To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account.
Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.
Public Discourse and Constitutional Change: A Comparison of Vietnam and Indonesia
To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account.
Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.
Public Discourse and Constitutional Change: A Comparison of Vietnam and Indonesia
1. See e. g. DRYZEK, John S, Foundations and Frontiers in Deliberative Governance (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010) [Dryzek, Foundations and Frontiers]; NEBLO, Michael, “Thinking Through Democracy: Between the Theory and Practice of Deliberative Politics” (2005) 40Acta Politica169.
2. See KANE, John, LOY, Hui-Chieh, and PATAPAN, Haig, “Introduction to the Special Issue: The Search for Legitimacy in Asia” (2010) 38(3) Politics & Policy381; LEVITSKY, Steven and WAY, Lucan A, Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
3. See GINSBURG, Tom and SIMPSER, Alberto, “Introduction: Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes” in Tom GINSBURG and Alberto SIMPSER, eds, Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014) at 1.
4. See Kane, Loy, and Patapan, supra note 2; Levitsky and Way, supra note 2; Ginsburg and Simpser, supra note 3.
5. See TUSHNET, Mark, “Authoritarian Constitutionalism: Some Conceptual Issues” in Ginsburg and Simpser, Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes, supra note 3 at 36–52.
6. See Kane, Loy, and Patapan, supra note 2; Levitsky and Way, supra note 2.
7.HABERMAS, Jürgen, The Theory of Communicative Action (Boston: Beacon Press, 1987) vol 2 at 164–197.
8. See Dryzek, Foundations and Frontiers, supra note 1; Neblo, supra note 1.
9.TANG, Beibei, “Deliberating Governance in Chinese Urban Communities” (2015) 73The China Journal84.
10.PAPACHARISSI, Zizi A, A Private Sphere: Democracy in a Digital Age (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010); RAUCHFLEISCH, Adrian and SCHÄFER, Mike S, “Multiple public spheres of Weibo: A typology of forms and potentials of online public spheres in China” (2015) 18(2) Information, Communication & Society139.
11.LUHMANN, Niklas, The Reality of the Mass Media, translated by Kathleen CROSS (Oxford: Polity Press, 2000) at 65–66.
12.HENDRIKS, Carolyn, The Politics of Public Deliberation: Citizen Engagement and Interest Advocacy (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011) at 3–17; DRYZEK, John S, “Rhetoric in Democracy: A Systemic Appreciation” (2010) 38(3) Political Theory319; BRIDGE, Gary, “Reason in the City? Communicative Action, Media and Urban Politics” (2009) 33(1) International Journal of Urban and Regional Research237.
13. Neo-Habermasian scholars argue that effective public deliberation requires a conversation in which the state refrains from setting discursive rules that control the epistemic content of the discussion. See YOUNG, Iris, Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) at 23–25. The conversation must also be inclusive in the sense that the deliberation includes a norm of mutual respect that allows those who want to participate access to the conversation. Ibid. Finally, effective public deliberation presupposes reasonable participants who are willing to listen and enter into conversations to find solutions that resolve collective problems. Reasonable participants recognize that dissidence often produces socially useful insights. Ibid.
14. See PHAM, Van Bach, “Le Non Voi Van De Phap Che Xa Hoi Chu Nghia [Lenin and Socialist Legality]” (1970) 3Tap San Tu Phap9.
15. See LEV, Daniel S, Legal Evolution and Political Authority in Indonesia: Selected Essays (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000) at 215–244.
16. See BUTT, Simon and LINDSEY, Tim, The Constitution of Indonesia: A Contextual Analysis (Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2012) at 9.
17.HM, Yamin, Naskah Persiapan Undang-undang Dasar 1945 [Preparatory Documents of the 1945 Constitution] (Jakarta: Yayasan Prapanca, 1959) at 114.
18. See REEVE, David, “The Corporatist State: the Case of Golkar” in Arief BUDIMAN, ed, State and Civil Society in Indonesia, Monash Papers on Southeast Asia, No 22, Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University, Melbourne, at 157–170.
19. See PHAM, Van Dong, “Strengthen the Party Leadership, Carry Out the State’s Managerial Functions and Develop the People’s Right to Ownership in Order to Successfully Fulfil the 1977 State Plan” Ho Chi Minh City Domestic Service (22 January 1977) 4 FIBIS East Asia Daily Service (16) (25 January 1977) at K9, K11–K13.
20. See LEV, Daniel, “Between State and Society”, Working Paper No 2, Law Department, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London (November 1992).
21.LEV, Daniel, “Comments on the Course of Law Reform in Modern Indonesia” in Tim LINDSEY, ed, Indonesia: The Commercial Court and Law Reform in Indonesia (Sydney: Federation Press, 1999) at 48–67.
22. See POMPE, Sebastiaan, The Indonesian Supreme Court: A Study of Institutional Collapse (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Southeast Asia Program Publications, 2005) at 425–467.
23. The Constitution of Indonesia (2009), art. 24C.
24. See HILL, David and SEN, Krishna, The Internet in Indonesia’s New Democracy (New York: Routledge, 2005) at 17–30.
25. See ANWAR, Dewi Fortuna, “Indonesia’s Transition to Democracy: Challenges and Prospects” in Damien KINGSBURY and Arief BUDIMAN, eds, Indonesia: The Uncertain Transition (Adelaide: Crawford House Publishing, 2001) 1 at 3–16.
26. See BARTON, Greg, “Indonesia: Legitimacy, Secular Democracy, and Islam” (2010) 38 (3) Politics & Policy471.
27. See LINDSEY, Tim and SANTOSA, Achmad, “The Trajectory of Law Reform in Indonesia: A Short Overview of Legal and Systems and Change in Indonesia” in Tim LINDSEY, ed, Indonesia: Law and Society (Sydney: Federation Press, 2008) 1 at 2; KING, Dwight Y, “The 1999 Electoral Reforms in Indonesia: Debate, Design and Implementation” (2000) 28(2) Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science89.
28. See Anwar, supra note 25 at 6–8.
30. See Hill and Sen, supra note 24 at 17–30.
31. See ROBERTS, Joanne, “Point-Counterpoint: Limits to Communities of Practice” (2006) 43(3) Journal of Management Studies623; BECKY, Beth A, “Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor” (2003) 14(3) Organization Science312.
32. See INDRAYANA, Denny, Indonesian Constitutional Reform 1999–2002 (Jakarta: Kompas Books, 2008) at 171.
35. See BUTT, Simon and HANSELL, David, “The Masykur Abdul Kadir Case: Indonesian Constitutional Court Decision No 013/PUU-I/2003” (2004) 6Australian Journal of Asian Law177.
36. Constitutional Court Ruling No 35/PUU-IX/2012 in Relation to Forest Lands 2013.
37.VO, Tri Hao, “Integrating the Principle of Separation of Power into the Constitution Amendment 2013 within the “Keeping Face” Cultural Context” (Paper delivered at the ‘Constitutional Debate in Vietnam’ Conference, National University of Singapore, 19–20 March 2016) [unpublished paper].
39.BICH, Lan, “Quốc hội thảo luận ở tổ về Dự thảo sửa đổi Hiến pháp 1992 [The National Assembly Discusses in Groups on the Draft Amendment of the 1992 Constitution]”, National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (27 May 2013) online: National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam <http://quochoi.vn/tintuc/Pages/tin-hoat-dong-cua-quoc-hoi.aspx?ItemID=5761>.
40.PHAM, Duy Nghia, “From Marx to Market: The Debates on the Economic System in Vietnam’s Revised Constitution” (Paper delivered at the ‘Constitutional Debate in Vietnam’ Conference, National University of Singapore, 19–20 March 2016) [unpublished paper].
41. Vo, supra note 37 at 9–11.
42.LE, Toan, “Interpreting the Constitutional Debate Over Land Ownership in The Socialist Republic of Vietnam (2011–2013)” (Paper delivered at the ‘Constitutional Debate in Vietnam’ Conference, National University of Singapore, 19–20 March 2016) [unpublished paper].
44. Vo, supra note 37, at 22–23.
45.World Bank, Corruption from the Perspective of Citizens, Firms, and Public Officials: Results of Sociological Surveys, 2d ed (Hanoi: National Political Publishing House, 2013) at 39–60.
* Professor of Law, Department of Business Law and Taxation, Monash University, Australia.
Recommend this journal
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.