Stanford University

International Relations

FSI researchers strive to understand how countries relate to one another, and what policies are needed to achieve global stability and prosperity. International relations experts focus on the challenging U.S.-Russian relationship, the alliance between the U.S. and Japan and the limitations of America’s counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan.

Foreign aid is also examined by scholars trying to understand whether money earmarked for health improvements reaches those who need it most. And FSI’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center has published on the need for strong South Korean leadership in dealing with its northern neighbor.

FSI researchers also look at the citizens who drive international relations, studying the effects of migration and how borders shape people’s lives. Meanwhile FSI students are very much involved in this area, working with the United Nations in Ethiopia to rethink refugee communities.

Trade is also a key component of international relations, with FSI approaching the topic from a slew of angles and states. The economy of trade is rife for study, with an APARC event on the implications of more open trade policies in Japan, and FSI researchers making sense of who would benefit from a free trade zone between the European Union and the United States.

Shorenstein APARC Names 2019-20 Postdoctoral Fellows

News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Shorenstein APARC is pleased to announce the selection of two scholars as postdoctoral fellows for the 2019-20 academic year. They will begin their appointments at Stanford in the coming Autumn quarter.

The Center offers the Shorenstein Postdoctoral Fellowship on Contemporary Asia to recent doctoral graduates dedicated to research and writing on contemporary Asia, primarily in the areas of political, economic, or social change in the Asia-Pacific region, or international relations and international political economy in the region. The Center’s Asia Health Policy Program sponsors the Asia Health Policy Postdoctoral Fellowship, supporting young scholars who pursue original research on contemporary health or healthcare policy of high relevance to low- and middle-income countries in the Asia-Pacific region

Fellows develop their dissertations and other projects for publication, present their research, and participate in the intellectual life at the Center and at Stanford at large. Our postdoctoral fellows often go on to pursue careers at top universities and research organizations around the world and continue to contribute to APARC research and publications.

Meet our new postdoctoral scholars:

Portrait of Radhika Jain
Radhika Jain
Asia Health Policy Postdoctoral Fellow

What are the conditions necessary to ensure the effectiveness of public health insurance programs?

Radhika Jain is completing her doctorate in the Department of Global Health at Harvard University. She studies the role of the private sector in the health system, frictions in health care markets, and the incidence of public health policy benefits.

Radhika’s dissertation examines the extent to which government subsidies for health care under insurance are captured by private hospitals instead of being passed through to patients, and whether accountability measures can help patients claim their entitlements. Radhika’s research has been supported by grants from the Weiss Family Fund and the Jameel Poverty Action Lab (JPAL). She has worked on impact evaluations of health programs in India and on the implementation of HIV programs across several countries in sub-Saharan Africa. She also held a doctoral fellowship at the Center for Global Development.

At Shorenstein APARC, Radhika will refine her dissertation research for publication in academic journals and start new work on the structure of health care markets in India and the impacts of measures to increase the effectiveness of public health insurance.  

Portrait of Hannah June Kim
Hannah June Kim
Shorenstein Postdoctoral Fellow on Contemporary Asia

How does modernization influence cultural democratization in East Asia?

Hannah June Kim is completing her doctorate in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Irvine. She researches public opinion, political behavior, theories of modernization, economic development, and democratic citizenship, focusing on East Asia.

Hannah’s dissertation examines how and why people view democracy in systematically different ways in six countries: China, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Developing unique categories of democratic citizenship that measure the cognitive, affective, and behavioral patterns of individuals, she finds that state-led economic development limited the growth of cultural democratization among middle class groups in all three dimensions. The results imply that the classic causality between modernization and democratization may not be universally applicable to different cultural contexts.

At Shorenstein APARC, Hannah will work on developing her dissertation into a book manuscript and make progress on her next project that explores democratization and gender empowerment in East Asia. Hannah received an MA in International Studies from Korea University and a BA from UCLA. Her work has been published, or is forthcoming, in The Journal of Politics, PS: Political Science & Politics, and the Japanese Journal of Political Science.

 

 

Hero Image
encina hall
All News button
1

Podcast: Donald K. Emmerson on How Southeast Asian Nations Balance China-U.S. Relations

News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

As tension grows between China and the United States, its effects are felt across Asia. APARC's Southeast Asia Program Director Donald K. Emmerson sat down with Michael McFaul, FSI's Director and host of FSI's podcast World Class, to talk about why Southeast Asia in particular is caught in that rising tension between China and the United States and what can be done to prevent it from becoming a battle ground for a new Cold War between the two superpowers.

Listen to the conversation:

 

All News button
1

Audio: APARC Scholars on China’s Belt and Road Initiative

News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
APARC's Direcror of the Southeast Asia Program Donald K. Emmerson, Center Fellow Thomas Fingar, and Oksenberg-Rohlen Fellow David M. Lampton spoke with The New Silk Road Project as part of a series of conversations that explores China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) from various perspectives. The New Silk Road Project is a student-led research project that aims to better understand and raise awareness of China’s BRI by documenting its land-based component and compiling interviews with leading academics. 
 
Listen to the complete interviews below.
 
Donald K. Emmerson discusses Chinese investment in ASEAN, multilateralism, and the possibility of building the Kra Canal across Thailand to help offset China’s Malacca Dilemma:
 
 
Thomas Fingar discusses how Chinese policies and priorities interact with the goals and actions of other countries in Central and South Asia:
 
 
David M. Lampton discusses China’s development of high-speed railway networks in Southeast Asia:
 

Hero Image
Chinese construction workers in Colombo, Sri Lanka
Chinese Construction workers on site at a shopping mall that is part of the Chinese managed Shangri-La retails and office complex in Colombo, Sri Lanka. For China, the relation with Sri Lanka is a critical link for its Belt and Road Initiative.
Paula Bronstein/Getty Images
All News button
1

Chinese Power and Rail Connectivity in Southeast Asia

-

This event is co-sponsored by Shorenstein APARC's China Program and the Southeast Asia Program

Analysts of China run two occupational risks: One is underestimating PRC capacities to achieve national objectives and the other is overestimating Chinese power. In this talk, David (Mike) Lampton will elaborate upon this observation by focusing on the PRC and Southeast Asian effort to build high speed- and conventional-speed rail connectivity between southern China and seven continental Southeast Asian neighbors, including Singapore. His talk will center on a research project he is undertaking with two Southeast Asian scholars involving field work in eight countries. In his preliminary assessment, “progress has been greater than widely realized, and the problems are very large.” Lampton will analyze: What factors in China and among its neighbors promote, and which retard, progress? Indeed, how do different countries define “progress” and what capacities do China's smaller neighbors have to shape and, in some cases, even resist developments? And, in light of all this, how might the United States think about appropriate economic, strategic, and diplomatic responses?

lampton 2018 photo

David M. Lampton is Oksenberg-Rohlen Fellow and Research Scholar at Stanford University’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center. He also is Hyman Professor and Director of China Studies Emeritus at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Having started his academic career at The Ohio State University, Lampton has been Chairman of the The Asia Foundation (2015-2018), president of the National Committee on United States-China Relations (1988-1997), and former Dean of Faculty at SAIS (2004-2012). He is the author of: Same Bed, Different Dreams: Managing U.S.-China Relations, 1989-2000 (2001); The Three Faces of Chinese Power: Might, Money, and Minds (2008); and, The Making of Chinese Foreign and Security Policy (editor, Stanford University Press, 2001). He received his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees from Stanford University where, as an undergraduate student, he was a fireman. Lampton has an honorary doctorate from the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Far Eastern Studies. His newest book, Following the Leader: Ruling China, from Deng Xiaoping to Xi Jinping, was first published in January 2014 and will be reissued in paperback with a new Preface early in 2019 by the University of California Press. His current field research and book-length project focuses on Beijing’s effort to build high-speed and other rail lines to Singapore from southern China and involves interview and field research in eight countries. He is undertaking this research with two colleagues. 

This event is part of the China Program’s Colloquia Series entitled "A New Cold War?: Sharp Power, Strategic Competition, and the Future of U.S.-China Relations " sponsored by Shorenstein APARC's China Program.

A New Cold War?: Sharp Power, Strategic Competition, and the Future of U.S.-China Relations

Gears of US and China

Trade conflict has exploded. The media is rife with stories of China’s unfair trade practices, cyber theft, IP theft and forced technology transfers. Who will first scale the commanding heights of technological supremacy? Who will be the first mover in AI, robotics and biotechnology? What are the implications of Beijing’s ambitious infrastructure projects, including its Belt and Road Initiative? How is China’s “sharp power” deployed, and what are its implications for political and civic life in the U.S.? Can the Trump administration and Beijing’s leadership reach agreement on our trade disputes? Are these just the beginning salvos of an increasingly turbulent future? As U.S. policy towards China sharply veers away from “constructive engagement” to “strategic competition,” the Stanford China Program will host a series of talks by leading experts to explore the current state of our bilateral relations, its potential future, and their implications for the world order.

https://aparc.fsi.stanford.edu/china/research/new-cold-war-sharp-power-strategic-competition-and-future-us-china-relations

David M. Lampton Oksenberg-Rohlen Fellow and Research Scholar, Shorenstein APARC
Seminars

Indonesia: Democratic Hopes, Institutional Woes

-

Co-sponsored by the Southeast Asia Program and

the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law

Indonesia features Southeast Asia’s most vibrant and dynamic democracy, but debilitating institutional dysfunctions persist.  Age-old patronage-style practices remain commonplace, despite voter demands for governance reform.  In effect, two mutually incompatible systems operate simultaneously: the rule of law on the one hand—“Ruler’s Law” on the other.  The disarray provides space for mafias and Islamist fringe groups to wield clout.  The contradiction tends to deter investment that Indonesia sorely needs in order to escape a “middle-income trap.”  What are the prospects for change in the April 2019 national elections?  Join the Indonesia political analyst Kevin O’Rourke for a presentation and discussion of poll data, political trends, and potential post-2019 scenarios in the world’s fourth most populous country. 

kevin orourke cropped
Kevin O’Rourke’s Reformasi Weekly analyzes politics and policy-making for organizations operating in Indonesia. Subscribers include embassies, NGOs, universities, and companies. His firm, Reformasi Information Services, provides political risk consul­ting and customized research. His latest publication, 2019 Election Primer: Players, Playing Field and Scenarios (Nov. 2018), reviews in detail the rules, issues, and possible results of the country’s nationwide elections in April 2019. Earlier writings include Who’s Who in Yudhoyono’s Indonesia (2010) and Reformasi: The Struggle for Power in Post-Soeharto Indonesia (2002). Kevin started his career in Indonesia in 1994 as an equity research analyst. He is a graduate of Harvard University with an honors degree in government.

Download pdf
Philippines Conference Room Encina Hall, 3rd Floor 616 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305
Kevin O’Rourke Writer and producer, Reformasi Weekly Review of Indonesian politics and policymaking
Seminars

Dividing ASEAN while Claiming the South China Sea: Chinese Financial Power Projection in Southeast Asia

-

Four member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have made territorial claims in the South China Sea that conflict with China’s professed entitlement to all of the “islands and the adjacent waters.” Because the “ASEAN Way” is to make decisions by consensus, each member state can, in effect, veto what the group might otherwise decide. Prof. O’Neill will explore how China has used its financial power to divide ASEAN’s members in order to prevent them from acting collectively to resolve their territorial disputes with China in the South China Sea. He will compare China’s relations with Cambodia, the Philippines, and Myanmar in order to highlight the key role that a recipient country’s type of regime plays in enhancing or constraining Beijing’s ability to use aid, loans, and investments to influence the policies and politics of developing states. He will argue that authoritarian institutions facilitate Chinese influence while democratic institutions inhibit it.

oneill dan 35 cropped
Daniel C. O’Neill’s current project is a co-authored volume on the politics of China’s Belt and Road Initiative in Southeast and South Asia. His new book, Dividing ASEAN and Conquering the South China Sea: China’s Financial Power Projection (2018), has been called “well-crafted and theoretically sound” by the highly regarded GWU Southeast Asianist Prof. Robert Sutter. O’Neill’s shorter writings have appeared in venues including Asian Survey, Contemporary Southeast Asia, the Journal of Eurasian Studies, and The Washington Post. Audiences have heard him lecture in, for example, the Philippines, China, and Kazakhstan. For three years running, the School of International Studies where he works named him “Outstanding Teacher of the Year.” His Ph.D. in political science is from Washington University in St. Louis.

Philippines Conference Room
Encina Hall, 3rd Floor
616 Serra Mall
Stanford, CA 94305

Daniel C. O’Neill Associate Professor of Political Science, School of International Studies, University of the Pacific
Seminars

How and Why Did the Opposition Win in Malaysia? Lessons for Semi-Authoritarian Asia

-

Malaysia's ruling National Front (BN) coalition ran one of the most durable authoritarian governments in the world. But in May 2018, a coalition of opposition parties won power, unseating the BN government for the first time in 61 years. In two complementary talks, APARC scholars Sophie Lemière and Sebastian Dettman will examine the roots of this victory in light of the strategies, coalitions, and messianic messages used by the opposition. Using findings from their fieldwork in Malaysia, they will show how and why the opposition parties were successful and draw implications of the victory for Malaysia’s future under its new coalition government. The speakers will also convey broader insights about political competition in Southeast Asia’s semi-authoritarian polities and beyond.    

dettman cropped
Sebastian Dettman completed his doctorate in the Department of Government at Cornell University in 2018. He researches party building, electoral competition, and political representation in newly democratic and authoritarian regimes, with a focus on Southeast Asia. Sebastian has an MA in Southeast Asian Studies from the University of Michigan and has worked as a consultant and researcher for organizations including the Asia Foundation, the International Crisis Group, and the Carter Center.

 

 

lemiere cropped
Sophie Lemière is a political anthropologist in the Ash Center for Democracy at Harvard University. At Stanford she is working on a political biography of Malaysia’s current prime minister that features his recent election campaign. She is the editor of a series of books on politics and people in Malaysia, including Gangsters and Masters (2019), Illusions of Democracy (2017), and Misplaced Democracy (2014). She has held visiting research positions at universities in Singapore, Australia, and the US. Her PhD is from Sciences-Po in Paris.

 

Philippines Conference Room
Encina Hall, 3rd Floor
616 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305

Sebastian Dettman 2018-19 Shorenstein Postdoctoral Fellow on Contemporary Asia
Sophie Lemière 2018-19 Lee Kong Chian NUS-Stanford Fellow on Contemporary Southeast Asia
Seminars

Independence and Governance in Singapore: The Highest Stage of Colonialism?

-

Singapore’s government is widely seen as competent, honest, and meritocratic—an exceptional case of post-colonial governance.  Nor can any elected incumbent party anywhere match Singapore’s People’s Action Party’s 59-year record of uninterrupted rule.  But recent events have cast doubt on the PAP government’s reputation for performance and stability.  Despite acknowledging its need for new leaders, the government has been unable to select a clear successor to the current prime minister, even as his talented and popular deputy is sidelined, apparently due to his ethnic-minority background.  When the government tried to ascertain public opinion on legislation against “deliberate online falsehoods,” the exercise descended into name-calling and threats against witnesses.  Resentments have meanwhile risen over socioeconomic inequality and the mismanagement of public transport, housing, and health care.

How did this happen? In his talk, Dr. Thum will explore the historical forces that have shaped Singapore's politics and governance; explain the political economy of decision-making there; and recount his own experience with the turmoil affecting the country's government.  He will argue that Singapore's post-colonial independence and governance are an evolution of—not from—British colonial rule.  The government is responsive and accountable to international capital.  But the PAP needs the approval of voting citizens to legitimize its continuation in power. The party’s leaders embody this dilemma in their struggles to reconcile two such different and competing sets of interests.

pj thum cropped
Thum Ping Tjin (“PJ”) is a historian. He founded and serves as managing director of New Naratif (www.newnaratif.com), a Southeast Asian platform for research, journalism, art, and community organization that supports democracy and human rights.  He is also a founding director of Project Southeast Asia, an interdisciplinary research cluster on the region at the University of Oxford.  A Rhodes Scholar, Commonwealth Scholar, Olympic athlete, and the only Singaporean to have swum the English Channel, his scholarship centers on the history of Southeast Asian governance and politics.  In March 2018 he was questioned for six hours by Singapore’s minister for law and home affairs for his criticism of statements and actions undertaken by PAP politicians acting under internal security laws in Singapore during the Cold War.

Philippines Conference Room Encina Hall, 3rd Floor 616 Serra Street, Stanford, CA 94305
Thum Ping Tjin Visiting Research Fellow, University of Oxford
Seminars

Visiting Southeast Asia Expert Explores Political Behavior and Institutions in Vietnam

Authors
News Type
Q&As
Date
Paragraphs

 

A Q&A with Paul Schuler

by Thom Holme

The start of a new academic year is always filled with excited anticipation by all of us at Shorenstein APARC. We're delighted to welcome a diverse cohort of accomplished postdoctoral fellows, research fellows, and visiting scholars to our research community for the 2018-19 academic year. Among them is Paul Schuler, who joins the Center as a Lee Kong Chian Fellow on Southeast Asia.

The Lee Kong Chian Visiting Fellowship on Southeast Asia is part of a joint initiative by the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Stanford, whose aim is to raise the visibility, extent, and quality of research on contemporary Southeast Asia. Here at Stanford, the infrastructures for research is supported by our Southeast Asia Program.

I recently spoke with Shuler about his research plans for the duration of his fellowship. An assistant professor at the University of Arizona's School of Government and Public Policy, Schuler specializes in institutions and public opinion within authoritarian regimes, with a particular focus on Vietnam. He was also a 2014-15 Shorenstein Postdoctoral Fellow on Contemporary Asia. The following conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

Q. Welcome back to Stanford! What's it like being at APARC once more?

A. It's great! It feels like I'm coming home again. It's very rare to have an institution with so much expertise on East Asia as APARC, and that contextual knowledge helps both inform the issues I'm working on and generate new research ideas. The opportunity to benefit from intellectual exchange with China experts at Stanford would be especially useful for me as I'm writing a book comparing the evolution of particular Vietnamese political institutions to those in China.

Q. What are some findings we might expect to see in this publication?

A. It is often assumed that, in China and in Vietnam, democratic politics and elections have been slowly becoming more meaningful, and that the forces that support or push for these quasi-democratic openings are the reform-minded people or the soft-liners in the regimes.

My argument is that the expansion of these democratic forces in Vietnam isn't always driven by soft-liners or reform-minded people wanting to open the institutions for democratic purposes. Oftentimes, the more conservative elements of authoritarian regimes are the ones looking to attack their more reform-minded rivals within the party. In some cases, it's actually the conservatives and the hardliners who increase the visibility of the democratic institutions for such short-term tactical reasons.

However, it's very hard to shut down the institutions once they open up. So, in some ways, conservatives facilitate democratization, but not because it was initially pushed by people supporting that process.

What trust actually does, in our opinion, is breed conservatism. If you happen to live in a democracy, then it's great because it helps breed support for that system; if you live in an autocracy, then it means that it is also hard to change that system...

Paul Schuler

Q. What drew you to research political behavior of institutions within authoritarian regimes, and specifically in Vietnam?

A: I’m fascinated by how political systems evolved the way they did. In the United States, people are largely drawn to politics because of the captivating figures and their personalities, the elections, the campaigns. By contrast, politics in Vietnam is very different. What you read in the newspapers is very much an attempt to play down the individual. In fact, many people in Vietnam have a hard time naming their politicians and top leaders.

And while this situation has changed somewhat in China with Xi Jinping, in Vietnam it's still the case that people don't have that high level of engagement with politicians that we see in democracies. And so I wondered, "How do people engage with politics? Is this, in fact, a better arrangement? Are the people satisfied with it, or just take it for granted? And, ultimately, what would it take to change that type of system?”

Q. You're working on a coauthored paper for the journal Comparative Politics on the link between trust and democratic regime change. What is the connection between the two, and how is it related to engagement with politicians—or lack thereof?

A. With counties like Vietnam, one of the topics that people are most interested in is if—and when—there will be a transition to a more democratic system. Vietnam, like China, has been shown to have a high-degree of social trust. Francis Fukuyama observed how trust helps facilitate democracy, given that people are willing to make compromises with others if they somehow trust them. Vietnam and China are anomalous in that regard because both exhibit high levels of this generalized trust, yet they are obviously not democracies. In our forthcoming paper, my coauthor and I theorize that trust does not facilitate democracy; rather, what it does is facilitate support for whatever the status quo happens to be. People who are highly trusting assume that whatever system is currently in place must be working.

What trust actually does, in our opinion, is breed conservatism. If you happen to live in a democracy, then it's great because it helps breed support for that system; if you live in an autocracy, then it means that it is also hard to change that system to something new, because generalized trust basically makes people adverse to change. We find that in Vietnam, people who score higher in this sort of trust are much less likely to advocate for regime reforms.

Q. You mentioned president Xi Jinping and the shift he represents for China. Do you see the Xi model as having influence on Vietnam’s evolution?

A. There is always a debate in Vietnam as to whether or not they should follow certain choices made by China. China, on average, has grown 2-3% faster than Vietnam annually. And while Vietnam has done very well, there is this sense for some that moving towards a system that looks more like China could actually help further increase their growth.

There are people, particularly in the Organization Committee in Vietnam and at higher levels in the Politburo, who are trying reduce the division between the party and the state; trying to centralize power in party institutions. It's not yet clear whether they'll be able to go as far as China did, let alone if they will be successful at putting forward the reforms they've already suggested.

One big difference is that in Vietnam, the president and the general secretary are different positions, whereas in China, Xi Jinping holds both roles. While there have been attempts by Vietnamese general secretaries to combine these positions, they have been rebuffed by the central committee, and I don't think that's going to happen. And while Vietnam is making changes elsewhere that mirror China, I think the greater degree of separation between the government and the party will probably survive.

Q. Social media’s impact on democracy and influence on the public’s trust in government are hotly debated issues today, both in the United States and in Southeast Asia. What have you observed in Vietnam in that regard?

A. It’s hard to study to the impact of social media on political attitudes, but one thing I've found through surveys is that people who are active online appear more likely to find their local government corrupt. They also tend to be more pessimistic about corruption.

In Vietnam, another thing we found is that social media may have different effects depending on whether one lives in an urban or rural area. There’s evidence that social media in rural areas might actually inhibit protests and social movements, because the central government is much more aware of what is happening in the countryside and can quickly launch a crackdown on protesters.

In urban areas, however, the dynamics are somewhat different: the conditions exist for more spontaneous protest, as horizontal communication overwhelms the central government’s ability to move in and stop it.

So yes, I believe social media is having an impact on people’s relationship to the government in Vietnam, but it's a complex impact. To some extent, it is inhibiting the possibilities for rural revolt, but at the same time it’s helping to facilitate spontaneous urban protest movements.

LKC Fellow Talk

On September 27, 2018, Paul Schuler delivers his seminar "Shadows on the Wall: Legislative Politics in Post-Reform Vietnam"

 

RSVP Now

Hero Image
A woman wearing Ao Dai culture traditional at Ho chi minh city hall in Vietnam. Natnan Srisuwan via iStock/ Getty Images Plus
All News button
1

Gangsters and Masters: Criminality and Politics in Malaysia

-

pekida 440

In Malaysia, criminality is a highly political question, and that is mainly why local scholarship on the topic is rare. Yet political participation by outlaws and criminalized groups is not new. Begun in 2008, Dr. Lemière’s research explores uncharted territory: how criminality related to politics in semi-authoritarian Malaysia, with a focus on the ruling party (UMNO) from 2008 to 2018.  She shows how gangs have created umbrella (Malay) NGOs, like Pekida (shown here in caricature), to formalize their ties to political parties. For gangs, political militancy has become a business; political parties (mostly UMNO) have sub-contracted political actions and violence to such groups. Dr. Lemière’s research raises question regarding the nature of civil society and democratization, and offers a new perspective of ethno-religious controversies and clashes in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Sophie Lemière is a political anthropologist at Harvard’s Ash Center for Democracy in its program on Democracy in Hard Places. Her research examines the nexus between religion, politics, and criminality in a comparative perspective. She will be at Stanford in the fall before transferring to the National University of Singapore in the spring.

Dr. Lemière has held research positions in Singapore at the Asia Research Institute (NUS) and the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (NTU).  She has been a visiting fellow at the University of Sydney, Cornell, UC Berkeley, and Columbia. She received her PhD from Sciences-Po in Paris. Her dissertation was the first study on the political links between gangs and umbrella NGOs in Malaysia.  Her master’s research on apostasy controversies and Islamic civil society was awarded second prize for young scholars by the International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World (1998-2008) in Leiden.

Dr. Lemière believes it is essential for academics to disseminate their research findings widely, especially in the countries they study. Accordingly, her publications have been written both general and academic readers within and beyond Malaysia. She is the editor of a series of books on “Malaysian Politics and People.” Misplaced Democracy was released in 2014.  Illusions of Democracy (2017) will be re-published in 2018, and a third volume is expected in 2019, when her monograph “Gangsters and Masters: Complicit Militancy and Authoritarian Politics” will also appear. She is currently working on a political biography of Malaysia’s current prime minister during his recent campaign: “The Last Game: Malaysian Politics through Mahathir’s Eyes.”

Dr. Lemière maintains a blog on Mediapart and contributes regularly to New Mandala, The Conversation, Le Monde, and Libération among other outlets.  She has also begun to develop several documentary film projects with French production companies, including a series on arts and politics. Her first film “9/43” featuring the Malaysian cartoonist Zunar was chosen one of the 25 best movies at the French short-film festival Infracourt in 2016.

Sophie Lemière 2018-19 Lee Kong Chian NUS-Stanford Fellow on Contemporary Southeast Asia
Seminars
Subscribe to International Relations