The Economist - In South-East Asia, the war in Gaza is roiling emotions

Far more than Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the war in Gaza is rattling public opinion in three key South-East Asian countries: Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore. The first two have Muslim-majority populations, and Singapore, largely ethnic-Chinese, has a Muslim minority of 16%. As on campuses in America and in street protests in Europe, the sympathies among those who are concerned about the conflict—and who in Singapore include many young non-Muslims—are for Palestinians suffering from Israel’s heavy-handed prosecution of the war.

Strong feelings have thus made the war a political challenge in ways that are connected, but also vary from country to country. Malaysia’s prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim, is by far the most strident leader in South-East Asia in support of the Palestinians. Mr Anwar has decried what he says was Western pressure to condemn Hamas, the hardline group ruling Gaza that started the war with a brutal raid on Israel.

While Palestine maintains an official embassy in Kuala Lumpur, Hamas can boast an unofficial one. Mr Anwar’s government has banned Israeli ships from docking. Politicians join rallies against the West’s backing of Israel.

Mr Anwar’s stance is no surprise. He has long espoused Palestinian independence. Malaysia itself has refused to recognise Israel. Meanwhile his chief challenge comes from PAS, an ultra-conservative Islamic group and the largest party in parliament. He cannot afford to let pas outflank him on religious issues, or he loses power.

comes from PAS, an ultra-conservative Islamic group

If PAS is ultra-conservative then every single Western political party is ultra-ultra-ultra-ultra-ultra-conservative.

For now Mr Anwar sees little downside in his pro-Palestinian, anti-American stance. His government, keen on Western investment, says it is open for business. Yet more stridency may make investors wonder. As it is, Malaysia’s religiously tolerant ethnic minorities are growing more uncomfortable with the increased religiosity that the Gaza war has helped feed.

The government has drank the neoliberal Kool-Aid of foreign investments, yes, but seemingly these Western companies continue to keep coming despite the geopolitical positions of the country.

These fake concern for investments acting like the West and particularly the US are their biggest investors when that is not even the case for majority of ASEAN anymore.

In Indonesia feelings also run high. Yet the rhetoric among political leaders is relatively restrained. True, the government of Joko Widodo has condemned Israel’s imminent offensive on Rafah, Hamas’s last stronghold. And, in a recent opinion piece for The Economist that was widely cheered back home, the president-elect, Prabowo Subianto, condemned the West for caring more about Ukrainians’ fate than Palestinians’. Yet that is tame stuff compared with Mr Anwar: unlike Malaysia’s denial of Israel, Mr Prabowo calls for talks and a two-state solution. What factors explain the difference? Indonesia’s ties with Israel are closer than the elites like to let on.

Malaysian official foreign policy stance is still the two-state solution, although that has been obviously not mentioned in the context of the Zionist Regime’s relentless assault against the Palestinian people.

They include purchases of Israeli tech and weaponry. Before the war, secret talks looked likely to establish ties between the two countries, starting with reciprocal trade offices. Although Mr Prabowo denies Islamists’ claims that he is chummy with Israel, he is in little danger of being outflanked by hardliners, having absorbed key Muslim political groupings in his coalition. Domestic considerations count.

This is mostly true and Israeli-Indonesian relations will be mostly off the books by most accounts.

Any public relations, including normalization, despite Western sources stating otherwise, is near impossible. It’s not as likely as they otherwise try to picture.

Squeezed between Indonesia and Malaysia, Singapore has close security ties with Israel—two small states encircled by danger. Yet Gaza greatly complicates the relationship, on account of domestic feeling. As Lawrence Wong, the incoming prime minister, told The Economist this week, even though the war in Ukraine carries economic consequences for Singapore, at an emotional level it resonates little.

encircled by danger

Yeah the two states are similar in their racism against Muslims, with their founders being White supremacists and having disdain of Islam and indigenous people. Surprisingly, they have close relations, I know.

By contrast, though Gaza has had negligible economic effect, it has had “a much higher level of resonance”, given the plight of Palestinians. The concern is that communal tensions might surface in ways that strain Singapore’s famed social and religious harmony. That, says the government, is why pro-Palestinian demonstrations have been banned. Christians, who are generally pro-Israel and account for 19% of the population, would demand their own protests, thereby bringing religious discord into the open. The government also fears that Malaysian stridency could cross the bridge that joins the two countries and foster extremism in Singapore.

communal tensions

A common phrase echoed by the Singaporean establishment to justify their continual interference and authoritarian measures of silencing dissent.

The racial undertones are also perfectly clear to those that aren’t blind. Who are the instigators in the picture they are trying to portray? With whom are they trying to gaud into being against?

This “surrounded by nefarious and scheming Muslims” rhetoric has been the hallmark of Singapore’s post independence psyche because it precisely justifies its own existence.

It is patently false since Malaysia has a larger Chinese population than Singapore’s total population. It ignores the fact that by declaring independence it put the Chinese in neighbouring Malaysia in jeopardy. This is why I say Singapore’s independence has been selfish. It was done to maintain the rule and capital accumulation of the colonial-era anglophone Singaporean bourgeoisie who would lose many of its privileges under a partnership with Malaysia.

This post-hoc justification is nothing but that, fluff that ironically, despite what they say, actually inflames racial and communal divisions more.

Bringing up the 19% Christian population is nothing but a diversionary tactic that ignores the realities of the mass support for Palestine. The Singaporean government simply doesn’t take the step forward because it would anger their monopoly-Capital overlords based in London and New York. It would challenge the long-standing justifications of their existence and bring about a truly progressive and international outlook that they truly despise.

The necessary response, Mr Wong says, is “to go out [and] explain to our people the positions that Singapore has taken”. That includes condemning Israel’s heavy hand, urging for a ceasefire and a two-state solution and providing aid to beleaguered Palestinians. Those steps are surely right in themselves. But in South-East Asia, when dealing with a distant war, never ignore factors that are close-to-hand.

Singapore’s position is closer to that of her European parents, which remains unsurprising as they have been colonised economically and spiritually. Singapore continues to contribute to the “accumulation of waste”, as coined by Ali Kadri, contributing to Israeli’s defense industry to defend against a mythical invasion from those dastardly Muslims.