Dance of Life Dance of Life Popular Music and Politics in Southeast Asia Craig A. Lockard University of Hawai‘i Press Honolulu ©1998 University of Hawai‘i Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America 03 02 01 00 99 98 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lockard, Craig A. Dance of life: popular music and politics in Southeast Asia / Craig A. Lockard. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 0–8248–1848–2 (alk. paper)— ISBN 0–8248–1918–7 (pbk.: alk. paper) 1. Popular music—Asia, Southeastern—History and criticism. 2. Music and state—Asia, Southeastern. I. Title. ML3502.A785L6 1997 306.4’84—dc21 96–39802 CIP MN University of Hawai‘i Press books are printed on acid-free paper and meet the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Council on Library Resources Designed by Jennifer Osborn Contents INTRODUCTION ix 1. Popular Culture and Music in the Modern World 1 Popular Culture and Modern Society 2 Mass Mediation and the Meaning of Popular Culture 10 The Scope and Significance of Popular Music 17 Popular Music and Sociocultural Affirmation 22 The Political Role of Music 27 Patterns of Cultural Imperialism and Interaction 41 Intercultural Patterns of Popular Music Change 49 Conclusions 53 v 2. Indonesia: Many Fields, Many Songs 54 The Roots of Politics and Music 55 Nationalism, Popular Culture, and the Emergence of Kroncong 60 The Changing Context of the “New Order” 69 Mass Mediation, Censorship, and the Evolving Popular Culture 74 The Rise of Pop Indonesia 83 Pop Indonesia and Social Change 87 Pop Indonesia and Regional Identity 91 Rhoma Irama and the Dangdut Challenge 94 Contemporary Indonesian Politics and Popular Music 105 Conclusions 112 3. Philippines: Pinoy, Protest, and People Power 114 The Roots of Politics and Music 115 The Marcos Dictatorship 121 Problems of National Identity and Cultural Nationalism 125 The Emergence of Postcolonial Popular Music and Culture 129 The Rise of Pinoy 135 Music, Protest, and Political Movements 140 Freddie Aguilar and the Politicization of Pinoy 144 Aguilar, Pinoy, and People Power 146 Politics and Popular Music in the Post-Marcos Era 151 Conclusions 160 4. Thailand: Songs for Life, Songs for Struggle 162 The Roots of Politics and Music 163 Postwar Society and Politics 167 The Brief Mid-1970s Cultural and Political “Blossoming” 171 The Development of Popular Music and Culture 178 Varieties of Popular Music and Political Discourse 183 Caravan and the Florescence of “Songs of Life” 192 Contemporary Thai Politics and Popular Music 199 Conclusions 206 vi CONTENTS 5. Malaysia and Singapore: Pluralism and Popular Music 207 The Roots of Politics and Music 209 The Flowering of Popular Music 217 Malaysian Popular Culture and the Plural Society 222 Popular Music in the 1960s and Malaysia-Singapore Separation 224 Politics and Society in Change 228 Popular Music in the 1970s 235 Popular Music and Political Change in the 1980s 238 Popular Music and Sociopolitical Criticism 248 Contemporary Malaysian Popular Music 256 Conclusions 260 6. Conclusions 262 NOTES 273 BIBLIOGRAPHY 315 General and Regional Works 315 Indonesia 335 Philippines 349 Thailand 359 Malaysia and Singapore 367 INDEX 375 General 375 Pop Stars and Musicians 388 CONTENTS vii Introduction You have made your home In the streets of life You’ll take whatever ... will come ... Then you put on your shoes of blue And you immediately dance Dance of life ... So you follow this song. Malaysian rock group Kembara, 19841 This book explores the connection between popular music and politics in Southeast Asia over the past five decades, with particular emphasis on Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Malaysia/Singapore. An examination of Southeast Asia constitutes part of a larger analysis of the relationship between popular music and politics throughout what is often rather imprecisely termed the “Third World.” In another study I address the subject matter in non-Asian contexts such as Jamaica, Trinidad, Chile, Brazil, Nigeria, and South Africa.2 Considerable attention is devoted in both works to the relationship between popular music and politics generally (including the expression of political protest and commentary), the role of the singer or musician as a political actor, and the way certain of these performers have used music as a weapon or tool— even sometimes as a call to arms—with the goal of changing, challenging, or overthrowing governments or socioeconomic systems that they consider unjust. The studies also examine their songs to determine the sort of messages they are trying to convey and the specific issues that preoccupy them. ix In recent years anthropologists have been encouraged to more sys- tematically address issues of popular and mass culture.3Historians, including those specialized on Southeast Asia, have generally neglected popular music and other mass-mediated cultural developments, even perhaps the crucial role of mass communications generally, in their writings on the twentieth century. The scholarship on sociopolitical change in Southeast Asia also tends to ignore the role of popular music and culture—unlike the literature on countries such as Jamaica, Trinidad, and Brazil.4A major goal of this study is to rectify that lacuna. Popular music can generally be distinguished from other types of music by two essential features: It is disseminated largely by the mass media, and it is the by-product of the mass basis for marketing commodi- ties. But the role that popular music plays in the modern world is a subject of considerable debate. There is no agreement as to who ultimately con- trols the production of popular music, and consequently, depending on your answer, whether it can actually play a significant role in society. A study focused on Southeast Asia can help to answer several relevant ques- tions in this hitherto essentially Western debate. For example, does popular music have (or possess the capacity for) a potentially revolutionary and liberating influence, empowering or stimulating or educating people to reflection or action? Or, contrarily, does it largely play a conservative, institution-maintaining role in the sociopolitical order, diverting or pacify- ing them so that they accept the status quo? Does popular music chiefly challenge or reaffirm the social order? Or is it simultaneously challenging and supportive? Is heavily commodified and commercialized popular music essentially a matter of pure resistance by the people or of clear super- imposition by corporate and other elites? Or do both the elites and the public influence the music? Should it perhaps be seen as an arena for nego- tiation and expression of societal conflicts and patterns? Is music a double- edged sword, both escapist and dynamic?5These questions are challenging and not easily answered, even if some themes are becoming clearer. Various students of mass-mediated culture have analyzed its role as a mirror of society. For example, sociologist I.C. Jarvie wrote that the Hong Kong film industry “is not of interest because of contributions to the art of film. Its interest is sociological: what the films and their industry tell us about the society in, and for which, they are made.”6 Cinema has also been viewed as a major vehicle for the creative expression of cultural iden- tity, not the least in major filmmaking Asian nations like China, India, and Japan.7 Likewise, literature is the product of social process and hence can- not be separated from society and politics; perhaps the same claim can be made for music. Most popular music also derives from déclassé origins and consequently offers a proletarian appeal, allowing us to use it as a vehicle in studying “history from the bottom up.” x INTRODUCTION