Should APEC leaders boycott Kuala Lumpur?

Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines have expressed disquiet over current developments within Malaysia. The Jakarta Post's Asia correspondent, Harvey Stockwin, who has been following Malaysian developments since Malaya became independent in 1957, suggests that there are good reasons why APEC leaders should at least consider taking the ASEAN criticism of Malaysia one step further. Following is the last of two installments.

HONG KONG (JP): When the Marcos regime went one step too far -- and assassinated Ninoy Aquino -- there was no lack of Filipino leaders willing to confront the dictatorship.

When the Soeharto regime finally went one step too far and prolonged itself in power and corruption once too often, there were a few former supporters of Soeharto who turned against him.

Contrast this with what is happening in Malaysia today. Perhaps Malaysian politicians fear that Mahathir may use the Internal Security Act against them. Perhaps they now believe what they read in the Mahathir-controlled press.

Perhaps they are intellectually intimidated by the pro- Mahathir think-tanks which rationalize his every move.

Whatever the reason, not a single major UMNO figure utters a peep of dissent as Mahathir moves one step too far, blatantly using the supine press to defame his dismissed deputy, and to condemn him in advance of any trial. Similarly, there is no peep of dissent within the ruling party when Mahathir imposes capital controls and seeks Malaysian secession from the ebbs and flows of the globalization process.

It all suggests the sad and even terrifying prospect that Mahathir has succeeded -- much more than Marcos or Soeharto ever did -- in creating the sycophantic state wherein a personal dictatorship can so easily grow and flourish.

This is why, at the very least, all foreign ministries in the APEC countries outside ASEAN should be presenting their heads of government with a paper arguing the pros and cons of attending the Kuala Lumpur summit. The case for being absent rests on a simple proposition: Mahathir's attempt to seclude Malaysia within the fetters and limitations of one-man rule has gone far enough. Now is the time to nip it in the bud.

If the APEC leaders (or even just some of them) stay away, it will of course be bitterly attacked and resented by Mahathir's cronies and sycophants. No doubt, hired mobs may appear outside the embassies of countries which absent themselves. But a message will have been sent.

Those in Malaysia -- especially the politicians in the ruling National Front who still have doubts about the direction Mahathir is taking -- will be encouraged not to sink further into the morass of sycophancy. Those relatively few Malaysians who have had the courage to demonstrate for Reformasi, some of whom now face draconian jail terms for daring to be different, will feel that it is worthwhile to persist in their dissent.

If there are enough APEC absentees, it could have a tonic effect on ASEAN.

Already, much to everyone's surprise, Indonesian President B.J. Habibie and Philippine President Joseph Estrada, plus various democratic voices within Thailand, have made plain their distaste for what is going on in Malaysia at the moment. Estrada has made his complaints in typically Filipino personal terms, citing his friendship with Anwar and saying he would like to visit him in jail during the APEC summit. Habibie first canceled a visit to Malaysia; now he has reduced his attendance at the APEC summit to a single day. There could scarcely be a more pointed gesture. It is almost as if the Indonesians are asking the non-ASEAN APEC leaders to stay away. Should they do so, it would both encourage the ASEAN democracies, and discourage the other ASEAN dictatorship in Burma, as well as Mahathir.

Almost inevitably perhaps, the Clinton administration has waffled. Its initial posture was to declare that Bill Clinton's visit to Malaysia would be an unofficial one, not a state or official visit. This is of course a nuance that could be safely ignored by the controlled Malaysian press. Two members of Congress specializing in Asian affairs have urged Clinton to change the summit venue or speak out forcefully in Kuala Lumpur. So far, the Clinton administration has responded with more waffling. It has been announced that Clinton will not have a one- on-one meeting with Mahathir -- a mild snub which Mahathir, in personal charge of the summit arrangements, will be easily able to finesse.

Amidst the controversy, Mahathir and the Malaysian foreign ministry have naturally produced the old canard about "non- interference in the internal affairs of another country." No doubt more will be heard of this argument.

It should not be lost to view that it is Mahathir who is doing the interfering. By persisting with the KL APEC summit, amidst a deepening internal crisis, he seeks the endorsement of his dictatorship by the members of APEC.

But, of course, for Mahathir, "interference" will only be bad if they deny him that privilege.

This reminds of the second omission from the list of APEC leaders mentioned at the start of this article: Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi cannot decide whether or not to go to KL -- he has already effectively endorsed Mahathir's developing dictatorship.

It may well be that Japan's hand was forced by Mahathir. There are indications that the Gaimusho (Foreign Ministry) was, and is, divided on the advisability of welcoming the Malaysian leader at this time, or of giving him fresh large loans. But Mahathir -- perhaps fearing an APEC summit cancellation -- insisted on attending the recent Tokyo conference on Japanese aid for African development, a topic which one would have thought should not be high on Malaysia's current list of priorities.

Obuchi managed some guarded words of concern -- but Mahathir got his meeting with the Japanese leader. He also secured an almost ringing endorsement of his controls on capital flow from a high official of the Ministry of Finance, Eisuke Sakakibara, one of those high officials who has been unable to steer Japan out of the economic doldrums in the last decade.

All of which is a reminder that Mahathir is a canny political in-fighter. He put Japanese officialdom on the defensive. He will no doubt try and do the same with his APEC guests. The time has come for others to consider seriously giving Dr. Mahathir a strong taste of his own medicine. The APEC leaders, instead of going to KL, should stay at home. The winds of change within Malaysia need an assist -- before it is too late.