What this lesson teaches
I can judge how Southeast Asian governments held on to power and what this led to.
Syllabus 9174, Paper 2, Theme I, Learning Outcomes. evaluate the outcomes of Southeast Asian governments in consolidating power in different contexts and over time
Make a guess
Suharto's Indonesia grew about 7 per cent a year for decades. Do you think good economic results guaranteed his survival?
- No, he lost a free election in 1997.
- No, when the 1997 crisis hit, he fell within a year.
- Yes, growth kept him safe until he chose to retire.
Show the answer
No, when the 1997 crisis hit, he fell within a year.
Performance gave strong legitimacy while growth lasted. Economic collapse then helped bring Suharto down in 1998.
Delivering growth, jobs and housing gave governments strong legitimacy. Economic failure often brought rulers down.
Singapore's PAP built its legitimacy on results. Public housing, jobs from foreign investment, and clean, efficient government won steady support. By 1990 most Singaporeans lived in government-built flats.
Suharto's New Order also rested on performance. The economy grew by about 7 per cent a year, and Indonesia became self-sufficient in rice by 1984. Official poverty fell from about 40 per cent of the population in 1976 to about 11 per cent in 1996.
In Malaysia, the New Economic Policy from 1971 cut poverty from about 49 per cent in 1970 to about 17 per cent in 1990. This supported the Barisan Nasional's hold on power.
Failure was dangerous. Under Sukarno, inflation passed 600 per cent in 1965-1966, which weakened his position. Under Marcos, debt and corruption led to a severe economic crisis in 1984-1985. In Burma, Ne Win cancelled most banknotes in 1987, wiping out savings, which helped spark the uprising of 1988.
The Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-1998 destroyed Suharto's claim to good performance. Prices rose, the rupiah collapsed, and he resigned in May 1998.
- Indonesian poverty
- About 40% (1976) to about 11% (1996).
- Malaysian poverty
- About 49% (1970) to about 17% (1990).
- Burma 1987
- Banknotes cancelled; savings wiped out.
Real examples to use
Housing the nation
By the 1990s about 85 per cent of Singaporeans lived in flats built by the Housing and Development Board, a visible result that won the PAP support.
Rice self-sufficiency, 1984
Indonesia produced about 25.8 million tons of rice in 1984 and stopped needing imports. The FAO honoured Suharto for it in 1985.
Burma's demonetisation, 5 September 1987
Ne Win's government cancelled the 25, 35 and 75 kyat notes without compensation. Roughly three quarters of the money in circulation became worthless, and the anger fed the 1988 uprising.
Worked example: Testing performance legitimacy
How far did performance keep governments in power?
- Success: Singapore, Malaysia and Suharto's Indonesia for decades.
- Failure: Sukarno in 1965-1966, Marcos in 1984-1986, Ne Win in 1987-1988.
- Risk: performance legitimacy can collapse in a crisis, as in 1998.
- Judgement: a strong source, but a fragile one.
Watch out for this
Good economic performance guaranteed a government's survival.
Performance legitimacy was strong but fragile. Suharto delivered growth for thirty years but fell within months when the Asian Financial Crisis struck.
Check your understanding
Why did the Asian Financial Crisis threaten Suharto?
- It cut him off from American military aid.
- It destroyed his main claim to legitimacy, economic success.
- It led to a communist uprising that the army failed to stop.
Show the answer
It destroyed his main claim to legitimacy, economic success.
Right. He resigned in May 1998.