7 * 8 JULY 2000
LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM
Centre and Periphery
On 7 and 8 July 2000, the workshop 'Centre and Periphery in Southeast Asia' was held at the Centre for Southeast Asian Studies at the School of African and Oriental Studies (SOAS) in London, UK. The purpose of the gathering was to review issues relating to centre and periphery in the Southeast Asian context. The workshop was designed to be multi-disciplinary, and was based on the premise that the complex issues of regionalism and national identity can only be understood when examined in historical depth, and from the perspectives of economics, politics, law, geography, and anthropology.
By ANNE BOOTH
The workshop produced a number of stimulating discussions on the concept of nation and nationalism in the Southeast Asian context and on the usefulness of the centre-periphery dichotomy. Several participants thought that the concepts of centre and periphery carried too much baggage from the past (especially from the Latin American dependency debates of the 1970s) and that, in the more dynamic Southeast Asian context, they should be dropped in favour of other concepts such as urbanization or regionalism. The historical papers in particular were concerned with the growth of feelings of national identity in the Southeast Asian context and the extent to which the various countries which now comprise the ASEAN region were in fact colonial constructs. The lawyers stressed the importance of laws and constitutions in the creation of national identities, while the economists concentrated more on the nature of the financial relationships between the centre and the regions.
Some of the papers presented were conceptual in nature and looked at the region as a whole, while others concentrated on particular countries (Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand). Inevitably, given the dramatic nature of recent events in Indonesia, that country tended to dominate many of the discussions, although some useful comparisons were made. For example, a contrast was drawn between the way fiscal federalism operated in the Malaysian context (and the consequences for the East Malaysian States of Sabah and Sarawak) and the nature of centre-regional financial relations in the centralized system which has prevailed in Indonesia under the New Order. In the panel devoted especially to Indonesia, there was considerable discussion of the implications of the laws passed in May 1999 regarding regional and local government, and regional finance.
Several participants stressed the importance of cultural, religious, and linguistic factors in the current troubles in various parts of Indonesia and the importance of taking these factors into consideration when framing new laws on political and economic decentralization.
The workshop had contributions from five historians (from the UK, the Netherlands, Malaysia, and Portugal), two lawyers (from the UK and Singapore), four geographers (from Germany and the UK), four economists (from the UK and Malaysia), four political scientists (from the UK, Indonesia, Brunei and Myanmar/Singapore), and a cultural anthropologist (from Germany). Two of the participants were post-graduate students (an Indonesian MA student from Bristol University in the UK, and a Malaysian PhD student from the London School of Economics, UK). Unfortunately, a political scientist from France and a geographer from Spain and based in Germany had to drop out for personal reasons.
While many of the papers were presented as first drafts, there seems little doubt that a quality publication can emerge from the workshop. Anne Booth and Jonathan Rigg have undertaken the task of approaching all the participants with suggestions for revisions. A final manuscript should be ready for submission to a publisher in early 2001.
Professor Anne Booth is professor of economics at the School for Oriental and African Studies, London, UK.
E-mail: ab10@soas.ac.uk