Quo Vadis: Thailand’s Taking the Chair of ASEAN, Sailing in the Troubled Waters

December 21, 2018/in ASEAN Notes/by aseansc

After one year, Singapore has led the Association to progress in ASEAN’s three pillars, the next torch of the Association is now in Thailand’s grip. Faced with relentless fights against new threats of transnational crime, terrorism, trade wars, climate change, the new chairmanship seems to give some hopes to reach out a greater partnership, reaffirming some key agendas of deepening the infrastructure and people-to-people connectivity, maintaining the rules-based order and sustainability.

“Advancing Partnership for Sustainability” has been chosen as Thailand’s new tagline for its chairmanship of ASEAN 2019. It encompasses two points: sustainability and connectivity. Along with this tagline, many observers may ponder upon what will the next chairmanship bring to the region? And how will it pull the ASEAN member states together in the midst of facing other countries’ spur of development assistance? And more importantly, how would it push the agenda to strengthen ASEAN Centrality in any regional initiatives that seem to tear apart?

One greatest challenge facing the new chairman would be on finding the regional alternative to face the geopolitical battle in Indo-Pacific region; one depicted by the divisive characteristics of Pax-Americana and Pax-Sino initiatives on their own geopolitical strategy in the region.

ASEAN does not hold view a common ground on whether they should go take sides on either one of them, nor to just omni balance. The fact that there has yet been any unified approach to face Belt and Road Initiative, or US Pivot to Asia, tells us that the Association is tested for its unity. This, in turn, would be even more interesting to examine, as we also observe that countries like South Korea with its New Southern Policy, India and its Act East Policy and Japan with its long-standing International Cooperation Agency also try their best to get some shares of influences over ASEAN countries.

This above-mentioned argument would then also bring our attention to the dilemma of aid over independence. Noting that many of these initiatives by bigger economies usually showcase some features of being (infrastructure) development assistance, the question whether these assistances would be effective -for the receiver, thus, not likely to turn as a weapon against them – is largely determined by the ASEAN country itself. Thailand, could perhaps, encourage its fellow member states to be very careful in taking any risks of accepting aids so that they could benefit from the opportunities provided by the global economy.

Being a chairman determines your country’s privilege to set the agenda of the meetings. Perhaps, Thailand could seize the moment by introducing a new aid assessment tool or framework that ASEAN could agree upon, to better evaluate the effectiveness of aid – if they could not have an agreement upon the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (PD) – sheds lights on values of net aid value, donor’s commitment to the Declaration, value for money, time to access aid, etc. –for what always being claimed as having too many indicators. Together, ASEAN could foster its institutional power to make the best of it in using the donor’s assistance while providing transparency and such.

In a similar vein, the new Chairmanship would also give up a new opportunity for the Association to explore existing partnerships. Keeping the old ones and trying to dig deeper into the core of the cooperation sounds delicate rather than having to reach out to new partners. Perhaps, Thailand could also lead the Association to work with South Korea in narrowing the development gap between Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam under ROK’s New Southern Policy. This could be made possible by requesting South Korea to help spillover its digital transformation into Southeast Asia, in two strategic possible cooperation areas of technology and creative industry.

Korea, as a middle power, looks as if it poses no threats to the region – moreover when compared with great players such as China and the US. With its miraculous economic transformation in the last 50 years, internet penetration rate and broadband speeds, as well as its leading technology companies Samsung, LG and Hyundai, such cooperation are possible. These show that South Korea has leverage on spreading its influence through its soft power approach- military power-centric afar. Looking at this trend, ASEAN needs more investor in developing its Research and Development in Industry 4.0 Sectors, transfer of idea and technology, as well as bridging its skills and capacities gap in digital technology. In addition, in the field of creative industry, countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines are emerging inexorably. With emerging powerhouses in Southeast Asia and greater public-private partnerships, the way to achieve a rapid digital economic growth in ASEAN would come handy.

Amidst the geopolitical battle in the region between China and the US, Thailand, which has long been known for its unique foreign policy principle and a dedicated member to focus on ASEAN, comes as a promising actor to leverage the regional association’s position vis-à-vis great powers. Thai’s “Bamboo Bending with the Wind” foreign policy principle tells us about the policies that are rooted solidly in their own, but flexible enough to bend with the wind to survive. Together, the member states can swirl in the wind while balancing the US and China, through ASEAN-led foreign policy focus. Perhaps, it could also then facilitated by considering again the intra-regional initiative of having its “ASEAN-style Indo-Pacific Vision’ hoped to accommodate all interests regardless of some small frictions between countries.

With the laid foundations and ongoing projects under Singapore’s chairmanship that tend to shed lights on issues such as cybersecurity and digitalization, as well as maintaining the rules-based order in the region, Thailand should also continue the legacy of its predecessor. In this, we hope to keep the existing initiatives and make some improvements on ASEAN’s resilience and innovation, as we are living on the era of disruption whose challenges are inevitable but could be learned and mitigated. And this would continue to put the test on every member state of ASEAN, with no exceptions to Thailand.

Written by Kevin Iskandar Putra, research intern at the ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada

Latest Articles

ASEAN Spice: The Connecting Culture of Southeast AsiansJune 1, 2024 - 3:49 am
RELIGION: BOON OR BANE FOR DEMOCRACY?December 20, 2023 - 12:32 am
Redefining Commodities in International Trade: ASEAN Blue Carbon Initiative and Its Role in Navigating Climate Crisis in the Southeast Asia RegionDecember 18, 2023 - 12:05 am
Korea-Indonesia Cooperation Forum in Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of Diplomatic RelationsDecember 6, 2023 - 3:53 am

Facebook

RELIGION: BOON OR BANE FOR DEMOCRACY?December 20, 2023 - 12:32 am
In December 2022, the Indonesian government passed a law that penalizes sex outside marriage. This is only one of the many changes in the criminal code that observers warn of the increasing conservatism in the country.

Indonesia houses the largest Muslim population in the world and is also a republic whose democratic experiences and milestones have been widely studied by scholars within and beyond the region. This makes Indonesia a compelling case for reflection on the nexus and tensions between religion and democracy. Is religion compatible with democracy? What opportunities and challenges does the “Islamic Renaissance” entail in the country? Democracy on Religion

Liberal democracy espouses secularism, the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion. In an “ideal” democratic system, the state must not endorse nor support any specific religion while guaranteeing the free exercise of religion among citizens. This is essential in a democracy for many reasons. Religious freedom is a crucial civil right that enhances citizens’ individuality and relations with others. It stops one religion from dominating society, hence promoting diversity and co-existence. At the same time, it prevents policies from being framed according to religious beliefs, which may result in discrimination and repression of fundamental human rights.

Religion and its Tensions with Democracy: The Case of Indonesia

This is particularly important for Indonesia. While the country is predominantly Muslim, Indonesia also has many ethnolinguistic groups with different cultures and practices. It is a challenge in itself to build one nation with an immensely heterogeneous society. The diversity in the country resulted in years of ethnic conflict and violence. Even a religious minority, the Ahmadiyya, faces intimidation and oppression in the exercise of their faith. Indonesia’s dilemma points to the longstanding debate in human rights discourse and practice – are human rights universal, or are they relative to culture and local customs? While I am more inclined to support the former, it is important to be aware and carefully consider the context of a country when designing human rights advocacy and interventions.

However imperfect, the democratization process in Indonesia has assisted in facilitating efforts for reconciliation and balancing competing interests in the country. Recently, the President stunned the world when he acknowledged past grave human rights abuses in the country, including an anti-communist purge in the ’60s and the arrest of democracy activists during the Suharto presidency.

Indonesia sits in between secularism and theocracy. The country’s fundamental law espouses Pancasila, which is the foundational political theory of Indonesia. Through its five principles, Indonesian society believes in one God and aspires to create a just and civilized humanity, unity, democracy, and social justice for all. This tells us that, by principle, Indonesia gives importance to pluralism and citizenship. Scholars and practitioners of the law also adopt legal pluralism and believe that different legal systems are complementary rather than contradictory. For example, community practices and customs are considered along with national and local regulations in settling disputes and conflicts at the village level.

However, in recent years, Indonesia has seen the expanding role of Islam in the country’s social and political life. Aside from Islam being a “source of ethical and cultural guidance”, many Islamic organizations have secured formal power, which allows them to easily introduce measures within the state apparatus that cement their own interests. Hardliner Islamic groups have also proliferated, and fundamentalist thought and practices are becoming more and more widespread. Islamic identity politics have also been evident since Widodo coalesced with conservative Islamic factions and appointed Amin, an influential Islamic figure, as his vice president. The new penal code tends to be more religious than secular. This has implications for Indonesia’s supposed secularism and diversity. How can the Indonesian government best represent the interests and aspirations of all?

As Indonesia continues to modernize and extend its economic and political ascendancy in the region, rapid changes in its social relations and dynamics are also expected. This demands a more careful look at the kind of laws and “social controls” that the government enforces. Suppose conservative forces are forwarding laws in the name of protecting tradition and keeping Indonesian values in check. In that case, it should not be at the expense of fundamental civil and political liberties, nor should it be to repress vulnerable groups even further, such as women, LGBT+, and ethnic communities. Admittedly, this is easier said than done. Hence, political representation must reflect the diversity and vibrance of Indonesian society. If only one group dominates political and policy discourse, it ultimately jeopardizes the general will.

When religion becomes the yardstick for crafting rules and policies, it creates biases, whether intended or not. Propositions that are credible and necessary but “contradictory” to a certain religion may be rejected simply because they do not fit the personal convictions of decision-makers. Integrating religion into politics usually leads to oppressive and harmful policymaking. Religion is also a form of heuristics or cognitive shortcut that devalues deliberation and discussion. Instead of scrutinizing issues, people may resort to using their religion as the sole basis for their position on a particular matter. Democracies ought to be deliberative and pluralistic.

Human rights activists and organizations in Indonesia have sounded the alarm on many changes in the criminal code that could stifle individual freedoms and lead to setbacks in the country’s democratic progress. Aside from banning sex outside marriage, the government also reinstated laws that criminalize insulting the President and other state officials and institutions. They also increased the punishment for blasphemy. These laws can be disproportionately used against individuals and groups with legitimate criticisms and concerns about the government. It may also render already marginalized communities even more vulnerable. Religion, Populism, and Repression

This trend is not only unique to Indonesia. Much of the world has seen the rise of “nationalist” movements, often within the pretext of religion and safeguarding culture. India’s Modi has exhibited Hindu nationalist tendencies, which have meant greater intolerance against the Muslim minority in the country. Myanmar’s Tatmadaw has weaponized Buddhism to rally support from the public and account for its atrocities.

The use of religion to justify repressive and oppressive regimes is apparent. Religion is an effective tool to unify a group of people and subject them to a specific set of beliefs and values, which may be highly prejudiced and absurd. Religion acts as a moral compass that defines what is right and what is wrong. Because religion is subjective, it can easily be manipulated to serve political objectives. Populists and autocrats can bastardize religion to create a public enemy, instill an “us vs them” mentality, and sow further polarization.

Failed democracies thrive out of fear, whether it is real or manufactured. Religion can be a potent force to ingrain this fear. This hysteria against change and modernization is easy to whip up when people already have preexisting beliefs. It is not too difficult to segregate people and label them as the “other”. When this distinction is entrenched, it is convenient to normalize discrimination and violence.

It is said that Indonesia is a model for “Moderate Islam” when compared to the Middle East; the “Indonesian way” can complement Western values and democracy. It also has the potential to correct Islamophobia and promote Islam as a religion of peace. On the other hand, if Indonesia cannot find its balance and condone fundamentalist and hardliner Islamic groups to flourish, Indonesia will certainly regress in its hard-won democratic gains.

Religion has inherent contradictions with democracy. Subscribing to a religion and structuring a supposedly diverse society using its tenets is monopolistic and can bring about intolerance. It is paramount for democracies to ensure that civil, political, and socioeconomic rights are not deprived based on religion and other forms of cleavages. The access and exercise of power should be as widely distributed as possible. Public office should not be limited to certain political clans or religious organizations. For instance, at the village level, cultural and socioeconomic elites must share power and administration with vulnerable and historically marginalized groups. There are more reasons and illustrative cases, present and past, to posit that religion is more of a bane than a boon to democracy. At the moment in world history when (dis)information is fast and instant, we must maintain vigilance in dealing with autocratic agendas in the guise of “respecting” values and tradition. It is easier to believe and conform than to reflect and deliberate. But democracy dies when we rely on shortcuts to define what is good for us. Democracy dies, slowly and deliberately, when we allow a few to sabotage our freedoms and liberties to increase their own. Demagogues and despots are usually cunning and do things “in the name of God”.

REFERENCES

Evans, M. S. (2014). Religion and political decision making. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 53(1), 145–163. http://doi:10.1111/jssr.12088

Evans, T. (2012). Separation of Mosque and State in Indonesia. Policy, 27(4), 35–39.

Głodek, A., & Grzywacz, A. (2020). Indonesia – between religion and democracy, Warsaw: Boym Institute. Retrieved from https://instytutboyma.org/en/indonesia-between-religion-and-democracy

Jaffrey, S. (2020). Is Indonesia Becoming a Two-Tier Democracy?, Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Jamaluddin, M., Chen, H. & Watson, A. (2022). Indonesia bans sex outside marriage as parliament passes sweeping new criminal code, Jakarta: CNN.

Klinken, G. v. (2019). Living in a Sacred Cosmos: Indonesia and the Future of Islam. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia, 175(1), 81–135. http://doi:10.1111/jssr.12088

McWilliams, E. (2018). Democracy in Indonesia: A Progress Report, Washington D.C.: The Foreign Service Journal.

Nagda, A. (2020). The Diplomat. [Online] Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/the-islamization-of-indonesias-foreign-policy/

Omelicheva, M. & Ahmed, R. (2018). Religion and politics: examining the impact of faith on political participation. Religion, State, and Society, 46(1), 4–25.

The World Factbook. (2023). Indonesia, s.l.: Central Intelligence Agency.

Wieringa, S. E. (2006). Islamization in Indonesia: Women Activists’ Discourses. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 32 (1), 40–27.

Short Biography:

Kay Conales is a student of the Asia Pacific-Master of Arts in Human Rights and Democratization of the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies (IHRP) of Mahidol University (Thailand). She also studied in the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences (FISIPOL) of APMA’s partner-university Universitas Gadjah Mada (Indonesia). She can be reached through e-mail at ksconales@gmail.com.

Quo Vadis: Thailand’s Taking the Chair of ASEAN, Sailing in the Troubled Waters

ASEAN STUDIES CENTER UGM

CONTACT US