Oligarchi (12)

"Tell me about the Oligarchs in Singapore!" asked Limbuk. Cangik replied, "Singapore is often regarded as an economic success story, known for its efficient governance, high per capita income, and strict rule of law. However, beneath its image as a highly functional state, critics argue that it operates as a form of oligarchy, where political and economic power is concentrated in the hands of a small elite. Unlike traditional oligarchies dominated solely by business magnates or hereditary elites, Singapore’s oligarchy is a hybrid of political technocracy and corporate influence, deeply intertwined with the ruling People's Action Party (PAP).

In his work, The Political Economy of Singapore's Industrialization: National State and International Capital (1989, Cambridge University Press), Garry Rodan examines how Singapore's state-led industrialisation has resulted in a political economy characterised by significant state control over economic activities, leading to a concentration of power among political elites.

Rodan argues that the Singaporean state's active role in directing industrial policy has been central to its economic development. By positioning itself as a key player in the industrialization process, the state has not only facilitated economic growth but also ensured that political power remains concentrated among a select group of elites. This approach has allowed the state to maintain tight control over economic activities, effectively intertwining political authority with economic management.

The state's involvement in the economy has been multifaceted, including the establishment of state-owned enterprises and the strategic attraction of foreign investment under terms favorable to national interests. This deliberate strategy has reinforced the political dominance of the ruling elites as they oversee and benefit from the nation's economic progress. Consequently, Singapore's political economy is characterized by a symbiotic relationship between state-led industrialization and the consolidation of elite power.

Since its independence in 1965, Singapore has been governed by the PAP, which was co-founded by Lee Kuan Yew, the country’s first Prime Minister. The party has maintained nearly unchallenged rule for decades, shaping the country’s political system in a way that limits opposition and centralizes power within a small political elite. The Lee family remains at the core of Singapore’s political structure, with Lee Kuan Yew’s son, Lee Hsien Loong, serving as Prime Minister since 2004. While Singapore technically holds elections, the political landscape is heavily skewed in favor of the PAP through gerrymandering, defamation lawsuits against opposition figures, and strict media regulations.

One of the strongest signs of political oligarchy in Singapore is how key leadership positions remain within a close-knit circle of elites. Government ministers are often drawn from a small pool of top civil servants, military generals, and scholars groomed through government-funded education programs, ensuring that political leadership remains within an exclusive network. The high ministerial salaries—among the highest in the world—are justified as a way to prevent corruption, but they also reinforce a closed system where only the wealthy and highly educated can enter politics.

In Transparency and Authoritarian Rule in Southeast Asia: Singapore and Malaysia (2004, Routledge), Garry Rodan examines how Singapore's leadership employs selective transparency to maintain elite control. He argues that, in response to external pressures for transparency following the 1997-98 Asian economic crisis, Singapore implemented reforms in corporate governance and financial regulations to attract international capital without compromising its authoritarian governance. This approach differentiates between economic transparency, which is enhanced to facilitate investment, and political transparency, which remains limited to prevent challenges to the ruling elite.

routledge.com

This selective transparency creates a paradox where Singapore's transparent economic policies coexist with restrictive political practices. While the government ensures clear and consistent corporate disclosures to maintain economic competitiveness, it simultaneously restricts media freedom and civil society activities to suppress political dissent. This dual strategy allows Singapore to benefit from the economic advantages of transparency while preserving the political status quo.

Singapore’s economy is characterized by a unique blend of state capitalism and private enterprise, where the government directly controls key industries through sovereign wealth funds like Temasek Holdings and GIC (Government of Singapore Investment Corporation). Many of the country’s most powerful companies, including Singapore Airlines, DBS Bank, and Singtel, are either state-owned or have strong government ties, ensuring that economic power remains centralized.

A major feature of Singapore’s oligarchy is how political elites often transition into corporate leadership roles and vice versa. For example, Temasek Holdings has been led by Ho Ching, the wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, further reinforcing the tight connection between political and economic power. Additionally, many high-ranking government officials and military officers later take on executive roles in government-linked corporations (GLCs), ensuring that the same elite group controls both state policy and major industries. This system has been described as a "revolving door" between politics and business, where power remains within a small elite network.

Despite this concentration of power, Singapore differs from more traditional oligarchies because it maintains a high level of efficiency, economic stability, and low corruption. The government uses its control over the economy to promote rapid development, provide high-quality public services, and ensure that the elite’s dominance appears meritocratic rather than purely hereditary. This has allowed Singapore to avoid the levels of inequality and political instability seen in more exploitative oligarchic systems.

In The Politics of Accountability in Southeast Asia: The Dominance of Moral Ideologies (2014, Oxford University Press), Garry Rodan and Caroline Hughes examine how moral ideologies are utilized to maintain elite dominance in Southeast Asian countries, including Singapore.

The authors argue that, in Singapore, the ruling elite employs moral ideologies to define and enforce acceptable behavior among public officials and citizens. This approach emphasizes ethical conduct and societal values, positioning the government as the guardian of morality. By framing accountability in moral terms, the elite can address demands for good governance without implementing liberal democratic reforms that might challenge their authority. This strategy allows the maintenance of existing power structures while projecting an image of integrity and responsibility.

Rodan and Hughes highlight that this moral framing is bolstered by influential organizations, such as religious bodies and media outlets, which reinforce the state's moral narratives. In Singapore, the alignment between the state and these organizations strengthens the moral discourse, further entrenching elite dominance by limiting the scope of accountability to ethical behavior rather than systemic political change.

This utilization of moral ideologies effectively deflects pressures for democratic reforms by channeling public expectations into areas that do not threaten the existing power hierarchy. Consequently, while promoting a facade of accountability, the elite preserves its dominance by avoiding substantial political liberalization.

In "The Hidden Globe: How Wealth Hacks the World (Riverhead Books, 2024), Atossa Araxia Abrahamian examines how special economic zones (SEZs) and territorial ambiguities, such as those in Singapore, enable wealth to reshape economic and political landscapes, thereby facilitating elite control.

Abrahamian discusses the role of free ports—special zones within a country where goods can be stored without incurring customs duties. In Singapore, the development of such free ports has attracted significant wealth by offering tax advantages and confidentiality to art collectors and investors. This system allows the affluent to store valuable assets like art, gems, and jewelry without the scrutiny typical in other jurisdictions, effectively creating enclaves of economic activity that operate under different legal and tax regulations.

These zones exemplify how the wealthy can leverage territorial ambiguities to their advantage, establishing areas that operate under tailored laws and regulations. This strategic use of legal exceptions enables elites to maintain and grow their wealth with minimal oversight, thereby reinforcing their economic and political influence. Abrahamian's analysis highlights the complexities of global capitalism, where such zones contribute to a parallel world that often operates beyond the reach of traditional state governance.

Through these mechanisms, SEZs and territorial ambiguities in places like Singapore facilitate elite control by providing environments where wealth can be accumulated and managed with reduced regulatory interference. This contributes to a restructuring of economic and political landscapes, often in ways that favor the interests of the affluent over broader societal considerations.

One of the defining traits of oligarchic rule in Singapore is its tight control over media and civil society, ensuring that opposition voices struggle to gain traction. Most mainstream media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel NewsAsia, and Mediacorp, are directly or indirectly linked to the government, leading to self-censorship and a lack of critical reporting on the ruling elite. Laws such as the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) allow the government to take legal action against individuals or media organizations that challenge the official narrative.

Additionally, political dissent is restricted through defamation lawsuits and strict assembly laws. Opposition politicians, such as Chee Soon Juan and JB Jeyaretnam, have been sued for defamation by government leaders, resulting in financial ruin and disqualification from running for office. This legal strategy ensures that political competition remains weak and that elite dominance continues unchallenged.

While Singapore’s system shares characteristics with oligarchies elsewhere, it differs in key ways. Unlike Russia’s resource-based oligarchy or Thailand’s military-royalist oligarchy, Singapore’s ruling elite legitimizes its dominance through economic success, strong governance, and low corruption. The government has maintained public trust by delivering high living standards, world-class infrastructure, and efficient public services, making resistance to its oligarchic structure rare compared to other nations where wealth concentration leads to widespread dissatisfaction.

At the same time, this stability comes at the cost of political competition, media freedom, and social mobility for those outside elite circles. While Singapore presents itself as a meritocracy, the reality is that access to power is largely restricted to those from elite educational backgrounds, government service, or corporate leadership, reinforcing a system where governance remains in the hands of a small group.

Death of a Perm Sec by Wong Souk Yee (2016, Epigram Books) is a political thriller that delves into the power dynamics of Singapore’s ruling elite. The story follows the suspicious death of Chow Sze Teck, a former permanent secretary accused of corruption. His apparent suicide by overdose raises doubts, leading to an investigation that unravels deeper secrets about political control, systemic corruption, and the opaque nature of governance in Singapore.

The story revolves around the death of Chow Sze Teck, the permanent secretary of the housing ministry in 1980s Singapore, who is accused of accepting millions in bribes over his career. His death initially appears to be a suicide caused by a mixture of alcohol, morphine, and Valium. However, as a Criminal Investigation Department (CID) inspector delves deeper, the family uncovers potentially more sinister circumstances that may implicate high-ranking government officials. The novel explores the dark heart of power politics, from Singapore's tumultuous post-independence days to the socio-political landscape of the 1980s.

The novel critiques the oligarchic structure of Singapore’s political system, where a small group of elites hold immense influence over the country. Through Chow’s character and the unfolding mystery, the book explores themes of political suppression, the lack of transparency in government dealings, and the consequences of absolute power. Wong Souk Yee, a former political detainee herself, uses fiction to highlight how Singapore’s tightly controlled political environment stifles dissent and rewards loyalty within the ruling elite.

By portraying the fate of a high-ranking civil servant entangled in corruption and secrecy, Death of a Perm Sec offers a rare, critical perspective on Singapore’s oligarchy, shedding light on how power is maintained and challenges are suppressed.

Singapore’s oligarchy is unique because it operates under the guise of technocratic efficiency rather than outright elite exploitation. The PAP and the Lee family have ensured that power remains concentrated within a small ruling class while using economic growth and strong governance to maintain legitimacy. This differs from traditional oligarchies, where power is often maintained through corruption, crony capitalism, or military force.

While resistance to oligarchy in Singapore is limited due to the government’s control over politics, media, and civil society, future challenges may arise as the younger generation demands greater political freedoms and accountability. Whether Singapore will evolve into a more open political system or maintain its elite-dominated structure remains an open question," Cangik ended the discussion.

[Section 11]

[Section 1]

Bahasa

The Consequences of Mocking the Prophet (ﷺ): A Quranic Perspective

Limbuk went on with the discussion, "Throughout history, every prophet of Allah has faced opposition from those who rejected their message. Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) was no exception. He (ﷺ) endured mockery, insults, and even physical harm from his people, yet he (ﷺ) remained steadfast in his mission of guiding humanity to the truth. The Quran, however, makes it clear that ridiculing a messenger of Allah is not an act without consequence—it is a serious transgression that leads to both worldly and eternal repercussions.

The Quran recounts the fate of past nations who mocked their prophets. In Surah Al-An’am (6:10), Allah states,

وَلَقَدِ اسْتُهْزِئَ بِرُسُلٍ مِّنْ قَبْلِكَ فَحَاقَ بِالَّذِيْنَ سَخِرُوْا مِنْهُمْ مَّا كَانُوْا بِهٖ يَسْتَهْزِءُوْنَ ࣖ

'And already were messengers ridiculed before you, but those who mocked them were enveloped by that which they used to ridicule.'

This verse serves as a warning that those who dismiss divine guidance with arrogance will eventually face the very consequences they scoffed at. The destruction of previous nations such as the people of Noah, Hud, and Salih, stands as a testimony to the seriousness of belittling Allah’s messengers.

Similarly, in Surah Al-Hijr (15:95-96), Allah reassures the Prophet (ﷺ),

اِنَّا كَفَيْنٰكَ الْمُسْتَهْزِءِيْنَۙ الَّذِيْنَ يَجْعَلُوْنَ مَعَ اللّٰهِ اِلٰهًا اٰخَرَۚ فَسَوْفَ يَعْلَمُوْنَ وَلَقَدْ نَعْلَمُ اَنَّكَ يَضِيْقُ صَدْرُكَ بِمَا يَقُوْلُوْنَۙ فَسَبِّحْ بِحَمْدِ رَبِّكَ وَكُنْ مِّنَ السّٰجِدِيْنَۙ

'Indeed, We are sufficient for you against the mockers Who make [equal] with Allāh another deity. But they are going to know. And We already know that your breast is constrained by what they say. So exalt [Allāh] with praise of your Lord and be of those who prostrate [to Him].'

This divine assurance emphasizes that Allah Himself will deal with those who ridicule the Prophet (ﷺ) and that their rejection of the truth will not go unanswered.

Mocking Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) is not a trivial act; rather, it is often a symptom of deeper disbelief. The Quran highlights the actions of the hypocrites who ridiculed the Prophet (ﷺ) and his companions. In Surah At-Taubah (9:64-66), Allah exposes their hypocrisy, stating,

يَحْذَرُ الْمُنٰفِقُوْنَ اَنْ تُنَزَّلَ عَلَيْهِمْ سُوْرَةٌ تُنَبِّئُهُمْ بِمَا فِيْ قُلُوْبِهِمْۗ قُلِ اسْتَهْزِءُوْاۚ اِنَّ اللّٰهَ مُخْرِجٌ مَّا تَحْذَرُوْنَ وَلَىِٕنْ سَاَلْتَهُمْ لَيَقُوْلُنَّ اِنَّمَا كُنَّا نَخُوْضُ وَنَلْعَبُۗ قُلْ اَبِاللّٰهِ وَاٰيٰتِهٖ وَرَسُوْلِهٖ كُنْتُمْ تَسْتَهْزِءُوْنَ لَا تَعْتَذِرُوْا قَدْ كَفَرْتُمْ بَعْدَ اِيْمَانِكُمْ ۗ اِنْ نَّعْفُ عَنْ طَاۤىِٕفَةٍ مِّنْكُمْ نُعَذِّبْ طَاۤىِٕفَةً ۢ بِاَنَّهُمْ كَانُوْا مُجْرِمِيْنَ ࣖ

'The hypocrites are apprehensive lest a sūrah be revealed about them, informing them of [i.e., exposing the truth about] what is in their hearts. Say, 'Mock [as you wish]; indeed, Allāh will expose that which you fear.' And if you ask them, they will surely say, "We were only conversing and playing.' Say, 'Is it Allāh and His verses and His Messenger that you were mocking?' Make no excuse; you have disbelieved [i.e., rejected faith] after your belief. If We pardon one faction of you, We will punish another faction because they were criminals.'

This reveals that such mockery is not only an insult to the Prophet (ﷺ) but also an act that can lead a person out of faith altogether.

Furthermore, Surah Al-Ahzab (33:57) warns of severe consequences for those who harm or disrespect the Prophet (ﷺ),

اِنَّ الَّذِيْنَ يُؤْذُوْنَ اللّٰهَ وَرَسُوْلَهٗ لَعَنَهُمُ اللّٰهُ فِى الدُّنْيَا وَالْاٰخِرَةِ وَاَعَدَّ لَهُمْ عَذَابًا مُّهِيْنًا

'Indeed, those who abuse Allāh and His Messenger - Allāh has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment.'

The severity of this verse underscores the gravity of insulting the Prophet (ﷺ), as it results in both divine curse and disgrace in this life and the next.

Despite facing intense ridicule and opposition, the Prophet (ﷺ) never responded with hatred or vengeance. His patience and mercy toward those who insulted him are legendary. When the people of Ta’if pelted him (ﷺ) with stones, he (ﷺ) did not ask for their destruction; rather, he (ﷺ) prayed for their guidance. In one famous incident, when a man continuously insulted him (ﷺ), the Prophet (ﷺ) simply responded with kindness, leading the man to eventually embrace Islam. These examples highlight that Islam does not promote retaliation through violence or hatred but rather calls for responding with wisdom, dignity, and steadfastness.

This prophetic approach teaches believers a valuable lesson: When faced with mockery and opposition, one should remain composed and trust in Allah’s justice. It is through patience and good character that Islam has spread and won the hearts of millions, not through anger or revenge.

Throughout human history, arrogance and rejection of guidance have only led to downfall, while humility and sincerity have led to salvation. Instead of ridiculing faith, people are encouraged to seek understanding and engage in respectful discourse.

Islam calls for thoughtful reflection rather than blind rejection. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself embodied patience and mercy, even toward those who insulted him. When he was mocked in Makkah, he did not retaliate with hatred; instead, he prayed for his oppressors to be guided. His character remains a beacon for how believers should respond—with wisdom, patience, and dignity.

In an age where misinformation and prejudice about Islam are widespread, it is more important than ever to approach the religion and its messenger with an open heart. Instead of relying on stereotypes or hearsay, those who are unfamiliar with Islam should take the time to understand the teachings of the Prophet (ﷺ) from authentic sources. Many who initially opposed Islam later became some of its strongest supporters once they saw the truth and justice of its message.

Those who mock and insult the Prophet (ﷺ) often do so out of ignorance or arrogance. While the Prophet (ﷺ) himself was forgiving and merciful, the Quran warns that persistent mockery and hostility toward Allah’s messengers bring severe consequences. These consequences may not always be immediate, but history has shown that those who wage war against divine truth ultimately face disgrace, whether in this life or the next.

The Quran not only warns of spiritual consequences but also highlights the societal downfall that comes from rejecting divine guidance. Communities that build their foundations on mockery and disrespect often face moral and ethical decay, while those who uphold values of respect and sincerity flourish.

One of the clearest Quranic verses that defends Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) against the accusation of being a madman and affirms that he is a true Messenger who receives divine revelation is Surah At-Takwir (81:22-25):

وَمَا صَاحِبُكُمْ بِمَجْنُوْنٍۚ وَلَقَدْ رَاٰهُ بِالْاُفُقِ الْمُبِيْنِۚ وَمَا هُوَ عَلَى الْغَيْبِ بِضَنِيْنٍۚ وَمَا هُوَ بِقَوْلِ شَيْطٰنٍ رَّجِيْمٍۚ

'And your companion [i.e., Prophet Muḥammad (ﷺ) ] is not [at all] mad [Literally, "possessed by jinn]. And he has already seen him [i.e., Gabriel] in the clear horizon [i.e., the eastern horizon, where the sun rises]. And he [i.e., Muḥammad (ﷺ)] is not a withholder of [knowledge of] the unseen [Prophet Muḥammad (ﷺ) did not withhold that knowledge of the unseen which Allah had revealed to him in the Qur’an]. And it [i.e., the Qur’ān] is not the word of a devil, expelled [from the heavens].'

Allah directly refutes the claims of the disbelievers who accused the Prophet (ﷺ) of insanity. The Prophet (ﷺ) received revelation from Angel Jibril, proving that his message is divine and not a fabrication. He (ﷺ) conveys exactly what is revealed to him without distortion. Allah rejects the false claim that the Quran comes from shayatin (devils), affirming that it is divine revelation. This passage strongly establishes that Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) was not a madman but a Messenger chosen by Allah to deliver the Quran.

The Quran contains several verses that mention the consequences for those who oppose, mock, or ridicule the Prophet (ﷺ). The Quran strongly warns against mocking or opposing the Prophet (ﷺ). History has shown that those who ridiculed previous prophets faced destruction, and this principle applies to those who mock the Prophet (ﷺ) as well. Their punishment may come in this life or the Hereafter, but Allah assures that justice will be served.

The Quran’s message is clear: mocking Allah’s messengers is not an act without consequence. While the Prophet (ﷺ) remained patient and forgiving, divine justice is inevitable for those who persist in arrogance. Rather than mocking Islam and its messenger, people should approach it with an open heart and a willingness to understand its message. Respect for faith and dialogue with sincerity are paths that lead to enlightenment, while mockery only leads to regret.

May we all strive to uphold the honor of the Prophet (ﷺ) and follow his path of wisdom and mercy. And may those who misunderstand his message find guidance before it is too late.

Sending salawat upon the Prophet (ﷺ) is an act of obedience to Allah and a way to express love, respect, and gratitude for his role as the final messenger. Allah commands it in the Quran,

اِنَّ اللّٰهَ وَمَلٰۤىِٕكَتَهٗ يُصَلُّوْنَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّۗ يٰٓاَيُّهَا الَّذِيْنَ اٰمَنُوْا صَلُّوْا عَلَيْهِ وَسَلِّمُوْا تَسْلِيْمًا

'Indeed, Allāh confers blessing upon the Prophet, and His angels [ask Him to do so]. O you who have believed, ask [Allah to confer] blessing upon him and ask [Allah to grant him] peace. [Surah Al-Ahzab (33):56]

So, sending salawat upon the Prophet(ﷺ) is a deeply significant act in Islam, one that reflects love, respect, and obedience to Allah’s command in Surah Al-Ahzab (33:56). This practice is a means of drawing closer to Allah, seeking blessings, and acknowledging the Prophet’s noble role as the final messenger.

However, some may wonder whether sending salawat plays a role in preventing the Prophet (ﷺ) from being associated with Allah in worship. The answer lies in understanding the balance Islam maintains between love and reverence for the Prophet (ﷺ) while ensuring Tawheed (pure monotheism) remains intact. The Prophet (ﷺ) himself was deeply concerned about the potential for his followers to fall into excess in praising him, just as previous nations had done with their prophets. He (ﷺ) explicitly warned,

لاَ تُطْرُونِي كَمَا أَطْرَتِ النَّصَارَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ، فَإِنَّمَا أَنَا عَبْدُهُ، فَقُولُوا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولُهُ

'Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians did with the son of Mary, for I am only a servant. So say, 'The slave of Allah and His Messenger.' [Sahih al-Bukhari]

This statement makes it clear that while he is the most honored among creation, he remains a servant of Allah, and worship belongs to Allah alone.

In this light, sending salawat is a beautiful way for Muslims to remember the Prophet’s esteemed status without elevating him to divinity. It reinforces the belief that while he is the best of creation, he (ﷺ) is still a human messenger. By regularly invoking blessings upon him, believers stay connected to his teachings and example, ensuring they follow his path without falling into exaggeration or misguidance.

Salawat, derived from the Arabic word صَلَوَات, refers to the salutations and blessings sent upon the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) in Islam. Reciting Salawat is a significant act of devotion and is deeply embedded in Islamic practice.

The recitation of Salawat carries numerous spiritual benefits. It is believed that reciting Salawat can lead to the forgiveness of sins. Hadith literature suggests that for every instance of Salawat recited, Allah grants ten good deeds and erases ten sins. Additionally, Allah responds similarly by sending blessings tenfold. Reciting Salawat raises one's status ten degrees

Many scholars assert that starting and ending prayers with Salawat increases the likelihood of those prayers being accepted by Allah. This practice highlights its importance in Islamic worship. Starting and ending supplications with Salawat ensures their acceptance by Allah. This is because Salawat is considered an absolute granted supplication, reflecting Allah's generosity.

Regularly reciting Salawat is thought to elevate one's spiritual status and bring one closer to Allah. It serves as a reminder of the Prophet's teachings and character, inspiring believers to emulate his virtues.

Engaging in Salawat can bring peace of mind and comfort to believers. It is often recommended as a remedy for anxiety and restlessness, promoting a sense of calmness in daily life

By following Allah's command to send blessings upon the Prophet (ﷺ), individuals draw closer to Him. This act demonstrates obedience and enhances spiritual closeness. Reciting Salawat fosters a sense of community and promotes love among believers. It encourages mutual respect and strengthens bonds within Muslim society. Whenever a believer sends Salawat, the angels reciprocate by sending similar blessings until the action stops. This collective invocation underscores the interconnectedness of believers and angelic support. These benefits collectively highlight the significance of incorporating Salawat into daily devotional practices, emphasizing its transformative impact on individual spirituality and communal cohesion.

Reciting Salawat regularly can indeed be beneficial in overcoming personal struggles. The regular recitation of Salawat fosters a sense of tranquility and emotional grounding. It allows individuals to center their thoughts and feelings, making it easier to navigate life's challenges. This state of zikr (remembrance) helps in calming the heart and mind during turbulent times.

Salawat is believed to erase sins and alleviate burdens, which can contribute to a lighter emotional state. The Prophet (ﷺ) stated that those who frequently send Salawat will find their worries eased, as it leads to forgiveness and Divine mercy.

Starting and ending personal supplications (duas) with Salawat is highly encouraged. This practice is said to increase the likelihood of prayers being accepted by Allah, providing believers with the strength and support needed to overcome their struggles.

Sending Salawat increases one's love for the Prophet (ﷺ), which in turn strengthens faith. This connection can provide spiritual support during difficult times, reminding individuals of their purpose and guiding them through adversity.

Reciting Salawat promotes a sense of community among Muslims, reinforcing bonds of brotherhood and sisterhood. This communal aspect can offer emotional support, making it easier to face personal challenges with the backing of a supportive network.

Engaging in Salawat is viewed as a means to attain Allah's love and mercy. This spiritual growth can empower individuals to confront their struggles with renewed strength and resilience.

In summary, regularly reciting Salawat not only enhances one's spiritual life but also provides practical benefits in overcoming personal struggles by promoting inner peace, facilitating forgiveness, enhancing supplications, strengthening faith, fostering community support, and encouraging spiritual growth.

There are specific times when reciting Salawat is considered particularly effective based on Islamic tradition and prophetic guidance. Fridays are emphasized as the best day of the week for sending Salawat due to its congregational nature and heightened devotion. Specifically, the time between afternoon prayers (Asr) and sunset (Maghrib) is known as Sa’at Al Istijaba, the hour of acceptance, where supplications, including those involving Salawat, are believed to be more readily accepted by Allah. The Prophet (ﷺ) instructed Muslims to send abundant blessings upon him on Fridays because such actions would be presented before him until the following Friday.

In every prayer cycle, especially after Tashahhud, it is recommended to include Salawat. This practice ensures that one's respect and reverence for the Prophet are consistently expressed throughout daily devotional activities.

Sending Salawat before making any supplication increases the likelihood of those prayers being accepted. As stated by Umar Ibn Khattab, du’a hangs suspended between heaven and earth until Salawat is invoked upon the Prophet (ﷺ).

Reciting Salawat in both morning and evening adhkars protects individuals from evil influences and brings peace and tranquility throughout the day. It is encouraged to send Salawat regularly throughout the day and night, reflecting continuous respect and gratitude towards the Prophet (ﷺ).

While there are various forms of Salawat, one commonly recited version is,

اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ كَمَا صَلَّيْتَ عَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَعَلَى آلِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، إِنَّكَ حَمِيدٌ مَّجِيدٌ

'O Allah! Send Your blessings upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, as You sent blessings upon Ibrahim and the family of Ibrahim. Indeed, You are Praiseworthy and Glorious.'

Another form is,

اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ

'O Allah, send blessings upon Muhammad.'

Imam al-Tabarani recorded several versions of Salawat, and one if them is

اللهم صل وسلم على نبينا محمد

[Allahumma shalli wa sallim ‘ala nabiyyina Muhammad]

'O Allah, send Your blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad.'

There is also,

اللهم صل على محمد النبي الأمي

[Allahumma shalli ‘ala Muhammad an-Nabiyyil Ummiy]

'O Allah, send blessings upon Muhammad, the unlettered Prophet.'

The following is a short salawat called Salawat Jibreel,

صلى الله على محمد

[Shallallahu ‘ala Muhammad]

'May Allah send His blessings upon Muhammad.'

After reciting Salawat Jibreel, it is also encouraged to make any personal du'a for your needs or desires. The Prophet (ﷺ) advised that one should choose any supplication they wish after sending blessings upon him (ﷺ). Reciting Salawat, including Salawat Jibreel, is believed to have various spiritual benefits, including the potential to increase wealth or sustenance. Reciting Salawat is often associated with the eradication of poverty and hunger. It is said that frequent recitation can lead to an increase in one's sustenance (rizq) and financial blessings. Regularly invoking Salawat is believed to pave the way for the Prophet Muhammad’s intercession on the Day of Judgment, which can lead to greater divine favor in this life, including financial stability.

Each recitation of Salawat is said to forgive sins and elevate one's spiritual status. This purification can create a more favorable environment for receiving blessings, including wealth. The practice of reciting Salawat often encourages charitable behavior, which is a key factor in increasing rizq. Acts of charity are emphasized in Islamic teachings as a means to attract more blessings. The act of reciting Salawat before making personal supplications is believed to enhance their acceptance by Allah, thereby increasing the likelihood of financial and material requests being fulfilled. 

In summary, reciting Salawat, including Salawat Jibreel, is associated with numerous spiritual benefits that can create a conducive environment for financial blessings and overall well-being.. 

Ultimately, the real safeguard against shirk (associating partners with Allah) is proper Tawheed, which means worshiping Allah alone and following the Prophet’s guidance in the way he taught. Salawat serves as a reminder of his noble role, but it is through correct understanding and adherence to monotheism that one ensures the Prophet (ﷺ) is not mistakenly associated with Allah in any divine sense. And Allah knows best."

Bahasa 

Oligarchi (11)

"In the gloriously mismanaged nation known as the Republic of a Thousand Promises, the supreme leader was none other than Mr. Promise-a-Plenty," Limbuk began a story.

"His talent was truly remarkable: every time he spoke, the populace felt as though they were hearing a beautiful symphony, even though the content was often nothing more than an endless string of unfulfilled pledges.

One fateful day, Mr. Promise-a-Plenty announced a grand project called 'Golden Skies 2045,' which, he assured everyone, would catapult the Republic of a Thousand Promises into the status of a global superpower. The scheme involved building bridges made of clouds, underwater railways, and factories that produced pure happiness. The only minor snag? The national coffers were already bare, having been drained to purchase excessively plush executive chairs for government offices.

The citizens, quite understandably, began to get a bit tetchy. On social media, memes mocking "Golden Skies" exploded faster than a dodgy firework display. One particularly popular meme featured a goat attempting to fly, captioned: 'If the cloud bridges fail, at least the goats can learn to take wing.' This marked the so-called era of the 'Birth of Creative Opposition.' A kind of Renaissance after the Dark Ages in the Middle Ages period of European history.

A street artist known as Bung Caricature (roughly translated: 'Dude Cartoons') began painting satirical murals on the city walls. One of his masterpieces depicted Mr. Promise-a-Plenty climbing a ladder toward the clouds while the citizens below scrabbled in the dirt, desperately seeking scraps of food. The caption beneath the mural read, 'He's up in the clouds, dreaming; we're down here, starving.'

The mural went viral faster than a politician caught in a compromising position. Even the local kids started singing parody songs about Mr. Promise-a-Plenty's promises while playing hopscotch.

When the 'Golden Skies' project finally commenced, the government held a lavish opening ceremony. However, when the ribbon was cut, all that was revealed was a cluster of cloud-shaped balloons, emblazoned with the words: 'Coming Soon!' The people, thoroughly fed up with empty promises, erupted in uproarious laughter.

Peaceful protests sprang up everywhere. Farmers brought their produce to the gates of the presidential palace, chanting: "We need rice, not dreams!" Meanwhile, students developed a mobile game called "Promise Simulator," in which players had to dodge empty promises to win.

Finally, Mr. Promise-a-Plenty's term of office ended, his people became more creative in criticizing the government.. In his farewell address, he declared, 'I may have failed to build Golden Skies, but at least I managed to give you all a good laugh.'

The crowd roared with applause. The Republic of a Thousand Promises finally learned that humour is the most potent weapon against injustice—and that a good leader isn't one who makes promises, but one who actually keeps them.

Sometimes, laughter is more powerful than anger when facing political absurdity. And perhaps, just perhaps, politicians should consider delivering on their promises for a change. Wouldn't that be a novel concept?

Cangik then went on, "The involvement of oligarchs in supporting a president from nomination to governance has both advantages and disadvantages.

On one side, Oligarchs provide essential funding for political campaigns, allowing candidates to run effective advertisements, organize rallies, and reach more voters. Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right by Jane Mayer (2016, Doubleday) investigates how wealthy elites, particularly a network of conservative billionaires led by Charles and David Koch, influence elections in the United States.

Wealthy individuals and corporations fund political campaigns, often through Super PACs and dark money groups that do not disclose their donors. This allows them to push their preferred candidates without public scrutiny.

Billionaires invest in think tanks and academic institutions to promote policies aligned with their interests, influencing public opinion and legislative priorities. They fund conservative media outlets and propaganda campaigns to shape narratives and sway voters.

If oligarchs support a candidate, they may invest in economic projects, leading to job creation and industrial growth. According to Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson in Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty (2012, Crown Publishing), elites shape economic policies primarily through the establishment and maintenance of extractive institutions, which concentrate power and wealth in their hands while suppressing broad-based economic growth. The authors argue that elites often resist inclusive institutions—such as secure property rights, free markets, and political participation—because such reforms threaten their privileged positions. By monopolizing political institutions, elites can enact laws and policies that serve their interests, ensuring that economic benefits flow to them rather than the broader population.

Elites may oppose new technologies, industries, or economic structures that could undermine their economic dominance. For example, in 19th-century Russia, the Tsarist regime resisted industrialization to maintain control over the peasantry. Policies such as high taxation, monopolies, and forced labor (seen in colonial Latin America and the Soviet Union) allow elites to extract wealth from the majority while stifling economic progress. Even when faced with economic crises or revolutions, elites often adapt by modifying institutions in ways that preserve their power, as seen in post-colonial Africa, where new ruling classes maintained extractive institutions.

Many oligarchs have business acumen and connections that can help a government run more efficiently, ensuring policy implementation aligns with economic realities.

In The Road to Serfdom (1944, Routledge), Friedrich Hayek critiques central economic planning but acknowledges that limited forms of planning by elites can sometimes contribute to efficient governance. Hayek argues that while comprehensive central planning leads to totalitarianism, certain types of rule-based governance—such as setting up a legal framework for competition, protecting property rights, and maintaining stable monetary policy—can enhance economic efficiency.

He differentiates between 'planning for competition' and 'planning against competition.' The former involves governments establishing general rules that allow markets to function efficiently, while the latter involves direct control over production and distribution, which he strongly opposes. He concedes that elites (such as economists, policymakers, and legal experts) may play a role in designing frameworks that prevent market failures, ensure social stability, and provide public goods like infrastructure and national defense.

Oligarchs often have international ties that can be leveraged for diplomatic and economic benefits. David Rothkopf's Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making (2008, Farrar, Straus and Giroux) explores how elite networks shape global politics by analyzing a small, interconnected group of around 6,000 influential individuals who hold disproportionate power over international affairs. These elites include corporate leaders, politicians, financiers, media moguls, and intellectuals who operate across borders.

The superclass is linked through exclusive organizations (e.g., the World Economic Forum, Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission) and informal networks that enable them to consolidate power and set global agendas.

These elites hold key positions in multinational corporations, governments, financial institutions (e.g., IMF, World Bank), and NGOs, allowing them to shape economic and political decisions worldwide.

They influence global policies through lobbying, think tanks, and advisory roles, often prioritizing corporate interests and economic liberalization.

The superclass uses media and academic institutions to shape public discourse, promoting globalization, free-market capitalism, and deregulation as dominant ideologies.

During economic or political crises, these elites coordinate responses through transnational cooperation, sometimes reinforcing existing power structures rather than addressing root issues.

Rothkopf argues that while these elites drive globalization and economic growth, their dominance can also lead to widening inequality, lack of accountability, and democratic deficits, as decisions affecting billions are made by a small, unelected group.

On the other side, Oligarchs expect returns on their investments, leading to policies that favor the wealthy over the general public. The Captured Economy: How the Powerful Enrich Themselves, Slow Down Growth, and Increase Inequality by Brink Lindsey and Steven M. Teles (2017, Oxford University Press) argues that the wealthy and powerful manipulate regulations to their advantage, creating a system of 'regressive rent-seeking.' This leads to slower economic growth, rising inequality, and a lack of opportunities for innovation and competition. They focus on areas like finance, intellectual property, occupational licensing, and land-use regulations, showing how these policies benefit the elite while harming broader economic progress.

Excessive influence by oligarchs can undermine democratic institutions, turning governments into tools for elite interests. In Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America (2017, Viking), Nancy MacLean argues that excessive influence by oligarchs can undermine democratic institutions by transforming governments into tools for elite interests. She explores how economist James M. Buchanan’s work laid the intellectual foundation for a radical libertarian movement that seeks to restrict democratic governance in favor of policies that benefit wealthy elites.

According to MacLean, oligarchs achieve this by implementing constitutional and legal barriers (e.g., supermajority requirements and limiting voting rights), which make it harder for the majority to enact policies that regulate wealth and corporate power. Through privatization and budget cuts, they weaken public services such as education and healthcare, shifting power to private entities.

Wealthy elites fund libertarian think tanks and academic programs to spread anti-government ideology and influence public perception. Secretive funding networks allow oligarchs to influence elections and policymaking without transparency. By placing like-minded judges in courts, they ensure that laws favoring elite interests are upheld while progressive reforms are obstructed.

MacLean argues that these tactics have steadily shifted political power away from democratic participation and toward a small, wealthy elite, undermining the fundamental principles of representative government.

When oligarchs drive policies, income disparity widens, leading to public discontent and potential protests. In Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014, Harvard University Press), Thomas Piketty argues that excessive wealth concentration undermines social stability in several ways. When the rate of return on capital (r) exceeds the growth rate of the economy (g), wealth accumulates faster for those who already own assets, exacerbating inequality. This can lead to a society where inherited wealth matters more than effort and talent.

Extreme wealth concentration shifts economic power to a small elite, diminishing opportunities for social mobility and undermining the principles of meritocracy. The wealthy can influence policies in their favor, such as tax reductions and deregulation, leading to a self-reinforcing cycle where economic power translates into political dominance.

When wealth and income disparities widen, resentment grows among the lower and middle classes, fostering social unrest and reducing trust in institutions. Economic inequality can translate into unequal political influence, as the wealthy fund campaigns, shape media narratives, and lobby for policies that protect their interests rather than the broader population.

Piketty suggests progressive taxation and wealth redistribution as key solutions to counteract these destabilizing effects and maintain a fairer and more cohesive society.

A government too dependent on oligarchs may be forced to prioritize their interests over national concerns. C. Wright Mills’ in The Power Elite (1956, Oxford University Press) argues that a small group of elites—comprising leaders from the political, military, and corporate sectors—dominates decision-making in the United States. He describes how these elites hold concentrated power, make crucial political and economic decisions, and operate in ways that serve their own interests rather than those of the general public. Mills highlights that these elites are interconnected, often moving between roles in government, big business, and the military, reinforcing their dominance while limiting democratic influence from ordinary citizens.

Mills identifies three main institutions that form the core of elite power in the U.S.: Corporate Elite (leaders of large corporations and financial institutions who control economic resources); Political Elite (high-ranking government officials, including the President, cabinet members, and key policymakers); and Military Elite (top military leaders, especially those who influence national security policies). These groups, according to Mills, operate in a triangular structure, where their interests often align, and they collaborate to maintain their dominance.

The power elite make decisions that shape the economy, foreign policy, and laws with minimal input from the general public. Policies are often created behind closed doors, with decisions favoring corporate and military interests. Public opinion is manipulated through mass media, which is often controlled by corporate interests. Individuals within the power elite move between leadership positions in government, corporations, and the military. For example, former military officials become defense contractors, and corporate executives take government advisory roles.

This ensures continuity in elite control, preventing outsiders from gaining influence.

Mills argues that ordinary citizens and institutions like Congress have become increasingly powerless in influencing major decisions. Voters are given the illusion of participation through elections, but real decision-making happens among the elite. Political parties serve elite interests rather than genuinely representing the people.

The media, controlled by corporations, plays a crucial role in shaping public perception. Instead of challenging elite power, the media often reinforces the status quo by diverting attention from critical issues.

Mills highlights how military expansion and defense contracts benefit both corporate and military elites. The Cold War era (when he wrote his work) saw military spending justified by elite interests rather than genuine security needs.

The concentration of power leads to policies that favor economic inequality. There is a growing disconnect between ordinary citizens and those who govern them. Public political engagement weakens as people feel powerless to influence decisions.

Oligarch-backed presidencies may benefit from financial stability and administrative efficiency but often at the cost of democratic integrity and social equality. The extent of their influence depends on legal structures, transparency, and public accountability.

Throughout history, oligarchies have maintained their dominance by concentrating wealth, influencing political systems, and controlling key industries. While no society can entirely eliminate the influence of powerful elites, various reforms can weaken oligarchic control and restore democratic accountability. These reforms must address economic inequality, political influence, media monopolisation, and transnational financial practices that allow oligarchs to evade responsibility.

One of the most crucial areas for reform is economic policy, as extreme wealth concentration is the foundation of oligarchic power. To prevent a small elite from accumulating disproportionate influence, many scholars and policymakers have advocated for progressive taxation, particularly on wealth and inheritance. By imposing higher taxes on billionaires and large estates, governments can redistribute economic power, ensuring that wealth does not remain concentrated in a handful of families for generations. Similarly, stronger antitrust laws are necessary to break up monopolies that dominate industries and stifle competition. Large corporations, particularly in the technology, finance, and energy sectors, exert immense political influence because their economic power allows them to shape policy in their favor. Enforcing regulations that limit monopolies can create a more level playing field and prevent corporate oligarchs from dictating government decisions.

Beyond taxation and antitrust measures, labor rights reforms are also essential. Oligarchs often suppress labor movements to maintain low wages and maximize their control over the workforce. Strengthening labor unions, enforcing fair wage policies, and ensuring workers have a voice in economic decision-making can counterbalance corporate power. Countries such as Sweden and Denmark, which have strong labor protections and collective bargaining agreements, demonstrate how labor rights can prevent the rise of unchecked corporate oligarchs while ensuring economic prosperity.

While economic reforms target the root of oligarchic wealth, political reforms are necessary to reduce the ability of elites to manipulate governance. One of the most significant threats to democracy is the outsized influence of money in politics, particularly in electoral campaigns. Strict campaign finance laws, such as banning or capping corporate donations, can limit the ability of wealthy individuals and businesses to “buy” politicians. In many democratic systems, public funding of elections has proven to be an effective alternative, ensuring that political candidates rely on voter support rather than elite patronage.

In addition to campaign finance reform, lobbying regulations and transparency laws must be strengthened to reduce the behind-the-scenes influence of business magnates on legislation. In many countries, policies are crafted in secret meetings between politicians and corporate lobbyists, resulting in laws that favor the rich while neglecting the needs of ordinary citizens. By requiring full transparency in political donations and lobbying activities, governments can restore public trust and weaken the backdoor influence of oligarchs. Furthermore, limiting the number of terms politicians can serve helps prevent the entrenchment of political dynasties that often act as extensions of economic elites.

Another key area of reform is media regulation. In many nations, media ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy individuals or corporations, allowing them to shape public opinion and suppress narratives that challenge their power. Breaking up media monopolies and ensuring diversity in news ownership can prevent oligarchs from using mass communication as a tool for political and economic manipulation. Public funding for independent journalism, similar to the BBC model in the UK, can further protect the media from becoming an instrument of elite interests. Additionally, with the rise of digital misinformation campaigns, stronger regulations on social media platforms are necessary to prevent oligarch-backed propaganda from misleading voters and distorting democracy.

On a global scale, oligarchs exploit transnational financial systems to maintain their dominance, often by hiding wealth in offshore tax havens or influencing international trade policies. A coordinated global effort to close tax loopholes and enforce financial transparency is crucial in preventing billionaires from evading taxation and accountability. Recent international agreements, such as the OECD’s global corporate tax reform, represent steps in the right direction, but enforcement remains a challenge. Similarly, regulating the power of multinational corporations, particularly in the digital and financial sectors, can prevent them from exerting unchecked influence across multiple nations.

Despite the effectiveness of these proposed reforms, oligarchs will not give up their power without resistance. They often use their resources to lobby against policy changes, fund political candidates who protect their interests, and control media narratives that discourage reform efforts. Therefore, sustaining these reforms requires continuous public activism, legal enforcement, and institutional independence. A strong civil society, independent judiciary, and engaged citizenry are essential to ensuring that reforms are not reversed over time.

While eliminating oligarchy entirely may be unrealistic, history has shown that societies can limit elite dominance through economic regulation, political transparency, media independence, and international cooperation. The challenge lies not only in designing effective reforms but also in ensuring their implementation against the inevitable resistance of powerful elites. By addressing these systemic issues, democracies can reassert the principle that governments should serve the many, not the privileged few.

History tells us that various movements have successfully challenged oligarchic rule, proving that concentrated power is not an unshakable force. These successes often stem from a combination of popular resistance, institutional reforms, and shifts in economic power dynamics. While each case is unique in its circumstances, they share common themes of grassroots activism, legal battles, and government intervention to break the grip of entrenched elites.

One of the most well-known examples of successful resistance to oligarchy is the Progressive Era in the United States (late 19th to early 20th century). During this time, industrial magnates like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and J.P. Morgan wielded enormous influence over both the economy and politics. These business elites controlled vast industries, manipulated government policies in their favor, and exploited workers with little regard for their well-being. However, public outcry against economic inequality and political corruption led to a series of progressive reforms aimed at reducing the power of monopolies and political machines. Key figures such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson spearheaded efforts to regulate industries, break up monopolies through antitrust laws, and introduce democratic reforms like the direct election of senators and campaign finance regulations. These measures significantly weakened the influence of economic oligarchs and reasserted democratic governance in the U.S.

A similar example can be found in post-World War II Japan, where sweeping reforms dismantled an entrenched oligarchic structure. Prior to the war, Japan was dominated by zaibatsu, powerful family-owned conglomerates that controlled large portions of the economy and maintained close ties with the government. After Japan’s defeat, American-led occupation forces dismantled these corporate dynasties through strict anti-monopoly policies, forcing the breakup of the zaibatsu into smaller, independent firms. This effort helped create a more competitive and equitable economic system, reducing the power of business oligarchs and fostering a period of rapid economic growth under a more inclusive model. While Japan later saw the rise of new corporate conglomerates (keiretsu), the post-war restructuring demonstrated that oligarchic power can be challenged through legal and economic interventions.

Another significant instance of resistance to oligarchy took place in South Korea during the 1980s. For decades, the country had been ruled by military-backed regimes that maintained close alliances with chaebols—massive, family-controlled industrial conglomerates such as Samsung, Hyundai, and LG. The government’s economic policies largely favored these corporations while suppressing labor rights and limiting democratic participation. However, the South Korean people, particularly students and workers, led mass protests and strikes demanding democratization. In 1987, this pressure culminated in the introduction of free and fair elections, which marked the beginning of a democratic transition. Although chaebols still hold significant economic power today, South Korea’s resistance movement demonstrated that popular mobilization could dismantle an oligarchic political system and force the government to become more accountable to its citizens.

Latin America also provides examples of societies pushing back against oligarchic control. In the early 2000s, Bolivia experienced a major uprising against economic elites and foreign corporations. For years, Bolivia’s natural resources, particularly its gas and water supplies, were controlled by foreign companies and a small domestic elite, leading to widespread poverty and inequality. When the government attempted to privatize water, a mass movement known as the "Water War" of 2000 erupted, leading to violent protests that ultimately forced the government to cancel privatization plans. A few years later, similar movements led to the election of Evo Morales, Bolivia’s first Indigenous president, who nationalized key industries and redirected wealth toward social programs for the country’s poorest communities. While Bolivia has faced political turbulence since then, this period remains a powerful example of grassroots resistance successfully challenging entrenched economic oligarchs.

Another compelling case is the Indian independence movement against British colonial rule, which was not just a struggle for national sovereignty but also a fight against an economic and political oligarchy. The British Raj functioned as an oligarchic system, where British elites and a small class of Indian collaborators controlled trade, land, and political decisions while exploiting the majority of the population. Through nonviolent resistance, civil disobedience, and economic self-sufficiency movements led by Mahatma Gandhi and others, India gradually undermined British control. The famous Salt March of 1930 was a direct challenge to the British monopoly on salt production, symbolizing the power of mass mobilization against an elite ruling class. India’s independence in 1947 was not just a political victory but also a triumph over an entrenched economic oligarchy that had dominated the country for centuries.

While these examples demonstrate that resistance to oligarchy is possible, they also reveal a crucial lesson: reform is rarely permanent unless institutions are continuously strengthened to prevent oligarchic resurgence. Many of the nations that successfully challenged oligarchic rule later saw the return of elite dominance in new forms, whether through corporate consolidation, political dynasties, or military influence. This reality highlights the importance of ongoing civic engagement, legal frameworks that prevent elite capture, and international cooperation to regulate economic and political power.

Ultimately, successful resistance to oligarchy requires a combination of public mobilization, legal action, and economic restructuring. Whether through the trust-busting efforts of the Progressive Era, the democratic uprisings in South Korea, or the economic nationalism of Bolivia, history shows that concentrated power can be challenged when societies are committed to equity, accountability, and democratic governance," Cangik concluded."

[Section 12]

[Section 10]

Bahasa

Oligarchi (10)

"Sritex, the Indonesian textile behemoth, has found itself in a spot of bother, belly-up and bankrupt as of late December 2024, after the Supreme Court gave its appeal the old heave-ho," Limbuk was reading a news. "It appears the judiciary confirmed the original verdict from the Semarang Commercial Court, which occurred in late October 2024, sealing Sritex's fate.

The root of this misfortune? Sritex couldn't quite manage to pay its debts to PT Indo Bharat Rayon (IBR), a creditor, even after a previous agreement to sort things out in January 202213. This also dragged Sritex's subsidiaries, PT Sinar Pantja Djaja, PT Bitratex Industries, and PT Primayudha Mandirijaya, into the mix.

The root of this misfortune? Sritex couldn't quite manage to pay its debts to PT Indo Bharat Rayon (IBR), a creditor, even after a previous agreement to sort things out in January 2022. This also dragged Sritex's subsidiaries, PT Sinar Pantja Djaja, PT Bitratex Industries, and PT Primayudha Mandirijaya, into the mix.

What were the main reasons behind Sritex's bankruptcy? Sritex buckled under the weight of massive debts, including Rp14.42 trillion owed to 27 banks. By the first half of 2024, their total long-term debt reached USD 1.47 billion (IDR 22.8 trillion), with an additional USD 131.4 million (IDR 2 trillion) in short-term debt, resulting in a capital deficiency of USD 980.56 million (negative IDR 15.2 trillion).

The company was declared bankrupt after being negligent in fulfilling its payment obligations to PT Indo Bharat Rayon, a creditor, based on a Homologation Decision from January 25, 2022. Internal issues such as poor debt management, a liquidity crisis, and inefficient crisis management also played a significant role. The COVID-19 pandemic, the Russia- Ukraine war, and declining global demand negatively impacted textile and garment exports, exacerbating Sritex's financial condition. The Indonesian textile industry has been struggling since 2023 due to rising interest rates and high capital costs, compounded by a flood of cheap imported goods, particularly from China and Vietnam. Sritex's President Commissioner, Iwan Setiawan Lukminto, pointed to a Trade Ministry regulation that opened the floodgates to imports, crippling the domestic textile industry.

Adding insult to injury, Sritex had already given 2,500 workers the boot due to raw material shortages. The President Commissioner of Sritex, Iwan S. Lukminto, suggested even more layoffs could be on the horizon if they couldn't get their act together. Turns out their bank accounts were frozen, which rather put a damper on importing and exporting. As of September 2024, Sritex was in the hole for a staggering Rp14.64 trillion (US$899.6 million), including a hefty Rp14.42 trillion owed to 27 banks.

However, not all is as it seems, because the curators appointed for the bankruptcy have spotted some oddities. Despite the bankruptcy, some subsidiaries were carrying on as if nothing had happened, and there seemed to be plenty of raw materials, contrary to earlier claims. The curators are also having a devil of a time getting banks to freeze Sritex's accounts and meeting with the owners.

The Indonesian government is on the case, cooking up a rescue plan involving bailout funds and incentives. The goal is to protect the workforce and keep those export commitments on track. So, Sritex, once a shining example of Indonesian industry, serves as a cautionary tale of corporate governance and financial management."

Cangik continued, "Let's move on with our topic. Jeffrey A. Winters discusses the influence of oligarchs on government policy in Indonesia in his work Oligarchy (2011, Cambridge University Press). According to Winters, Indonesia exhibits a form of oligarchy characterised by wealth defense, where powerful economic elites use their vast resources to shape political and legal systems to protect their wealth. He highlights how Indonesian oligarchs influence government policy. Oligarchs finance political parties and candidates, ensuring elected officials serve their interests. They use their wealth to influence the judiciary, law enforcement, and regulatory bodies to avoid legal repercussions. By securing control over key sectors (such as natural resources, infrastructure, and banking), they dictate policies that favor their economic dominance. Indonesia’s democratic institutions struggle to counter oligarchic influence due to corruption and clientelism. Winters argues that despite democratization, oligarchs remain the dominant force in shaping Indonesia’s political and economic landscape.

Democracy in Indonesia: From Stagnation to Regression," edited by Thomas Power and Eve Warburton (2020, ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute) examines the challenges facing Indonesian democracy, including the entrenchment of oligarchic power. While specific details from this work are not available in the provided sources, other studies have documented resistance to oligarchy in Indonesia. For instance, a case study from Pati Regency, Central Java, highlights grassroots opposition to oligarchic forces. The anti-cement-factory movement protested against the expansion of Indocement Tunggal Prakarsa Ltd in the Kendeng Mountains. This movement extended its influence to the 2017 local elections, challenging and 'defeating' oligarchic interests in the region. This case demonstrates that oligarchic power can be contested through organized grassroots efforts.

Additionally, the Confederation of Indonesian People's Movements (KPRI), an alliance of various social movements and unions, represents another form of resistance. KPRI includes workers, peasants, fishermen, indigenous peoples, and women's groups. It aims to challenge oligarchic dominance by unifying fragmented social movements and formulating alternative policy frameworks with a clear anti-neoliberal, leftist orientation. KPRI's efforts exemplify attempts to counter oligarchic influence through collective action and political participation.

These examples illustrate that resistance to oligarchy in Indonesia manifests through grassroots movements and alliances seeking to challenge entrenched power structures.

Oligarchy exists across Southeast Asia, but it manifests differently based on historical context, economic structure, and governance models. Below is a comparative analysis of Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam, highlighting their unique oligarchic systems.

In Indonesia, who holds the power? Business tycoons, political dynasties, ex-military elites. Post-Suharto elite families dominate political parties. Business oligarchs fund politicians to secure favorable policies. Media is controlled by political and business elites.

In the Philippines, political dynasties, business magnates, and media moguls hold power (Dynastic & Business Oligarchy). Elite families have dominated politics for generations (e.g., Aquino, Marcos, Duterte, Roxas, Estrada). Big business groups (Ayala, SM Group, San Miguel, Gokongwei) control the economy and fund elections. Media is privately owned but politically aligned (ABS-CBN, GMA Network). Ferdinand Marcos (1965–1986) centralized oligarchic power, benefiting crony capitalists.

The Philippines oligarchy is more dynastic than Indonesia (political families directly dominate elections). It is similar to Thailand in elite control but without military coups.

The Philippines has long been characterized by a concentration of political and economic power in the hands of a few elite families. This system of oligarchy manifests in two primary forms: dynastic oligarchy, where political power is passed down through family generations, and business oligarchy, where a few influential business elites dominate key industries.

The Modern Principalia: The Historical Evolution of the Philippine Ruling Oligarchy (2007, University of the Philippines Press) by Dante C. Simbulan provides a historical analysis of how political dynasties emerged and persisted in the Philippines. Simbulan traces the origins of political dynasties back to the Spanish colonial period, where the principalia (local ruling class) were appointed as intermediaries between the Spanish government and indigenous Filipinos. These local elites, often composed of landed families, accumulated wealth and political influence by collecting taxes, managing land, and controlling trade.

Even after Spanish rule ended, these powerful families retained their influence under American colonial rule. The U.S. introduced democratic institutions, but political participation remained restricted to the elite due to property and literacy requirements. These ruling families adapted by dominating electoral politics, forming dynasties that passed power through generations.

Post-independence, these dynasties consolidated control over both political and economic spheres by monopolizing electoral positions (family members run for multiple government roles across generations); leveraging patronage and clientelism (providing economic benefits to ensure voter loyalty); and controlling business and land ownership (expanding wealth to sustain political dominance).

Simbulan argues that political dynasties have hindered true democratic development, as governance remains centered on elite interests rather than public welfare. His work highlights the need for reforms, such as anti-dynasty laws, to break the cycle of elite rule.

In The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos (1976, Ateneo de Manila University Press), Primitivo Mijares exposes how the Marcos family and their close associates used political power to build business empires in the Philippines through crony capitalism, monopolization of industries, and misuse of state resources. Ferdinand Marcos established a system where business opportunities were reserved for his loyalists and close associates (cronies). He granted them control over key industries, such as banking, energy, and media, in exchange for their political and financial support. Key cronies included businessmen like Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. and Roberto Benedicto, who amassed wealth through government-backed monopolies. Government contracts and favorable policies were given to these cronies, allowing them to dominate the economy.

The Marcos regime ensured that only trusted allies controlled essential industries, reducing competition and increasing family wealth. Roberto Benedicto controlled sugar trading, earning billions in export revenues. Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. led a monopoly through the United Coconut Planters Bank, funded by forced levies on coconut farmers. The government seized major TV and newspaper companies to prevent dissent and promote their propaganda.

Marcos and his associates diverted billions of dollars from government funds for personal gain. Public infrastructure projects were overvalued, with a large portion of funds being funneled into personal accounts. Overseas Swiss bank accounts were secretly used to store ill-gotten wealth, later uncovered after the Marcos downfall. The Imelda Marcos-driven extravagant spending (e.g., luxury buildings, shopping sprees) was financed using government money.

Mijares’s work reveals that the Marcos dictatorship was not only about political repression but also about economic plunder. By using the government as a tool for wealth accumulation, the Marcos family and their allies entrenched themselves economically, leading to long-term effects on the Philippine economy. The fall of the regime in 1986 exposed the extent of their corruption, but their legacy of wealth and influence still persists today.

In Cacique Democracy in the Philippines: Origins and Dreams (1988, Cornell University Press), Benedict Anderson explains how economic and political power are deeply intertwined, enabling a small group of elites (the caciques, or political bosses) to dominate both sectors in the Philippines.

Anderson argues that elite rule in the Philippines dates back to the Spanish colonial period, when landowning families (caciques) gained control over vast agricultural estates. These families maintained their power even after Spanish rule ended, transitioning from landlords to political leaders under the American colonial government. The U.S. introduced elections, but the system favored the wealthy elite, who controlled local politics and the economy. Political offices became family assets, passed down through generations.

The same elite families that dominated politics also controlled key industries, allowing them to use wealth to secure electoral victories. Business monopolies and land control ensured that the masses remained economically dependent on them. Election campaigns were funded by oligarchs, making it nearly impossible for outsiders to compete. Politicians rewarded their business allies with government contracts and favorable policies, reinforcing the cycle of elite control.

Political families distribute government resources, jobs, and aid to maintain voter loyalty. Voters, especially in rural areas, become dependent on these elites for survival, ensuring continued support. This system prevents real democratic competition, as power remains concentrated in a few hands.

Anderson describes the Philippines as a 'cacique democracy,' where elections exist but only serve to legitimize elite rule. Political dynasties and business oligarchs work together to ensure that wealth and power remain within their exclusive circle, limiting true democratic participation and economic mobility.

In Electoral Dynamics in the Philippines: Money Politics, Patronage and Clientelism at the Grassroots (2019, National University of Singapore Press), editors Allen Hicken, Edward Aspinall, and Meredith Weiss analyze how political dynasties maintain control over electoral politics through money politics, patronage, and clientelism.

Political dynasties use vast financial resources to secure electoral victories. Campaigns are expensive, and wealthy political families dominate by vote buying (offering direct cash payments or goods e.g., rice, medicine) to voters); Funding massive campaigns (spending on advertisements, rallies, and media influence); sustaining local alliances (providing financial incentives to local leaders who mobilize voters).

Patronage refers to the distribution of government resources to reward loyalty. Dynasties use their positions to appoint allies to key government positions (e.g., barangay leaders, police, bureaucrats); provide jobs and contracts to supporters in exchange for votes, and control public funds (e.g., pork barrel projects) to strengthen voter dependency.

Clientelism is a reciprocal system where politicians provide personal benefits to voters in return for electoral support. This includes offering direct assistance (e.g., covering medical expenses, school fees); prioritizing services for loyalists while neglecting opposition supporters; building a culture of dependency, where voters feel obligated to support certain families.

The work argues that money politics, patronage, and clientelism reinforce the dominance of political dynasties, making it difficult for new or independent candidates to compete. This system weakens democratic institutions, as elections are often decided by financial power rather than policy or merit. The authors suggest that electoral reforms, stricter campaign finance laws, and anti-dynasty legislation are necessary to break this cycle.

In Thailand, the monarchy, military elites and business elites hold the power (Military-Royalist Oligarchy). The Thai monarchy (King Rama X) holds ultimate power with military backing. Military coups (e.g., 2014, 2006) are used to reset the political system in favor of elites. Business oligarchs like the Chearavanont family (CP Group) benefit from close ties with the state. Media is tightly controlled, especially by the monarchy and military. Thailand is more centralized than Indonesia & the Philippines (military-monarchy control). It is closer to Vietnam in state control but with a capitalist economy.

B.J. Terwiel in 'Thailand's Political History: From the 13th Century to Recent Times' examines the evolution of Thailand's elite power structures, highlighting their oligarchic characteristics. In the Ayutthaya Period (1351–1767), the kingdom was governed by a centralized monarchy, with power concentrated among the king and a small group of nobles and officials. This elite class controlled land and resources, establishing a hierarchical society.

In the Bangkok Period and Chakri Dynasty (1782–present), following Ayutthaya's fall, the Chakri Dynasty rose to power, maintaining centralized authority. The monarchy continued to rely on a network of elites, including nobility and bureaucrats, to administer the kingdom.

In 19th Century Reforms, under King Chulalongkorn (Rama V), significant reforms modernized the administration and reduced noble power, but the elite class adapted, retaining influence within the new bureaucratic structures.

In the 1932 Revolution, a coup led by military and civilian elites transformed Thailand into a constitutional monarchy. Despite this shift, power remained with a select group, as military and bureaucratic elites dominated politics.

In Post-World War II Era, the military emerged as a dominant force, with figures like Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat consolidating power through coups. This period saw the intertwining of military and economic elites, reinforcing oligarchic tendencies.

In the late 20th to Early 21st Century, business elites gained political prominence, exemplified by Thaksin Shinawatra's rise. His tenure highlighted tensions between emerging business elites and traditional military-royalist factions, leading to political instability.

Terwiel's analysis underscores the adaptability of Thailand's elite power structures, which have evolved yet consistently maintained oligarchic characteristics throughout the nation's history.

'A History of Thailand' (2005, Cambridge University Press), Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit explore the evolution of Thailand's elite power structures, highlighting their oligarchic characteristics through various historical periods. In the late 19th century, Siam underwent significant transformations to establish itself as a nation-state. This process involved integrating diverse regions with distinct histories, languages, and cultures into a unified entity. The centralization of power during this period laid the groundwork for a consolidated elite.

Post-1976, the senior bureaucracy, along with the palace and military, continued to uphold a model of a passive rural society that accepted hierarchical social and political orders. They aimed to engineer social harmony and guide 'democracy' from above, reflecting the enduring influence of bureaucratic elites.

The intertwining of political and economic elites has persisted into modern times ( Contemporary Elite Dynamics). The resurgence of political family dynasties, such as the Shinawatra family, exemplifies the enduring nature of oligarchic structures in Thailand's political landscape.

Throughout these periods, Thailand's elite power structures have adapted to changing political and social landscapes, maintaining their influence and exhibiting oligarchic characteristics.

In Dynastic Democracy: Political Families of Thailand,' Yoshinori Nishizaki (2023, University of Wisconsin Press) explores the concept of 'dynastic democracy,' characterized by the transmission of political power within select ruling families.

Since the 1932 overthrow of absolute monarchy, Thailand's political landscape has been significantly influenced by elite political families. These families fall into two main categories: influential commoners who have held parliamentary seats since 1932, forming the core of Thailand’s dynastic democracy, and upper-class citizens related to the royal family either by kinship or ideological alignment, who have repeatedly challenged political transitions through coups and constitutional changes.

Nishizaki's analysis illustrates how democratic pluralism in Thailand has been consistently stifled by these dynastic structures, often to the detriment of ordinary citizens. This underscores the enduring significance of familial ties in Thai politics, where political authority and influence are frequently inherited across generations.

In Malaysia, the political-business elite and state-linked enterprises hold the power (Corporate-Political Oligarchy with Ethnic Influence). The ruling UMNO party (until 2018) controlled politics for decades, benefiting business elites. The 1MDB scandal (Najib Razak) showed deep corruption in elite networks. State-linked enterprises like Petronas and Khazanah Nasional dominate key industries. Ethnic-based business favoritism (Bumiputera policies support Malay elites). It is more state control than Indonesia and the Philippines, but less than Thailand or Vietnam. More racial-economic favoritism than other ASEAN nations.

In Malaysia's Political Economy: Politics, Patronage and Profits, authors Edmund Terence Gomez and Jomo K. S (2007, Cambridge University Press) analyze the intricate relationship between politics and business in Malaysia, illustrating how party politics and economic development have fostered a politico-corporate oligarchy. This work delves into the mechanisms through which political patronage has influenced wealth accumulation and concentration in the country.

The authors employ the concepts of rent and rent-seeking to explore how political patronage has been instrumental in wealth accumulation. They argue that the Malaysian political economy is characterized by the distribution of economic privileges to politically connected individuals and entities, leading to the emergence of a business class closely tied to the ruling political elite.

The intertwining of political power and business interests has resulted in a politico-corporate oligarchy, where economic resources are controlled by a select group with strong political affiliations. This nexus has perpetuated a system where political considerations heavily influence economic decisions, often at the expense of broader economic efficiency and equity.

The work discusses how this patronage system has shaped Malaysia's economic development, affecting policy-making and the distribution of economic opportunities. The alignment between political objectives and business interests has led to the prioritization of projects that serve the interests of the politico-corporate elite, potentially sidelining more inclusive or merit-based economic initiatives.

In Vietnam, Communist Party elites and state-owned enterprise (SOE) executives hold power (State-Controlled Oligarchy or Communist-Linked Elites). One-party rule ensures Communist Party dominance over business and politics. Wealthy businessmen must be closely tied to the party to succeed. State-owned enterprises (SOEs) control major sectors (PetroVietnam, VinGroup, Viettel).

The media is fully state-controlled (there is no independent press like in Indonesia or the Philippines) and more centralized than in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand (which are party-controlled). It is closer to China’s model of oligarchy than other ASEAN countries.

Author Bill Hayton in 'Vietnam: Rising Dragon' (Yale University Press, 2010), examines the emergence of an oligarchic structure within Vietnam's political and economic systems. He highlights how the intertwining of political power and business interests has led to the rise of a new elite class, often connected through familial ties to the Communist Party leadership. He describes how members of the ruling Communist Party and their relatives have leveraged their positions to dominate both state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and private business sectors, creating a form of oligarchy.

The Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) has maintained control over key economic sectors, ensuring that political connections are necessary for business success. State-owned enterprises (SOEs) receive privileged access to resources, capital, and government contracts, often benefiting Party-affiliated individuals.

Hayton introduces terms like 'COCC' (Con Ông Cháu Cha) and '5C' (Con Cháu Các Cụ Cả) to describe these networks. 'COCC', translating to 'son of father, grandson of grandfather', refers to the junior tier of the new Party-business elite, encompassing provincial bosses and lower-level national Party and government officials. '5C', meaning 'all children and grandchildren of the great grandfather', denotes the real elite, including direct descendants and extended family members of high-ranking officials. These individuals leverage their connections to secure business opportunities and protect their interests, often operating beyond the reach of legal accountability.

This fusion of political authority and economic privilege has fostered a system where state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and private companies are frequently controlled by Party members or their relatives. Such entities benefit from favorable policies, access to capital, and regulatory leniency, perpetuating a cycle of wealth and power concentration. Hayton argues that this oligarchic structure undermines equitable economic development and poses challenges to governance and social stability in Vietnam.

So, among those ASEAN countries, which has the highest level of oligarchs' influence?

Vietnam is an extremely high level of oligarchic influence where the Party controls all economic & political activity (state-controlled oligarchy).

Thailand has an extremely high level of oligarchic influence where the military and monarchy control state power (military-royalist oligarchy)

Indonesia has a very high level of oligarchic influence where Political dynasties and business groups shape policy (business and political oligarchy)

The Philippines has a very high level of oligarchic influence, where elections are dominated by family dynasties (dynastic and business oligarchy)

Malaysia is a moderate to high, strong but with recent political shifts (corporate-political oligarchy).

Indonesia and the Philippines are the most democratic but highly oligarchic (political-business elites dominate).

Thailand is the most military-controlled oligarchy (frequent coups). Malaysia is a state-linked oligarchy with ethnic favoritism (less power for private tycoons). Vietnam is a strictly state-controlled oligarchy (like China).

Indonesia’s oligarchy is more business-controlled, while Thailand’s is monarchy-military dominated. Philippines is the closest model to Indonesia, but it is more family-based in elections.

[Section 11]

[Section 9]

Bahasa