These rules have led to the de-industrialisation of advanced countries in Europe and the US, and wage suppression in the developing countries in the Global South which had to, under this system, compete with their peers to attract foreign direct investment

…We have been proposing to our progressive partners in SE Asia that Comrade Samir Amin’s proposal for partial de-linking from the global economy and the formation of regional blocks, should be the central strategy to

a) retain a larger portion of the value created by the labour of the ordinary workers, farmers and business people in our region

b) share a larger portion of the wealth created in ASEAN with the people who created it through higher prices for primary agricultural products, higher pay for our workers and more robust and comprehensive social protection schemes – such as high-quality health care, old age pension, reasonably priced rental residences, etc.

SE Asia has a population of 680 million. That should provide sufficient economies of scale for the local manufacture of most of the goods we use in daily life, except for things like advanced medical technologies like robotic surgery and passenger airplanes. A policy of import substitution at an ASEAN level should be discussed by progressive movements in the region…

…We need to uphold the principle that one of the primary roles of the economy is to generate enough jobs for all the people in that society who need work. The “right to life” is an empty slogan if it does not encompass the “right to livelihood” – to be offered work at a reasonable wage level. The principle of “Free trade” should not be used to undermine our people’s right to decent jobs.

We need many new rules to move towards a better ASEAN. For example, ASEAN countries should commit to increasing corporate tax to 30% of profits over a period of 10 years. That would require Malaysia to increase its corporate tax rate by 0.6% annually as we are at 24% currently. Thailand, with a corporate tax of 19% at present, would have to go up 1.1% annually to make the target of 30% by 10 years. Increasing government revenue would help government provide better services to the people and to do serious climate mitigation work which is grossly overdue. Increase in government expenditure would augment aggregate demand, and this will provide a larger market for the businesses in the ASEAN region…

Another programme that needs to be considered at ASEAN level is to overcome wage suppression and attain a living wage for all. At present the minimum wages in ASEAN are at different levels. Jakarta is at about 75% of Malaysia’s minimum wage. Sulawesi and Cambodia are at about 50% of Malaysia’s. ASEAN nations should commit to increase the minimum wage in all ASEAN countries by 10% each year for the next 10 years, starting from their differing starting points – so that at 10 years, we would be at double today’s wage rate though still at different absolute levels. The benefits are obvious – lower income families would live better, eat more nutritious food and have better financial security. Businesses of all sizes would have a larger market to sell to.6 The increase in manufacturing and commercial activities would generate jobs that are desperately required all over ASEAN. Quite probably, government tax collection would also go up.

…Would this lead to a flight of investment capital?

Unlikely that capital will flee to advanced countries or to NE Asia. As explained earlier, the wage level in ASEAN is about 1/6thto 1/12 of that in Europe, the US and North East Asia. Translocation of investment capital to neighbouring ASEAN countries has been the possibility that national policy makers have had to be wary about. But if ASEAN countries had a unified policy on wage increase, where would international capital run to? The wages in the advanced countries would still be more than 3 times higher even after we managed to double ASEAN wage rates.

Africa might be a choice for international capital still dependent on very low wages. If that develops, we (being progressive internationalists) should not begrudge poorer African nations this opportunity to attract investments, create jobs and build their economies. Africa is still the poorest and most marginalized continent. But being one of the last remaining bastions of overly suppressed wages, they would be in a better bargaining power to insist on more decent returns for their countries in terms of wages and technology transfer.

…That rules based order benefited the global elite and richest corporations far more than it benefited ordinary people. Consider the case of Malaysia. There are many who would call Malaysia a success story as it’s per capita GDP and health indices are better than many other countries in Asia and Africa.

Malaysia’s GDP grew 24-fold (in real terms) in the 50 years between 1970 and 2020. So, there would seem to be empirical basis for the postulate that Malaysia benefited from the rules based international order. But, if we investigate a little more deeply, we will find that :

– 60% to 70% of the Malaysian working population have to work more than 10 hours per day to make ends meet for their families.

– the prevalence of stunting for under-5 children is about 21% of the under-5 population in Malaysia. Stunting refers to heights less than the 3rd percentile of the normal range for that age bracket. It indicates long term malnutrition.

– About 40% of Malaysian graduates cannot get jobs that are commensurate with their training. They are forced to accept semi-skilled jobs at low wages or enter the gig market as motorcycle delivery riders.

– Old age poverty is a sad reality in Malaysia. About 70% of all those above the age of 65 years do not have any savings of their own and have to rely on their children or other relatives for their basic needs. (Malaysia has not yet committed to a universal old age pension scheme.)

– The younger generation is experiencing a mental health epidemic with many of them on medicines for anxiety and depression.

– Our public health care system has been chronically under-funded for the past 40 years. This has resulted in congested clinics and wards as well as inordinately long waiting times, delayed treatment and poorer health outcomes.

The problem with Globalisation based on the “Rules based order” that has been promoted all over the world since the 1980’s, is that most of the rules favour the largest corporations and the richest individuals in society. The pro-elite rules include the following

– Intellectual Property Rights provisions that have been used by the largest corporations to create monopolies and extract high rates of profit by bullying the subordinate firms in the value chains.

– “National Treatment” provisions. Many “Free Trade Agreements” require governments to give at least similar access to foreign investors as they give to local companies.

– The Investor State Dispute Settlement provision allows the biggest MNCs to haul governments to international tribunals if any aspect of government’s policies restricts the profits of the MNCs. It is considered “expropriation”.

– Unrestricted flow of capital across national boundaries. This has created a situation that has forced government to reduce tax rates for corporations and the richest individuals. This occurred both in the advanced economies as well as in the global South. In the ASEAN region for example, there has been a race-to-the-bottom in corporate taxes. Malaysia has reduced its corporate tax from 40% of profits in 1988, to its current 24% of profits. Malaysia felt pressured to do so because its neighbours also acted similarly, with Thailand’s and Vietnam’s corporate tax currently at 20%, and Singapore’s at 17%. The SE Asean countries have been reducing corporate tax in a bid to attract FDI as well as to ensure that domestic investors do not relocate to neighbouring countries.

– The “Zero Tariff Regime” of Free Trade Agreements have markedly eroded the economic sovereignty of governments. For example, the ASEAN FTA has brought the tariffs of 99% of goods traded among ASEAN countries to zero, and this FTA has the provision that tariffs can only be lowered, but never raised. As a consequence, the Malaysian government is apprehensive that raising the minimum wage for Malaysian workers might affect the competitiveness of Malaysian firms and lead to the loss of both the domestic and the exports markets to firms from other ASEAN countries.

"We are a post-independence nation, but our ideas are not yet fully free — our thinking is still shaped by external moulds. This is what I call ‘post-colonial angst’ — still grappling with ideas dominated by others.

He stressed that education should not be seen merely as the pursuit of knowledge, but as a process of shaping the intellect and soul to discern truth, justice, and humanity.

Anwar also cautioned against narrow-minded thinking that stifled progress and reform.

Anwar said that intellectual and ideological renewal had always been central to great Islamic thinkers and remains relevant in today’s modern world.

“AI (artificial intelligence) is a necessity — but AI must be anchored in values. We cannot technologise humanity; we must humanise technology.”

Anwar also said that starting next year, the government would introduce free education for the poorest groups, from preschool to university, as an initial step.

US Ambassador affirms Malaysia’s economic sovereignty after trade agreement signing

Lol.

“Investment creates jobs in both countries, and jobs in the US pay twice the average Malaysian wage. So, having American companies and investments here will really benefit the people,” said Kagan.

Only twice as much? I remember the days when Western countries (and Singapore) would pay around 3x-4x. I guess those days are behind us.

What Washington’s ‘due consideration’ means for Malaysia’s RM32.8 billion semiconductor industry

Not sure about the collective amnesia people have to think that for critical sectors that the US can’t produce, that they’ll make it even more difficult for American companies based here. Also considering that I assume backroom guarantees have been made which had provided the greenlight for US investments to surge here within their own conditionalities of course.

According to Investment, Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Zafrul Abdul Aziz, the exemptions are valued at US$5.2 billion (RM21.96 billion), accounting for roughly 12 per cent of Malaysia’s total exports to the US.

All that for just a 12% exemption

The US has recently overtaken China as Malaysia’s largest export market and remains its top foreign investor, with total investments reaching RM32.8 billion in 2024.

“In terms of benefit to the Malaysian industries, with a lower import tariff, US products can enter the Malaysian market easily and will be more competitive. This will make high-quality products such as medical equipment, computer hardware and machinery spare parts more affordable for Malaysian businesses and consumers,” Zafrul said.

He added that Malaysian manufacturers could use advanced US machinery and automation tools as inputs to enhance productivity and move up the industrial value chain, aligning with the goals of the National Industrial Master Plan (NIMP).

Crazy cope. Just say the US demanded and you had to concede.

When asked about the long-term reliability of the deal, especially given Trump’s history of abrupt policy shifts, Zafrul replied confidently. “For us (Malaysia), an agreement is an agreement,” he said.

Lol.

By securing tariff exemptions and reaffirming its commitment to stable export policies, Malaysia strengthens its position as a preferred investment destination in the region, a move that could attract even more multinational corporations to establish advanced manufacturing and R&D (research and development) operations in the country.

Sinar Daily is one of the largest Malaysian Chinese language newspapers that also have an English-language column. Fascinating to see what the centrist-liberals think is “good for business”.

Out in the real world:

Malaysia defends US trade pact dubbed ‘act of surrender’ amid sovereignty concerns

Mr Zafrul said the controversial Article 5.1 in the deal does not oblige Malaysia to adopt Washington’s policies, as “guardrails” within the broader text protect national interests. According to him, Malaysia is required to discuss such matters with the US and act only “if necessary”, in line with domestic laws and within a prescribed timeline.

“The provision also stressed that any actions taken by Malaysia have to be on issues of shared economic concern – that is, a shared problem for both Malaysia and the US,” he said.

But Mr Azmin Ali, a former international trade and industry minister, disagreed. The secretary-general of opposition pact Perikatan Nasional called Article 5.1 the “most damaging clause” in the agreement, saying it forces Malaysia to take Washington’s side in its conflicts.

“If Washington decides to block imports from China or Russia, Malaysia must do the same, even if it harms our economy,” said Datuk Seri Azmin in a statement.

“By aligning Malaysia’s policies with US decisions, the agreement risks driving away investors who value Malaysia’s neutrality and stability.” Similar concerns were raised on Oct 28 by the parliamentary select committee on international relations and trade, which announced a hearing on Nov 12 to review the agreement.

Dances with Wolves: Has Malaysia traded Sovereignty for Symbolism?

This ones a longer piece where I recommend reading the entire thing.

The most consequential parts of the pact are buried in the technical annexes and memoranda: – Malaysia agrees not to impose bans or quotas on exports of critical minerals and rare earth elements to the US; – Malaysia will align its supply-chain governance for those minerals with US standards; – Malaysia commits to “non-discriminatory access” for US firms in its semiconductor and critical-minerals sectors.

This is the quiet part of the “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership” upgrade: Malaysia’s critical sectors — minerals, semiconductors, data infrastructure — are now tethered to American geopolitical priorities. That is not the loss of sovereignty in the textbook sense, but it is a substantial narrowing of Malaysia’s freedom to chart its own economic course.

…Compare this with Japan and South Korea, both longstanding US allies. Their economic ties with the US are deep and institutional, not transactional. They operate within long-term industrial frameworks, joint R&D ventures, and multilateral trade architectures like the CPTPP and RCEP. Neither Tokyo nor Seoul was ever asked to sign one-off, multi-billion-dollar purchase pledges as a prerequisite for “strategic partnership.”

China’s model is different again. Beijing engages through investment, infrastructure, and market access — large but patient capital flows into ASEAN, backed by upgraded ASEAN–China FTA commitments. While Chinese financing can carry its own dependencies, it rarely comes with policy dictates about export controls or supply-chain compliance. The contrast is stark: China seeks markets and infrastructure routes; the US seeks supply-chain alignment and political conformity.

The developmental state in Malaysia is an intentional raced capitalist project juxtaposed against the racialised colonial/imperial capitalist world system often operating without intentionality in advancing processes of accumulation. This provides a pathway to address the conundrum of a developmental state seen as not always acting in ways that are subservient to the West, but simultaneously an imperial subject under the domination of imperialist states.

This should be contrasted to a country like Singapore, which intentionally aimed to cement itself into the global processes of accumulation.

The alternative is to view [race-based affirmative action] as replicating the racial logic of colonial capitalism, portrayed as a ‘hand-me-down’ from British colonialism. This view tends to negate the agency of Malay nationalists and cannot explain the broad-based support of non-elite Bumiputeras for the project, other than to implicate them as manipulated agents not acting in their own self-interests. It reproduces the orientalist discourse that assigns ‘irrationality and barbarism’ to non-elite actors (the colonised) and ‘rationality and civilization’ to elite actors (the coloniser). Furthermore, scholars who equate the racial logic of Bumiputera capitalism with the racial logic of British colonialism usually embed a post-racial outlook that renders all forms of racial intervention problematic. The Bumiputera agenda is misconstrued as a racial constraint hindering the full potential of Malaysian capitalism – in other words, a racial programme operating in a national/global economy that has transcended race…The modernity of global capitalism is something to be aspired to, its racial underpinnings not criticised or interrogated. Ultimately, such a post-racial conception fails to articulate the developmental state as a national capitalist project that has attempted to contend with ongoing racialisation of the national/global economy.

Relating to this, there’s this common sentiment from the petty bourgeois to always have your eggs in multiple baskets. What this means is that the people lack any sort of national allegiances, and are quick to move or try to relocate to the West especially. This is also enabled by the government’s own “openness” to foreign trade and investment, liberal visa policy, and established structures incentivising studies abroad, a sort of tradition started by the British wanting pliant feudal administrators and capitalist sycophants.

Many of these petty bourgeois feel unjustly treated by what they see as political machinations of a government elite, who would happy offer government contracts to Bumiputera owned companies but not them. This all makes the narrative of discrimination very compelling, fuelling a supposed brain drain. Coupled with Bumiputera only colleges and university quotas, many Chinese (and in some parallels, Indian) people especially feel cheated in a system that seemingly does not seem to care about them. But this also fuels sentiments that immigrants come here to make a “quick buck” and leave if things go bad.

To reclaim the place of Japanese imperialism in the retelling of Bumiputera capitalism, a myth surrounding the British colonial policy of divide and rule must be demystified, broadly invoked in public discourse as a strategy of creating racial hostilities and subsequently replicated by post- colonial governments to maintain power. While the British colonial policy had certainly segmented labour by race, it was in fact motivated by precisely the opposite reason, i.e. to reduce racial hostilities and maintain political order and stability so that capital accumulation could take place – a common colonial justification for conquest and control.

The deconstruction of race must hold this fact close, because ultimately the root causes of racial difference is itself capitalism and imperialism.

To resolve capitalist contradictions, the developmental state had to continuously adapt its gender strategy to complement the racially ordered system of capital accumulation amid changing power dynamics in the global economy. With the receding power of the British empire in Southeast Asia, coupled with the growing influence of the United States–Japan alliance in the region, Malaysia had to contend with massive direct investments from Japan from the mid-1980s, set off by an appreciation of the yen after the Plaza Accord in 1985. The gendered incorporation of rural Malay women as low-wage workers into Japanese multinational corporations operating within the ambit of export-oriented industries is well studied – the share of Malay female wage workers (as a percentage of total Malay female employed) significantly increased from 25.4% in 1970 to 50% in 1980.

Engagement with the global capitalist economy leads to ripple effects. Japanese investment in Thailand especially was critical for its pivot to export-oriented industrialisation, but failed to create vast employment opportunities. Before it was the Korean War that boosted the Malayan tin mining and rubber plantation economies.

In tandem with changing gender strategies, the developmental state also facilitated the transition of Bumiputera capitalism from a project predominantly focused on race to one where religion was more tightly hinged. At the onset of the NEP, Bumiputera capitalism was moored to the material objective of recapturing ownership and control of the colonial-inherited economy. While lauded as an objective, it inevitably meant taking over foreign corporate entities and acquiring their Western secular practices and business ethos. The ‘recaptured’ material domain became a point of contention as it did not address the moral/religious dimensions of economic life.

…However, what started out as a political anxiety around Islam has consequently taken on a self-sustaining economic rationality. The expansion of Malay wealth brought about by the NEP entails mobilising the savings and consumption of Malay-Muslim households for further rounds of capital accumulation, which increasingly has to be attuned to religious ethos and sensibilities. When ‘purified’ capital is mobilised under the capitalistic frames of the NEP, it also contributes to the growth of an Islamic economy perceived to be different from Western capitalism. In other words, religion provides cultural substance to the racial logic of constructing difference with Western hegemony while mobilising around the racial particular of Malayness in which Islam was central.

This fundamental misunderstanding of Islam in current society from both the Islamic and “non-Islamic” sides (which take on racial and class divisions), leads to scaremongering about turning into the Taliban’s Afghanistan or even Iran, while at the same time pushing against Western cultural consumerism and degradation of moral values. Both fail to capture the economic underpinnings of these developments.

One interesting quirk is that the “Islamic fundamentalists” (as described by the Chinese middle classes and Western media), constantly warn about the plight of Australian aboriginals and Native Americans in the US or even the Malays in Singapore. Because for the “fundamentalist”, Malay-Muslims having been economically sidelined in colonial-capitalism, fundamentally feels under attack from what they see as foreigners even til today. Mainstream Malay-Muslim identity is based on this claim of indigeneity through colonial trauma, of being ‘Bumiputera’ even if under UN definitions they are not Indigenous with a capital I.

by foregrounding the historical specificity of racial restructuring of a national capitalist project in Malaysia, it recentres race and colonialism in how we understand the developmental state. I provide a more nuanced reading of the ‘racial’ in raced capitalism encapsulated in such a project, reclaiming the developmental model and racial logic tethered to Japanese imperialism. This was adapted by Malay nationalists and turned into a counter-hegemonic capitalist endeavour to reverse the suppression of Malay/Bumiputera capitalism under British colonialism.

For a lot of politics, they disregard the economy. For a lot of economists, they disregard the political. Even in the study of the political economy, many rarely present the radical analysis of the “whole” that Marx and Engels argued for.

Shared peoples

Sharing a border, both have a somewhat sizeable shared populations of their national ethnic groups. However, this is more prevalent in Thailand, where the country has a 5-12% Muslim population (there is conflicting information even between different government sources), mostly concentrated in the Malay-speaking south. This has fueled seperatism due to the Southern provinces being ceded to the Thai kingdom after imperial agreements in the early 20th century. Nowadays the separatism has lessened in militancy but faces a stalled peace process between the separatists, and the military/government. That said, there is still deep resentment and continual securitisation in the Southern provinces, with the endurance of emergency laws that started in 2005. This ‘insurgency’ has largely been hidden from public media and especially Western media, in which all state and non-state actors seemingly agree to lay low to dissuade foreign interference.

A fun fact is that after the dissolution of the Malayan Communist Party in 1991, past guerrilla members resettled into “peace villages” across Southern Thailand due to Malaysia barring Communist members from re-entering the country. There is some evocative writing there, where chinese migrant labourers who ultimately fought for an egalitarian Malaya forced to reside in a region in which itself was separated from Malaya about 80 years prior.

Southeast Asian developmentalism

Both countries were tailing the main “Asian Tigers” (Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong), with some level of industrialization and transition towards full industrial capitalism by the early 1990s. This however would see it’s first major cracks in the Asian financial crisis of 1997-8. There has been extensive rhetoric for why Thailand and Malaysia failed to escape the middle-income trap and succumbed to neoliberalism and deindustrialization. Many fall into bourgeois-liberal culturalism or “crony capitalism”/“patronage politics” debates that fails to connect the two countries into the global processes of accumulation, uneven development and imperialism while considering local/national class structures. This neglect is itself a product of neoliberalism, leading to atomized analysis of individualistic policymaking of leaders.

The 1997-8 Asian Financial Crisis

There has been extensive literature on this topic so I won’t elaborate too much on it and urge people to read through the news and literature if they are interested.

Post-crash recovery

I like to highlight this era a bit more, to set the stage of the slowdown but not full crash of the two national economies, unlike that of other countries facing structural adjustment. This is because after the crash, it lead to heightened class-based struggles that were reflected in some rethinking and resistance to the “Washington Consensus” in both countries, highlighted by responses by Thaksin’s and Mahathir’s post-crash administrations. This was through debt moratoriums, targeted low-interest loans for rural populations and improved healthcare access schemes (Thailand), and capital controls, renationalization and greater emphasis on social-based Islamic financial instruments (Malaysia). These policies helped propelled Thai Rak Thai (TRT) and Barisan Nasional (BN) to overwhelming electoral victories in their respective elections in the early to mid 2000s. But as capitalism always does, another resulting cyclical crash occurred globally (the 2008 financial crisis), which was especially detrimental for the export oriented businesses.

Current political-economic developments

Household debt to GDP in Thailand and Malaysia are one of the highest in ASEAN, and generally in the world. This is symptomatic of debt-based financialization and is especially concerning for underdeveloped and semi-industrialized countries. About 65% of Malaysian household debt is due to real estate and 17% from vehicle purchases, compared to Thailand’s 33% (real estate) and 16% (vehicles). Thailand’s debt problem however has increasingly come from credit card and personal loans (18%).

Thailand’s economy is characterised by quite large disparities of urban and rural classes, with the affluent urban middle classes advocating for democratisation against the military aligned national bourgeosie. Other more savvy bourgeois groups also support democratization due to the perceived outdated superstructure of the military. Meanwhile, the rural classes consist mainly of farmers, petty commodity producers and semi-proletarians, with consistent classism by the urbanites of being uneducated and falling for simple rhetoric and vote-buying practices. Although typical of many other economies, what separates Thailand from other semi-industrialised countries is this large gap and continual failure to fully convert into a ‘developed’ capitalist economy via disciplining financial capital for investment in modern industrial sectors. This can clearly be seen in the patterns of urbanization in Thailand compared to other Asian countries.

Malaysia on the other hand face contradictions stemming from the complete proletarianization of the peasantry and other backward classes. The rise of migrant labour consisting of 10-20% of the total population (15-25% of the workforce) and racialization as means to negate class consciousness is representative of this capitalist development. The near immiseration of the countryside and integration into the global economy has lead to a rise in Islamic and petty bourgeois reformist movements that seek to mediate their class interests with international Capital. It has also lead to the rise of the urban poor and the precariat whose livelihoods majorly depends on the whims of property developers, landlords and technology platforms.

Edit: Minor grammar mistakes.

It has been a common assumption that the “political marriage” between Jokowi and Prabowo which ensured his presidential election victory would not last long. For Prabowo, any path had to be taken to become part of the ruling bourgeois. For Jokowi, who climbed to power not as part of the old national bourgeoisie, everything had to be done to ensure his political power could be sustained and continued. Even if it meant violating the Constitution and betraying his old allies. Essentially, in any bourgeois political union, the law of competition and conflict in the quest to be the most dominant is the iron law of their class interests. Political dominance paves the way for the accumulation and dominance of capital. This political union is no longer sustained by the stratagem of accommodating positions and money. There is not enough budget to continuously finance political accommodation, as seen in the analysis of the economic conditions.

The Prabowo-Jokowi political union has for several months shown latent cracks, including: Prabowo’s inaction on the issue of accusations that Jokowi’s university diploma is a fake, Prabowo’s inaction on calls for Gibran’s impeachment by several retired Indonesian Military (TNI) officers, Jokowi’s ally and business tycoon Riza Chalid being named a corruption suspect, the limitations on State-Owned Enterprises (SOE) Minister Erick Tohir’s power and authority, the deployment of the TNI to back up the Attorney General’s Office to confront the police, and the struggle over the portion of functions and authorities in the Draft Criminal Code (RKUHAP), are facts that must be seen as friction and cracks between the old and new rulers.

Since Prabowo-Gibran were inaugurated, two major issues have followed them to this day: first, the issue that Prabowo will be overthrown before his second year in power and replaced by Gibran; second, that Prabowo’s political consolidation will be completed in the first year, followed by the removal of Jokowi’s and Gibran’s cronies from the government and state institutions. Both issues have become more rampant since August 25. Although the “ball” has not directed at Prabowo since August 25 and the peak of the protests and riots on August 30. Accompanied by National Police Chief General Listyo Sigit Prabowo (no relation), Prabowo stated he “will not back down” and accused the week-long protests of being acts of treason and terrorism. Prabowo’s statement actually strengthens public suspicion that the moment was used to point the finger at his competitors, rather than admitting his own inability to solve the problems. As a result, the suspicion about the removal of Jokowi’s cronies has become even stronger…

The left-wing movement, the people’s movement, and the coalition of civil society organisations can be said to have been caught off guard by the speed of the recent political escalation, which was indeed beyond their reach and control. It is clear that the events of the last week were not initiated by these movements. Although most of them intervened after August 25. However, it is clear that this political escalation was not yet able be led by the left-wing movement, the people’s movements or civil society organisations.

The weakness of the left movement, especially the left that emerged from the pre-1998 spectrum, is due to mass demoralisation, divisions, ideological decline and the failure to become a political channel for the masses. The post-1998 spectrum left movement also has relatively less experience and political skill in assessing situations and facing political developments. Added to this is the massive trend of growth in radical petty-bourgeois individuals and communities who consider the led and organised struggle within left-wing parties as an outdated model of struggle. The left movement today is more diverse and fragmented. Rather than viewing this pessimistically, this diversity can be an opportunity and a strength if it can overcome the fragmentation and find minimum agreement on programs and tactics.

The growth of people’s movement organisations (labour, peasant, student and urban poor) has actually become more widespread and expansive since 1998. However, due to the lack of left-wing leadership, the transformation of the people’s movement from a social movement into a political movement has been hampered and slow. It has been less able to move quickly to intervene in moments and see windows of opportunity to accelerate mass consciousness and increase political escalation towards programmatic movement politics.

Civil society organisations actually have better infrastructure than the previous two movements. They are known by the media and have extensive networks although they do not have a broad mass base. Their tendency to limit their struggle to minimum demands for reform and easily achievable goals makes it difficult for them to lead and organise the revulsion and anger of the masses.

Although this position and stance can be said to be belated, it is certainly important for it to be explained as an understanding for the next dynamic. It is certainly important for us to respond to this political escalation with clarity of thought, vigilance and a clear position. And to dismiss the subjectivity that exaggerates mass consciousness and dynamics by declaring “the revolution is at the door”. Such recklessness would be fatal for the organisation, unity and struggle of the people. Therefore, objectivity must always be our guiding principle.

From the explanation above, there are several things the movement must do:

First, there is a need for a leadership strategy that manifests as a centre for political consolidation among a combination of the left-wing movement, the people’s movements and civil society organisations. A minimum agreement among these three elements is better than no agreement at all and no central consolidation whatsoever. Without a central consolidation, even one with a democratic-reformist character, we cannot expect there to be a democratic leadership that can become a pole of attraction, let alone hope for a revolutionary leadership.

Second, a grassroots strategy. Although social media is the fastest means to disseminate ideas and narratives to the people, the building of territorial, village and factory-level resistance committees is the best basis for establishing resistance organisations and forums for democracy, coordination and public education. The design of resistance organisations is best built physically (offline) rather than virtually (online).

Third, in the current situation, the battle between true and false narratives is very swift. An integrated and easily understood campaign is needed to counter the false narratives being spread. One that is fast, accurate, factual, engaging, easy to understand, and massive, organised collectively and integrated, is the key.

Fourth, workers must be radicalised and mobilised from both territorial and sectoral areas, and then organised systematically by continuously encouraging and training the leadership of the progressive labour movement as a more organised sector so that it is not easily infiltrated and pitted against itself.

In the words of our own defence minister – when confronted for hosting zionist weapons manufacturers at the NATSEC military expo in May 2024 – the supremacy of the free market reigns over the mass graves of Palestinians.

Our moral duty to support the colonised – despite once being occupied by British imperialism ourselves – is inferior to, for example, 80 million dollar deals with Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems for AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Advanced Targeting Pods.

There is an increasingly prevalent refrain by so-called progressives, that Malaysia, and by extension, Malaysians, somehow unconditionally support Palestinian liberation but fail to express sufficient solidarity when it comes to every other “humanitarian” cause. While true in Malaysia’s largely racialised and reactionary context, the genocide of Palestinians has become a convenient heuristic cynically instrumentalized by middle-class liberals, who are not normally concerned with anti-colonial liberation, to lazily drum up support for a neglected progressive cause, or expose the hypocrisy of their perceived political opponents without actually doing the work of building solidarity with the oppressed. Not only is this dehumanising to Palestinians going through an ongoing Nakba, it undermines any effort to build a collective movement for the liberation of the Global South.

This prevalent rhetoric, often adopted as truth without question, does not hold up to reality within a neocolonial and imperialist context. In truth, the symbols, discourses, and language of Palestinian liberation are merely appropriated, sanitised, and co-opted by the ruling elite and capitalist companies to preserve their cultural hegemony amidst growing anti-US, anti-zionist sentiments.

What is perceived as Malaysia’s support for the Palestinian cause is in fact the weaponisation of the Palestinian struggle by right-wing ethnonationalist groups to mobilise support for fascist racial and religious ideologies; crushing the potential for genuine progressive, inclusive anti-imperialist formations, while defanging the true dimensions of the Palestinian struggle as an overarching resistance to the U.S. imperialist war machine. Meanwhile, under the invisible hand of the free market, almost every single institution in Malaysia continues to maintain material ties with corporate giants and military entities supporting apartheid and genocide.

Decolonisation is not a metaphor. It cannot be substituted by the rhetoric of bourgeois politicians or the cynical co-optation of revolutionary Palestinian symbols by the elites, private corporations, racial and religious supremacists, and liberal non-profit industry. Decolonisation demands something much greater than us – a concrete commitment to a radical politic – which ultimately strives for the abolition of all forms of exploitation, colonisation, and oppression in the quest for genuine socialism and democracy.

The struggle against the United States, Western corporations, and RIMPAC naval exercises is therefore no longer just about Gaza: it is a struggle for our collective humanity against an empire which only brings death and destruction to its global neo-colonies.

It is a struggle against a capitalist system which plunders the Earth for the profit of a few multinational oligarchies; undermining our economic sovereignty while exploiting our wealth, labour, and resources to fund genocides and wars abroad.

It is a struggle against the complicity of every single neo-colonial institution in Malaysia; from the police to the armed forces to the government, who exchange weapons with zionist arms manufacturers and train alongside American and Israeli military forces while paying lip service to the Palestinian cause.

As Gaza becomes the graveyard of its occupiers, and the global divide between the colonised and coloniser becomes ever more clear, Malaysia is presented with a choice: either stand with the oppressed and be a part of the revolutionary Global South, or betray the fight for liberation to be a subservient client of the Euro-Atlantic order.

For me, in the past 2 years of genocide, it has never been clearer that our true heart and place belongs to the Global South.

It belongs with the Palestinian resistance in Jabalia and Beit Hanoun fighting against global superpowers with only recycled rockets and Soviet-era munitions.

It belongs with the people of Yemen who are showing the true meaning of solidarity despite being sanctioned and besieged by the entire world.

It belongs with every single soul in the Global South who has watched the televised genocide happening live in front of their eyes, and who see in the genocide of Gaza part of what the colonisers did to their own ancestors.

It belongs with all revolutionaries, past and present, from Malaya to Haiti; Algeria to Vietnam, who have fought, struggled and died for a better planet.

62 years after the formation of Malaysia, our post-colonial ruling class has accepted a compromised position within the global imperialist order in return for the scraps and bits of empire.

We divorced ourselves from the global proletarian revolution in return for their false promises of economic prosperity.

We accepted comfort, privilege, and collaboration over the revolutionary values of struggle and sacrifice.

This Hari Kebangsaan and Hari Malaysia [Independence/National day and (formation of) Malaysia day], enough is enough: our solidarity is no longer for sale.

Malaysia’s place is in the Global South.

Malaysia’s place is in the Resistance.

Authored by Kamal Aarif Kamaruddin, Reviewed by Aarani Diana Santhananaban, All photos are provided by GEGAR.

Since October 7th – which remains one of the greatest acts of decolonisation by an occupied population in modern history – I joined the millions of people across the world who, out of a sense of moral and historical urgency, became radicalised into joining the mass actions against the ongoing genocide in Palestine.

Along with a few fellow comrades, we formed Gegar Amerika, later known as GEGAR (Gerakan Gabungan Anti-Imperialis), – a progressive, anti-imperialist and anti-zionist collective united for the liberation of Palestine.

We slept in tents for 7 days outside of the U.S. embassy; defended the encampment against police and state authorities; joined hundreds in staging a sit-in against the police for its defence of the U.S. embassy in January 2024, and got called into questioning by the police for organising a protest against the NATSEC military exhibition in May 2024, which hosted the biggest sponsors of the genocide including Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, and Leonardo.

On June 10th last year, we disrupted the U.S. National Independence Day Dinner in KL, which hosted the U.S. Embassy while hundreds were being massacred in a joint US-Israeli operation in Nuseirat refugee camp.

Since then, we continued to organise direct actions against complicit Western imperialist  embassies and zionist corporations; from PNB and Sime Darby’s ties to Caterpillar to the starvation campaigns waged by Israel, America, U.K., and European Union against Gaza.

In response to Bisan Al-Owda’s call for action to stop the US-Israeli siege of Gaza, Malaysian protestors picket the front gates of the US embassy, banging pots and pans, while holding a banner which reads “Israel, Amerikka, UK, & EU: Stop Starving Gaza!“, 30 July 2025.

Yet, as we near the eve of Hari Kebangsaan and Hari Malaysia, the Malaysian government and its institutions, in spite of its nationalistic and superficially pro-Palestinian rhetoric, continues to serve and enforce the agenda of its imperialist masters.

After 2 years of being on the frontlines against genocide, it is clear that the question of Palestine is no longer just a struggle against a 77-year old zionist occupation. In the heart of Malaya, it is also a struggle against the oppressive neo-colonial state in Putrajaya, which upholds the interests of Washington and its Western allies, while oppressing workers and Indigenous peoples at home.

A Malaysian police officer carries a gun during a GEGAR protest at the US Embassy on the anniversary of the First Intifada, 13 December 2024.

Our solidarity as Malaysians falls flat as long as we refuse to confront a basic but uncomfortable reality: that until Malaysia breaks away from the forces of U.S. imperialism, we are and continue to be complicit in the U.S.-Israeli death machine. We have been and are still enabling the genocide of Palestinians.

Recently, in July 2025, the Malaysian military hosted U.S. and Australian armed forces in Perak, as the Western-imperialist war machine actively committed genocide and mass murder across Palestine, Yemen, Lebanon, Iran, and Global South. Not only does it partner us in genocide: it invites the presence of war criminals in our communities; polluting our environment and neighbourhoods with tanks, fighter jets, and armed trucks, muddying our moral standards, and tainting our obligations to the oppressed.

Meanwhile, next year, in 2026, the Royal Malaysian Navy will participate in the bi-annual RIMPAC naval exercise in Hawaii alongside the imperialist America and zionist state of  Israel. The RIMPAC exercises is a microcosm of capitalism’s murderous tendencies: the fascist militaries of the global ruling class gather in the Pacific to exchange the technologies, tactics, and strategies that they have gained from waging wars and counterinsurgencies against poor and oppressed bodies around the globe.

Not only does our navy participate in a military exercise alongside genocidal forces, but activists in Okinawa and Hawa’ii have long protested the RIMPAC exercises for its destruction of Indigenous lands, contamination of air and water, and sexual and patriarchal violence against Indigenous women, girls, queer and gender-diverse people.

Soldier or policeman brandishes a rifle while overlooking a pots-and-pans banging action at the gates of the US embassy to protest the US, Israeli, EU, and UK-imposed starvation of Gaza, 30 July 2025.

After 2 years of boycotts and rallies, it is clear that the Malaysian state remains firmly loyal to the forces of Capital and Empire. The same government that shook hands with Ismail Haniyeh has no qualms joining forces with the zionist army bombing patients in Al-Shifa and massacring hundreds in a single 10-minute operation in Nuseirat.

Meanwhile, global corporations, financing the genocide have further entrenched their neo-colonialist interests in Malaysia. In July 2024, as humanitarian zones in Mawasi were relentlessly bombed, a joint consortium led by Khazanah, EPF, Abu Dhabi Investment, and Blackrock acquired shares of Malaysian Airport Holdings Berhad (MAHB), handing control of 39 Malaysian airports to the Blackrock monopoly.

Blackrock is a major sponsor of the ongoing genocide in Gaza, funding American weapons manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co, Raytheon Co, General Dynamics Corp, and Northrop Grumman Corp. For decades, Blackrock has funded America’s overseas wars of aggression, The cumulative death toll from the post-9/11 wars of counterterrorism has reached over 4.5 million in Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Yemen in what could only be considered a modern Holocaust.

As it spreads war and devastation across the globe, Blackrock has maintained a monopolistic grip over the Malaysian economy; owning equity shares in hundreds of firms including Simes Darby, Petronas, Tenaga Nasional, and more. Since the past decade, Blackrock has played an increasingly influential role in almost every aspect of working-class life in Malaysia from EPF pensions to healthcare to “Syariah-compliant” banking.

Activists stage a sit-in in front of the Employee Provident Fund (EPF) headquarters in Jalan Palestin to protest Blackrock investments in retirement funds, 29 August 2024.

Meanwhile, in its drive to secure financial investments from Western imperialist entities, Anwar’s government is pushing for the construction of Microsoft and Google cloud infrastructure and data centres across Malaysia, exploiting our environment, and polluting our land, water, and air. In allowing our resources to be colonised by Western tech giants, Malaysia becomes an integral link in a long imperialist supply chain from the mining and exploitation of minerals in the Congo and Bolivia, to the supply of digital infrastructure and services for Israeli and American war criminals.

continued in reply

The tourism industry, which has welcomed more than 22 million foreign visitors so far this year and generated over 1 trillion baht in revenue, is equally concerned. Thienprasith Chaiyapatranan, president of the Thai Hotels Association (THA), warned that a strong baht makes Thailand appear expensive compared with regional rivals. Tourists may not cancel their trips outright, but they are spending less. With fixed travel budgets, a stronger baht translates into fewer restaurant meals, less shopping, and fewer excursions. Although the upcoming high season may temporarily mask these effects, the longer-term picture is troubling as competitors like Vietnam and Japan—where the yen has fallen dramatically—become more attractive. Farmers, too, are feeling the strain. Revenues from rice and field crop exports have been cut even as domestic costs continue to rise. The result is a squeeze on rural producers who already operate on thin margins, deepening financial pressure in the agricultural sector.


> Business leaders are calling for urgent intervention. The Thai Chamber of Commerce has described the current situation as a “currency shock that runs counter to the real economy,” urging the government and the Bank of Thailand to act before competitiveness erodes further. The Joint Standing Committee on Commerce, Industry and Banking has gone so far as to recommend separating Thailand’s gold balance sheet from its core economic indicators, arguing that gold-related inflows distort the real strength of the baht. At the same time, officials are cautious, knowing that overly aggressive intervention could risk accusations of “currency manipulation,” particularly from the United States, which has linked exchange-rate issues to trade negotiations.

Kasikorn Research believes the baht could soon test the 31.50 per dollar level if U.S. interest rate cuts go ahead, with the next support point seen at 31.30. Few expect it to return to the historic peak of 30 baht per dollar reached in 1978, as the central bank is expected to quietly intervene to prevent excessive gains.

Yet the warning signs are already visible. Kriangkrai Thiennukul, chairman of the Federation of Thai Industries (FTI), has stressed that the sharpest rally in four years is damaging exporters, tourism operators, and small businesses across the board. While cheaper imports such as oil offer some relief, the net effect is decidedly negative. If the baht continues to appreciate independently of economic fundamentals, he said, Thailand risks losing its competitive edge.

For policymakers, the paradox is stark. A strong baht is often hailed as a sign of investor confidence, but its rapid and excessive rise is inflicting real pain on the ground. Exporters are losing contracts, tourists are spending less, and farmers are taking losses they cannot pass on. With a new finance minister and central bank governor preparing to take office, the business community is urging swift action. Unless the baht is managed more carefully, Thailand could be left with a currency that looks strong on paper while the real economy weakens beneath it.

Outside of the countries in the Maghreb and Sahel, the 2 (!) other countries in green are Seychelles and Malaysia! Quite an odd combination - perhaps Algeria’s hidden gambit for Indian Ocean control?

A visit to the website of the Algerian Embassy in Kuala Lumpur proves fascinating.

In the first line, on a page titled “Historical Background”:

Algeria opened its Embassy in Kuala Lumpur in 1993. Relations between Algeria and Malaysia are excellent.

It’s apparently excellent! Never in my life have I heard any utterance with these two countries together, but I guess I have been missing out. Other parts of the website seems lively and functional.

Still, I have to ask myself, to what honour does Malaysia have to get elusive visa-free access to Algeria? (and to some extent vice-versa, although Malaysia is quite open towards visitors.)

Taking a quick look at the history, and the culprit is, of course, Mahathir. For all the good and bad in this country, it seems all roads always lead to him.

In a speech he made in 2003 Algiers:

Malaysia is very keen to have a stronger presence in the Northern African region. This is in line with the effort to encourage Malaysian businesses to tap the potential for trade among South countries which has not been explored to the fullest.

It is recognised that Algeria is the second largest country in Africa after Sudan with a population of 32.3 million, which is larger than the 24 million population of Malaysia. Algeria is Malaysia’s second largest trading partner in Northern Africa, with trade in 2002 amounting to 116.1 million U.S. Dollars. Malaysia’s exports to Algeria in 2002 was 113.6 million U.S. Dollars and imports was 2.5 million U.S. Dollars, a gross imbalance which needs to be addressed.

Alongside the neoliberal hits he was known for

…This is to ensure that the private sector can continue to be the primary engine of economic growth. Through the Malaysia-Incorporated Policy which has been adopted more than a decade ago, we are able to create a smart partnership between the government and private sector to achieve mutual benefit and help develop our country.

But alas that has been the common thread of Malaysian foreign policy. Mired with contradictions of history.

Despite its putative allure, a closer reading of Mahathir’s Malaysia, its position and its relationships with globalisation will reveal not a rejection of globalisation in toto but a rather more selective engaged relationship with globalisation. Its economic agenda remains wedded to an open and globalised economy and yet, it combines a syncretic mix of structuralism, modernization and dependency theories and a dose of neo-colonialist discourses. Intended to reintroduce agency and space back into the closed frameworks and representational categories of a globalising (and somewhat universalizing) trend, Malaysia’s strategies have shown us states are still relevant and that we can (re)discover, reaffirm and articulate our own agency, build and develop alternative ‘local’ practices and resources as we engaged with the contours of global capitalism. - Mahathir, Malaysia and Globalisation: Challenging Orthodoxy

But going back to the topic at hand, we have to ask ourselves, again, why visa-free?

A quick glance at the OEC site showcases unremarkable trade statistics.

Recent news does seem quite optimistic:

Malaysia, Algeria sign deal to develop mining industry 2025/06/18

Malaysia and Algeria have officially launched a strategic industrial cooperation project worth 8 billion USD, backed by Malaysia’s Lion Group, marking a major step forward in bilateral ties and ushering in a new development phase for Algeria’s mining sector.

Algeria, Malaysia have made significant progress in bilateral ties – Ambassador 2022/11/02

Maandi explained that the Algerian new investment law, approved recently by the government, which aims at attracting foreign investors and improving its business climate, would certainly encourage Malaysian investors to look for investment opportunities and do business in Algeria.

Or could it possibly be Malaysian and Algerian Islamic histories of post-colonial regrets and complicated labour and settler colonial migrations that had struck a chord.

Sénac’s vision of Algeria as ‘a raceless culture,’ a multicultural and plural society tolerant and acceptant of its diversity, would be deeply frustrated by Ben Bella’s turn toward ‘Arabization’ and ‘Islamization’ as the new authentic poles of Algerian identity. As Algeria turned more exclusively toward the type of Arab nationalism promoted by Nasser, Sénac’s disenchantment with the country’s betrayal of its pluralistic identity became more and more visible in his poetry: ‘I love you—but wait, I am speaking to the void! I gave up my love to the cicadas of Europe. I gave up everything—Revolution!—for what? A rolling dune without a mirage to rest his head on! - Re-remembering Third Worldism: An Affirmative Critique of National Liberation in Algeria

Compare that to Malaysia, a country 10,000km away.

By now, the Salafization of Malaysian Islam seems to be beyond doubt, barring a future resurgence of traditionalist ulama who are able to provide a convincing counter narrative and at the same time strategically attempt a capture of the commanding heights of Malaysia’s power centres. Discomfort expressed in public forums about “Arabization” is symptomatic of Wahhabi-Salafi categories increasingly defining the terrain of Malay-Muslim society through the use of terms that are decontextualizing, dehistoricizing and deculturating (cf. Koya 2015; Zahiid 2016). - The Extensive Salafization of Malaysian Islam

Perhaps, one day I can knock the door of the Embassy and get a response directly from the source.

Regardless, this quiet diplomacy continues and we go on about our lives.

Some works I have referenced are behind pay-walls. I can personally share if requested, although would like suggestions for which sites to upload them on.