador politician found in other Global South countries. Because that would be a case of self-inflicted harm that disrupts his own class interests, and I have to give props for the ruling classes here in maintaining some level of cohesion and not committing suicide through US involvement (moreso than it already has).

A fun fact that I also forgot until I was reminded of recently was that Anwar Ibrahim actually proposed to revive the Mahathir’s old ideas of the Asian Monetary Fund 2 years ago.

I think the best way I can describe Anwar Ibrahim’s positions is that he is a product of internal contradictions within the Malaysian political economy as much as the international contradictions. In a way he represents a “new normal” of multipolar neoliberal capitalism where the old is still in the process of giving into the new.

The title is a bit of a mouthful but the relatively short substack post (from the many I follow) serves as a useful tool in linking classic modern Marxist concepts and literature with current news pages in the context of Malaysia

Neoliberalism-as-Neo-Imperialism: Post-13MP Constraints, Economic Dependency, and the Entrenchment of Oligarchy in Malaysia

2nd August 2025

Introduction: Neoliberalism Reloaded in the 13th Malaysia Plan

Malaysia’s 13th Malaysia Plan (13MP) was heralded as a forward-looking framework to guide the country through economic recovery and structural reform. However, its implementation remains deeply constrained by a global order where neoliberalism, under the guise of liberalised trade and tech optimism, acts as a contemporary form of neo-imperialism. This essay draws from Samir Amin’s theory of unequal exchange, dependency theory, and Gramscian analyses of hegemony to frame Malaysia’s structural vulnerabilities—perpetuated by ethnocapital alliances, comprador capital, and collusion with Global North monopoly-finance capital.

Malaysia won’t bend to external pressure, says PM

For example, if they (foreign powers) claim our bumiputra poli­cy is discriminatory, Malaysia firmly says no. The country stands by its accepted and esta­blished national policies

This is an interesting one because there are usually two ways in which “discriminatory” is interpreted.

The first is the standard free market response that foreign equity restrictions is discriminatory to foreign investors. This can easily be seen for the liberalism that it is so there’s not much to say.

The second is a much more sophisticated and particular response unique to Malaysian political-economic history of “Bumiputera” (“Indigenous”) policies. The accusation of racial discrimination has extensive roots in the NGO-liberal discourse in Malaysia. I am thinking of writing more about it in the future but the jist of it is basically: “what if we import American racial liberalism into a context with no basis?” This is how you get USAID, NED and the US embassy funding “anti-racist” programmes in Malaysia. The irony is not lost for anyone with a brain here.

… “In the procurement system, Malaysia must maintain the right to give opportunities to local companies. This is a non-negotiable position in our discussions.

“Therefore, our negotiations with the United States are more meticulous and firmer than usual,” he said, dismissing those who questioned Malaysia’s stand on the US tariffs.

In other news,

Ballooning household debt in South-east Asia: The deindustrialisation trap in Malaysia

The issue is of course that despite the efforts of the government through the New Industrial Masterplan 2030 or National Semiconductor Strategy, their ideological neoliberalism restricts valid policy and foresight to counter deindustrialisation. (Besides the aforementioned imperialist pressure.) Perhaps after the recession that will eventually happen neoliberalism will finally collapse under its own weight - or if the ardent neoliberals lose their political mandate. The grievances down below are steadily rising after all.

Southeast Asia and the ‘middle democracy’ trap

TLDR: Liberals in Southeast Asia are much more sophisticated in hiding their class affinities than those in the West.

A lot of articles have been churning out lately due to the Asean Ministers Meeting and the BRICS summit. Here’s some random ones I picked. I’ve also found another article written by another bourgeois-liberal Western academic that I want to laugh at so expect a post on that within the next few days barring I don’t get too busy.

Vietnam promotes comprehensive approach to human rights in ASEAN

Civilizational dialogue a must in turbulent world

Anwar calls on Europe to treat SE Asia as equals, says region won’t accept old hierarchies

ASEAN-EU partnership must be equal, fair, inclusive: Sugiono

Expecting the EU to not be colonizer-brained is a losing gamble.

Malaysia says China will sign Southeast Asia nuclear weapons free zone treaty when documents are ready

Chinese Foreign Minister slams US tariffs on ASEAN as ‘unilateral bullying,’ vows to uphold multilateral trading system with ASEAN

Vietnam proposes three priorities to strengthen Asean’s centrality

Asean accuses “Israel” of ‘openly committing genocide’, demands end to Gaza war

Indonesia’s FM says food security must remain ASEAN Plus Three focus

Vietnam as BRICS partner strengthens Southeast Asian, Global South voices

some paragraphs removed for brevity

Vietnam recently joined the BRICS as the group’s 10th partner country. Among member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Indonesia holds full membership in BRICS, while Malaysia and Thailand are official partner countries.

This evolving trend underscores a gradual but notable shift among key Southeast Asian economies toward deeper engagement with alternative global governance platforms beyond the traditional Western-dominated order.

Vietnam’s acceptance into BRICS as a partner country marks a significant development, which increases the likelihood of other ASEAN nations seeking BRICS membership and closer ties with the group.

ASEAN member states’ growing interest in joining BRICS stems, in part, from geopolitical positioning. As ASEAN countries increasingly navigate a complex geopolitical landscape, seeking to balance relationships with major powers, BRICS offers an alternative platform for cooperation outside traditional Western-dominated structures.

Another reason is the economic benefits the membership offers. It provides access to new markets, investment opportunities and technological advancements, which is particularly attractive for developing ASEAN economies.

However, one of the main factors that may hinder the inclusion of other ASEAN countries in BRICS is the “US factor”. Some ASEAN countries maintain strong ties with the United States and may hesitate to deepen relations with BRICS to avoid a potential US backlash.

While BRICS offers an alternative to Western-dominated global financial and governance structures, the calculus for some ASEAN countries is not merely economic, but deeply strategic. These countries often walk a tightrope between maximizing economic opportunities and preserving their established security and diplomatic alignments.

In such contexts, the political-diplomatic cost of aligning more closely with BRICS can be high, especially when BRICS is increasingly perceived as a counterweight to Western hegemony and a challenger to the US-led global order. This is especially true for a country like the Philippines, whose foreign policy now under the present government very much lean toward the US.

Moreover, Vietnam’s inclusion in BRICS as a partner country is highly significant in the evolving architecture of Global South cooperation. Vietnam’s presence expands BRICS’ geographic and developmental diversity.

It represents a mid-sized, rapidly developing Southeast Asian economy that has successfully balanced socialist governance with market reforms. Its inclusion will, to some extent, elevate ASEAN’s visibility within BRICS, signaling a shift toward more inclusive multipolar leadership in the Global South.

Its BRICS partnership enhances connectivity among the Belt and Road Initiative, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and potentially BRICS+financial cooperation, primarily through infrastructure finance via the New Development Bank, and cross-border settlement initiatives that reduce reliance on the US dollar.

Likewise, Vietnam’s inclusion in BRICS symbolizes post-colonial economic autonomy. Vietnam’s history of anti-colonial struggle and post-war development success resonates strongly with other Global South nations.

It stands as a symbol of resilience, economic self-determination, and the possibility of development without strict Western alignment or International Monetary Fund-style conditionalities. This enhances the normative narrative of BRICS as a platform for alternative development models beyond neoliberal prescriptions.

Additionally, Vietnam’s inclusion reflects Hanoi’s balanced, nonaligned foreign policy that bridges ties with both East and West, aligning ASEAN’s outlook with BRICS-led Global South initiatives rooted in sovereignty and development-driven multilateralism.

Vietnam’s BRICS partner status is more than symbolic — it is a strategic elevation of a Southeast Asian voice in reshaping global economic governance. It reinforces South-South cooperation and development, multipolarity, and a more equitable world order. It is also a subtle but strong message to the West: The Global South is organizing itself on its own terms.

The “Israel”-Singapore connection

I would have written a much longer post, but I was brought to attention by this nifty post (archived link) by the “Israeli” trade mission to Singapore which sums it all up quite well:

Singapore has a remarkable story to tell, and paradoxically this south east Asian city-state has quite a lot in common with [the Zionist Entity], a small nation with a history of struggle and resilience. The two small nations have populations comprised of immigrants [the Zionists admitted it themselves which is somewhat hilarious] with different cultures and customs, surrounded by large countries with their own political and ethnic tensions. Both of these small nations have managed against all odds to turn themselves in a single generation from poor, underdeveloped markets to global economic powerhouses with advanced infrastructures, skilled and highly educated workforces and ambitious entrepreneurs. Singapore has grown to become a global financial hub and an Economic giant in a single generation.

The thing to realize is, what the anglophone Chinese bourgeoisie in Singapore hate more than sinophone Chinese people, are the Muslims, but especially Malay-Muslims, who rejected their liberal secular capitalism. Their nation-building myths are quite similar, which justifies Singapore’s hefty military budget - larger than every other Southeast Asian country, both in per capita and absolute terms.

A true liberation of the peoples of Southeast Asia necessitates the fall of the financial capitalists, chiefly represented by the largest banks in Southeast Asia, all based in Singapore. That’s why a lot of hysteria historically propagated here are based on “Indonesian” and “Malaysian” terrorists and supporters who’d like to see the downfall of “Singapore”. Nowadays, the rhetoric is a bit more muted, but echoes of this Islamophobia show-up from time to time.

Christmas Eve, 1965, is the unofficial date of the start of the ‘love story’ between Israel and Singapore, an affair that was kept a deep, dark secret. The international press, like the Israeli media, tried to bring the tale to light. Occasionally, scraps of information leaked out; some were published, some were denied, many were disregarded. The fear that the ties would be terminated if they became public knowledge had its effect. Israel imposed a total blackout on the story and the secret was preserved.

But ultimately the mysterious history between Israel and Singapore came to light. In his book, “From Third World to First: The Singapore Story 1965-2000,” published in 2000, Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father and its first prime minister, disclosed the secret that had been kept for almost 40 years: It was the Israel Defense Forces that established the Singaporean army. Lee wrote, “To disguise their presence, we called them `Mexicans.’ They looked swarthy enough.”

To link it to a current news article: S’pore increased its security posture amid rising tensions from Iran-Israel conflict: Shanmugam

People in this region, other regions, or extremist organisations might want to make a point against Israeli, American or other Western assets, he said, adding that there could be attacks from the far right on Muslim assets…

If Singapore is ever attacked, it will make international headlines, he said. There is a possibility of attacks on both sides, he said, either by the far right attacking Muslims, or representatives of Muslim countries including Iran, and attacks on Western assets – American, European or Israeli.

“So we have increased our security posture, working off different scenarios, but you know, you can never be absolutely sure,” he added.

Israel-Hamas conflict a ‘reminder’ for Singapore that it has national interests at stake: Vivian Balakrishnan

This quick ejaculation of “terrorism” when it comes to West Asian or Islamic related foreign policy remains a defining motto of the Singaporean government’s continual targeting of (Malay-)Muslim people, in a “we care about terrorism, but especially from the muslims” sense and also that of it would be “bad for business” since it would harm the hard-fought “social harmony”.

“This episode is also a reminder to all Singaporeans that we do have our national interests at stake … We must reject terrorism in all its forms. No excuses, no ifs, no buts, no short-term political advantage. Reject terrorism. If attacked, all of us here must give the government of the day the ability to exercise the right of self-defence,” said Dr Balakrishnan, supporting the motion.

“But even when it does so, we will expect the government of the day to uphold international law. And as Singaporeans, we will continue to extend humanitarian assistance and protection to all civilians. We should support the peaceful resolution of disputes. And we must nurture and protect our own precious cohesion and harmony.”

The misused word “harmony” crops up again. Wonder if they’ll stop using this tired phrase. Clearly the harmony didn’t apply to those that didn’t fit into their vision of Western Modernity.

And a quick note about the current Foreign Minister:

I would say it is expected, and it is, but still embarrassing.

Economic Watch: ASEAN integration drives development of independent regional financial system, analyst says

“The push for the use of local currencies has been ongoing for some time, as it helps strengthen the economic integration of ASEAN member states – an important goal that ASEAN seeks to pursue. In fact, other regions are also moving away from relying too heavily on a single foreign currency, such as the U.S. dollar, as external interest rates and shifting government policies may cause significant volatility in currency exchange,” she explained, adding that volatility is undesirable in any business.

…

“The Regional Payment Connectivity (RPC) initiative was first established to strengthen payment connectivity among the five ASEAN members, notably Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines. To date, the initiative has expanded to include central banks of Vietnam, Laos, Brunei and Cambodia,” she said.

Lee also noted that the ASEAN push for local currencies and reduced dependency on external monetary systems has gained momentum amid growing awareness of the risks posed by relying on the U.S. dollar.

I find it funny how some Malaysian states banned the use of single-use plastics years ago and are planning to phase-out use nationally by 2030 but we continued to accept Western plastic waste.

Malaysia will stop accepting U.S. plastic waste, creating a dilemma for California

Malaysia will ban plastic waste imports from the U.S. starting Tuesday because of America’s failure to abide by the Basel Convention treaty on international waste transfers, in a move that could have significant consequences for California.

Malaysia emerged as a major destination for U.S. waste after China banned American waste imports in 2018. California shipped 864 shipping containers, or more than 10 million pounds of plastic waste, to Malaysia in 2024, according to the Basel Action Network, an advocacy group. That was second only to Georgia among U.S. states.

Malaysia to set stricter plastic import controls

According to U.S. Census Bureau data, the country exported 35,316 tons of plastic scrap to Malaysia in 2024. United Nations Comtrade data shows that from 2021-2024, Malaysia received more plastic scrap imports from around the globe than any other non-OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development) country.

…

“Our people and environment in Malaysia have suffered greatly from the pollution caused by imported plastic and electronic waste,” says Wong Pui Yi, BAN researcher from Kuala Lumpur. “Other countries in Southeast Asia are likewise being harmed by foreign plastic waste daily. We sincerely hope that exporting countries will help us put a stop to waste dumping and trafficking.

“But for these new regulations to be successful, the government must enforce them transparently, swiftly prosecute those who violate the law and close any loopholes that may arise, including clamping down on corruption. We must remain vigilant and continue to spot-check the system with intelligence-led searches and seizures.”

Mahathir is indeed unique in Malaysian politics, because he was the first Prime Minister to not be of royal origin and being born from peasants. As part of the up and coming Malay-Muslim bourgeoisie within UMNO, against the traditional British-aligned feudal bureaucrats back in the 60s and 70s, his firebrand speeches does seem quite anti-imperialist for those unaware. However, Malaysian foreign policy had already shifted east-ward and maintained this position since Tun Abdul Razak, where Mahathir was really just riding the coat tails of.

I also do think generally his anti-semitism is usually overstated especially in Western media. It plays only a small role in the grand scheme of things.

As for his Malay-Muslim supremacy, that’s a big one because for a lot of those on the left, the creation of the comprador Malaysian nation-state was already as right-wing as you can get, especially with the secession of Singapore. I have written before about the class forces that led to this secession, and so I won’t focus too much on it here but the reason I bring it up is that a lot of Malaysian liberals of any racial background, have this false idea that Mahathir was the main progenitor of racialism (racism), and that prior to his premiership there were little-to-no racial tension. This was definitely not the case.

I’d say the key contributor to rising racial tension was the failure of left-wing parties and organizations to consolidate and gain power, and of course there is a ton of reasons for this, but just to name one example, Barisan Sosialis in the 60s and 70s were the premier left-wing party that was composed of a unity between Malay-Muslim farmers and Chinese labourers. Their fall lead to a resurgence and continuation of racial-baiting in the political scene and myopic race-based party decision-making.

Furthermore, now to mention the liberals, they too had facilitated racialism within the country despite their pretentiousness and claims of being anti-racist. This is because of their misunderstanding of racialism and the causes of it within Malaysia - which has always been because of unequal land distribution, colonial-era relations of production and British-origin ideological divide and conquer.

Now the liberals have built up quite a large propaganda machine that over-exaggerates racial difference and racial tensions to practically scare voters into voting for them. It’s two sides of the same coin.

And so to call Mahathir right-wing because of his Malay-Muslim supremacism is really meaningless to those on the left here. A lot of the modern-day Malaysian political establishment and the many-many parties are right-wing by that definition, for none actually seek to reorganize the relations of production and actually end the root causes of racialism.

On your last point, 100%.

He still continues to this day, nearing 100 years old, I wish he’d just call it quit lol.

I don’t know whybut many Asian media news sites continues to quote his words like he has any relevance.

Agreed with practically everything you said. The AFC was definitely an engineered attack against SEA to disrupt EA-SEA integration, but interestingly enough I would say lead to the rise of labour organization and consciousness in Indonesia, with the presidentship of the progressive Abdurrahman Wahid, before his prompt ousting of course but that’s a different story.

Although there are small details I’d contest.

while instituting neoliberal mass privatizations to benefit his own cronies.

He had quite a flip-floppy industrial policy but in his first couple terms he did pursue import-substitution industrialization, especially for transportation. Only in the later years did he then ran on a neoliberal platform (which lead to the rise of the current opposition party of PAS).

socially conservative

I don’t agree with the use of this phrase to describe Malaysian or Asian social beliefs because it mischaracterises the class positions and historical-cultural reasons for why populations in the Global South would seem “backward” compared to bourgeois-liberals in the West. (A lot of it is just Western chauvinism aswell).

Malaysia’s current geopolitical trajectory

Sitting at one of the most important waterways in the world - the strait of Melaka, the country hosts the 2nd largest Chinese diaspora, 3rd largest Indian diaspora and largest Indonesian, Bangladeshi and Nepali diaspora. One thing to know is that Malaysian foreign policy never strays too far from home.

It has now been a few years since the 2022 General Election, where a lot of the foreign alternative media was highlighting US influence in the opposition coalition and a potential westward turn. But unfortunately to them, lacking in dialectical materialism and influenced by Eurocentrism, they never actually understood the material and historical contexts that shape Malaysian politics.