Tom Pepinsky

Category: Asia

  • Talking Crises

    A short note from Japan, where I am visiting for what is officially the shortest trans-Pacific work trip of my life (38 hours and 55 minutes, assuming my flight tomorrow night leaves on time). I’m here to talk about crises, and specifically, the effects of the Global Economic Crisis in Southeast Asia and what they tell us about regional political economy.

    “Wait,” you say, “the GEC didn’t have any effect on Southeast Asia!” Yes, but that’s the point: Southeast Asia was hammered by the Asian Financial Crisis in the late 1990s, but escaped this one relatively unscathed. Sure, growth rates slowed in Malaysia and turned negative in Singapore, but Indonesia cruised along quite nicely. The Philippines and Thailand haven’t done as well, but their troubles stem from domestic political uncertainty and long-term structural issues in their political economies rather than some form of international financial contagion. It’s often observed that the last crisis was about financial contagion, whereas the exposure in Asia today is through trade, not financial, channels. That’s true, but it’s not just a statement of fact, it’s a phenomenon to be explained.

    The non-crises in Southeast Asia demand explanation, so I’m here to offer my own. Briefly, my argument is not that Southeast Asia shaped up over the past decade, but rather that changes in foreign perceptions about Southeast Asia’s political economy after the last crisis lowered the ex ante vulnerability to external financial shocks in the region. For example, exchange rates are no longer misaligned (in part because the last crisis fixed that problem right up), nor is there a sense of unbridled optimism in the West about the growth prospects of emerging Southeast Asia (the same applies).

    Another way to think about this is that having had a crisis in 1998 was a convenient way to ward off having another one in 2008. There is a triumphalist sense among some observers that the fact that the GEC didn’t spread to SE Asia means that local governments have fixed their big political and economic problems, but I don’t think that much real progress has been made on most important issues. It’s not an accident that I title the paper “99 Problems (But A Crisis Ain’t One).”

    Of course, this isn’t as neat as I’d like it to be. One question that bugs me is why the banks and investment houses in Southeast Asia did not jump on the MBS-CDO train the way that we saw in the US and Europe. (I first posted about this in 2010, comparing Singapore and Iceland.) This is puzzling, given means (smart, globally-aware bankers), motive (greed), and opportunity (open KA, plenty of people selling these things). In fact, we do know that one or two important bigshots found themselves heavily exposed in 2008, but the rot wasn’t deep enough to spread to the entire economy. I can’t pretend to know the answer to why this didn’t happen, but I don’t think that enough people in the policy world realize how important it is to pay attention when bad things don’t happen, and to explain these non-crises. So when I lecture to a bunch of Japanese policy scholars tomorrow (or is it today? who knows) on the (non-)effects of the GEC, I’m going to make this point as clearly as I can.

  • Proud to be a Republican

    This is a post about Thailand, not the U.S.

    In the Thai context, republican means literally in favor of a republic, as opposed to the current constitutional monarchy, in which the head of state is the Thai King, currently Bhumibol Adulyadej. In principle I don’t mind if a country is a monarchy, so long as the monarchy has no real political power. That, sadly, is not the case in Thailand, where the institution of the monarchy has been utterly politicized, and over the past twenty years increasingly so.

    Article 112 of Thailand’s criminal code makes lèse-majesté a crime. In recent years, this code has increasingly been used by Thailand’s political leaders as a tool for silencing the country’s opposition.

    It is for this reason that I am proud to have signed a solidarity letter in support of the Campaign Committee for the Amendment of Article 112 and the amendment proposal made by the Khana Nitirat (here’s an English link). I’ve posted the entire press release below:

    Over 200 international scholars, writers, and activists support the call to reform Article 112

    For immediate release

    1 February 2012

    Noted international scholars, writers, and activists support the call of the Campaign Committee to Amend Article 112 (CCAA112) to reform Article 112 in line with the amendment proposed by the Khana Nitirat.

    In an open letter to Thai prime minister Her Excellency Ms. Yingluck Shinawatra, these 224 international scholars, writers, and activists express grave concern over the use of Article 112 and the erosion of the basic rights of those who face charges under it. The signatories affirm that “Article 112 has become a powerful tool to silence political dissent, and in particular, any dissent interpreted as disloyalty to the monarchy.”

    Dr. Kevin Hewison, Professor of Asian Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a Thai studies expert observed that, “The political abuse of the lèse majesté law is associated with a precipitous deterioration of human rights in Thailand. Censorship, self- censorship and charges of disloyalty seriously restrict the freedom of expression.”

    The signatories support the CCAA112 and the amendment law because “reform is necessary to protect the basic rights of Thai citizens and support the consolidation of democracy and the rule of law.”

    The proposed amendment would make the punishment for alleged lèse majesté proportionate to the crime, limit who can file a complaint to the Office of His Majesty’s Principal Private Secretary rather than any citizen, differentiate sincere and truthful criticism from threats to the monarchy, and categorize violations of Article 112 as about the honor of the monarchy, rather than national security.

    “We were thrilled that so many distinguished thinkers and activists from around the world have joined with us in this letter in support of the reform of Article 112. They show our courageous Thai colleagues who are seeking reform that they are not alone. This issue is, and will be, closely monitored internationally,” said Dr. Rachel Harrison, noted scholar of Thai cultural studies commented.

    The signatories of the letter include (full list appended) distinguished scholars, writers, and activists from 16 countries and territories: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, Philippines, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, UK, US.

    For more information (English/Thai), please contact:

    * Tyrell Haberkorn, +61-4-1137-4735 (Australia) tyrell.haberkorn@anu.edu.au

    * Kevin Hewison,+ 65-8212-0655 (Singapore), khewison@unc.edu

    I know that the Thai government doesn’t give a flip what sorts of documents I sign. But I also know that things like this matter. You can be sure that 60+ Cornell undergrads will learn whatever I want to teach them about Thai politics, without regard to whether or not the Thai government finds it offensive, and that’s how it should be.