• The Southeast Asian review
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.213-261
• /
• 2018

On May 9, 2018, regime change took place in Malaysia. It was the first regime change that took place in 61 years after independence in 1957. The regime change was an unexpected result not only in Malaysian experts but also in political circles. Moreover, the outcome of the election was more shocking because the opposition party was divided in this general election. The regime change in Malaysia was enough to attract worldwide attention because it meant the collapse of the oldest regime in the modern political system that exists, except North Korea and China. How could this have happened? In particular, how could the regime change, which had not been accomplished despite opposition parties' cooperation for almost 20 years, could be achieved with the divided opposition forces? What political implications does the 2018 general election result have for political change and democratization in Malaysia? How will the Malaysian politics be developed in the aftermath of the regime change? It is worth noting that during the process of finding answers, a series of general elections since the start of reformasi in 1998 tended to be likened to a series of "tsunami" in the Malaysian electoral history. This phenomenon of tsunami means that, even though very few predicted the possibility of regime change among academia, civil society and political circles, the regime change was not sudden. In other words, the regime in 2018 was the result of the desire and expectation of political change through a series of elections of Malaysian voters last 20 years. In this context, this study, in analyzing the results of the election in 2018, shows that the activation of electoral politics triggered by the reform movement in 1998, along with the specific situational factors in 2018, could lead to collapse of the ruling government for the first time since independence.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.37
• /
• pp.473-507
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study is to understand Zhuxi's Taoxuezhengzhi(道學政治) by reorganizing both his political opinion in each different political situation and his consistent political consciousness appeared in his whole political career. He concluded that the politics was the real problematic in Southern Sung, which made its structure distorted. This distorted structure of politics had widely rooted in whole sphere of society. In order to cure this political problematic, Zhuxi had focused on huangdi(皇帝) and chaoting(朝廷). That is why people is the basis of State and the result of politics, while huangdi and chaoting is the basis of politics and the beginnig of politics. According to Zhuxi, forming their political power group of their own will by using huangdi's power, the political elites close to only to huangdi made the function of chaoting unstable, with the result that the political decay produced. In chaoting, it resulted in the weakness of huangdi's power, the collapse of official discipline(紀綱), and the absence of public opinion(公論) and public aggreement(公議). Beyond chaoting, it resulted in the absence of political trust and the degeneration of public morals(風俗). In the Southern Sung were not altered the political orientation and culture based on the political decay, but only political orientation and characteristics of political elite only altered. This proves Zhuxi's approach that all problems in Southern Sung could resolve by the political approach. Zhuxi had suggested political issues in office. The alternatives for those political issues had basis of the theme, the one that saving people(恤民) is the purpose of politics. However his political ideas and the execution of them had been occsionally collapsed by the complex political structue, the mechanisms of political power, and the sameness and privatization of political geography in Southern Sung. Qingyuandanghuo(慶元黨禍) was the final stage of his political frustration, with the result that it led to the failure of Zhuxi's taoxuezhengzhi and interrupted the tradition of taoxue(道學) for the time being.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.52
• /
• pp.135-153
• /
• 2010

Dong-a Ilbo tried to assume leadership of opinion in preceding the movement against the trusteeship as a mouthpiece for the Han-Min Party. Dong-a Ilbo was to try to promote the atmosphere of anti-trusteeship=anti-communism=anti-Soviet Union, distorting the decision of a conference of three foreign affairs ministers in Moscow. It was not an incorrect report, but the false report. As a result, the formula of an anti-trusteeship=anti-Soviet Union=anti-communism=patriotism, and a pro-trusteeship=pro-Soviet Union=pro-Communism=traitor was formed. And the important problems of land reform and pro-Japanese‘ clearance were missing. Historically, political newspapers had appeared in the periods of very important political change. Political newspapers played a role as mouthpiece for political party or group. Dong-a Ilbo was such a political newspaper. It was that Dong-a Ilbo tried to change the social atmosphere in preceding the movement against the trusteeship as a mouthpiece for the Han-Min Party. And history was distorted.