Entries by aseansc

Bincang ASEAN on ASC Monograph 2020 “Small States, Strong Societies: Essays on Covid-19 Responses in Southeast Asia”

/0 Comments/in /by

Tuesday, 19th January 2021 ASEAN Studies Center UGM held the webinar series in Bincang ASEAN on ASC Monograph 2020, entitled “Small States, Strong Societies: Essays on Covid-19 Responses in Southeast Asia.”

The webinar invites the contributors alongside the editors which has different background and prespective to further discuss about the development end the difference responses between ASEAN Countries in handling the Covid-19 Pandemic outbreak.

Every chapter inside the monograph bringing a regional and cross-national perspective to understand the Covid-19 response. The monograph show that three aspects explain the inequality of Covid-19 responses in Southeast Asia: the differing degree of state capacity, the resilience of society, and the regional cooperation.

Thank you for participating in #BincangASEAN together with contributors and editors from ASC Monograph 2020. Hopefully this webinar able to increase our insights regarding the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic in ASEAN countries.

Stay safe, and healthy!

#BincangASEAN #ASC #UGM #AseanStudiesCenter #ASEAN #webinarseries #covid19 #Monograph #BringingASEANCloserToYou

Theorizing a College of Southeast Asia

/0 Comments/in /by

By Truston Yu (Photo: Vindur, Polish Wikipedia)

For seven decades, the College of Europe has produced distinguished alumni members who had gone on to take up important posts in the European Union (EU) and its member states. With an increasing demand for ASEAN young talents well-versed in the region, could there be a “College of Southeast Asia” in the future? With Europe as an example, this article theorizes the creation of a postgraduate institution of similar nature in the Southeast Asian context.

The College of Europe was established in 1949 as one of the results of the 1948 Congress of Europe in The Hague. It was supported by significant figures from postwar Europe, such as Spanish diplomat Salvador de Madariaga and British prime minister Winston Churchill. The first campus is in Bruges, Belgium, where students study law, politics, or economics in an EU context. A second campus was established in Natolin (Warsaw) after the fall of the Berlin Wall, offering interdisciplinary programs. Both campuses offer year-long master degrees.

Under what is called the “College Formula”, students spend ten months living and studying together in an intensive yet nurturing environment. There are around 340 students in Bruges and 130 in Natolin, making for a tight-knit community. Despite the short duration of the program, there is a solid alumni network across cohorts and countries. For non-European audiences, one of the most well-known alumnus would be Former British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

As of today, the College’s existence may seem perfectly logical and reasonable; yet it is worth noting that at the time of its inception, conflict was still perceived to be the norm in the European continent. Memories of a war-torn Europe were still very fresh, and the creation of such a College was at the time a radical initiative. It has been several decades since the last time a war was fought between countries in Southeast Asia, the execution of such a project would be far less controversial here. In fact, the creation of this College would go in line with ongoing efforts of the ASEAN Community and the Narrative of ASEAN Identity.

In some sense, the College of Europe could be seen as an academy for civil servants serving in the European domain. Henri Brugmans, a former Rector of the College of Europe in Bruges, believed that one of the purposes of their purposes was to “train an elite of young executives for Europe”. Indeed, many graduates have gone on to take up executive roles in organs under the EU framework, or enter the foreign service of their home countries with a focus on EU affairs. However, this is not absolute, and there are still others who chose different paths, such as think tanks and consultancies.

With ASEAN integration taking place at an exponential rate, there would certainly be greater demand for staff members in ASEAN affairs: whether it is in the ASEAN Secretariat and associated entities, the respective directorates under the foreign ministries of ASEAN member states, or even non-governmental organizations and private corporations.

Southeast Asia is, without doubt, the most diverse region on earth in many ways: countries differ in language, religion, political systems, and many other categories. Such diversity requires a nuanced understanding of the region, especially for those whose work is related to specific countries or the ASEAN as a whole. When external parties like Korea and Taiwan have been stepping up their engagement and research on Southeast Asia, this region also needs to train more local professionals with regional expertise – it could only make sense that Southeast Asians ourselves must get to know our own region better than foreign observers. Southeast Asian governments, particularly, could benefit from equipping their brightest young professionals with a regional vision.

Due to both internal and external factors, there is a clear urgency for such a College. This College would also equip classes of regional-minded students with the expertise and connections to take over the reins of an increasingly interconnected ASEAN; Naturally, graduates of the College would act as de facto regional ambassadors to spread the word of Southeast Asia to the domestic populace as well as foreign audiences. For non-Southeast Asian students, the College is an entry-point for them to get to know this region from within.

During Singapore’s ASEAN chairmanship in 2018, the Centre for International Law at the National University of Singapore began an initiative known as the ASEAN Law Academy. The Academy is a “cross-disciplinary master’s level intensive course aimed at those working in the fields of politics and governance, economics and law.” It appears to be the closest resemblance to something like a College of Europe, but at a shorter and smaller scale geared towards established professionals.

A College of Southeast Asia could be set up from scratch or based on existing institutions. The S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), for example, has long been seen as an institution for aspiring diplomats and strategists of the region. The ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, also based in Singapore, is renowned as the world’s leading institution for Southeast Asian Studies. At any rate, the expertise is already well-established, there needs to be an institution with institutionalized degree programs utilizing the existing resources.

Perhaps most importantly, what would a College of Southeast Asia experience look like for its students? I had the honor of interviewing Emma Vermunicht, recent alumna, and former Student President of the Natolin campus. In Emma’s opinion, the best part of the College of Europe lies not in the coursework per se but the whole community in general. “For the academics, I could have gone to any other institution,” It was the community-building experience that is irreplaceable: “We had just 138 students in our cohort, coming from all different countries.” In many ways, this community reflects what real life is like in the EU.”

A College of Southeast Asia must be able to offer its students something beyond academic skills and knowledge. After all, there are already prominent institutions on Southeast Asian Studies such as Kyoto University and the University of Sydney, and their longstanding tradition in the field would attract students with academic interest. Like the College of Europe, the Southeast Asian counterpart must endeavor to create a conducive community on campus for students, which extends into an alumni network as they graduate. It could also serve as a feeder for internships and officer positions in organs such as the ASEAN Secretariat, the ASEAN Foundation, and other affiliated entities such as the Master of Arts in Transatlantic Affairs (MATA) between the College of Europe and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in the United States, the College of Southeast Asia may feature partnerships that allow for comparative studies.

With imaginations based on the College of Europe, this article has painted a picture of a hypothetical College of Southeast Asia. Irrespective of the precise form this may take place, the creation of a postgraduate institution on Southeast Asian affairs would be tremendously helpful towards nurturing a new class of young professionals to lead the region.

Truston Yu is a research assistant at the University of Hong Kong. Their research interests include Southeast Asian Studies and the teaching of this discipline. They could be reached at their e-mail: trustonyuofficial@gmail.com

A Switzerland Model for Timor-Leste? Prospects of Differentiated Integration in ASEAN

/0 Comments/in /by

By Truston Yu (Photo: VOA)

Nearly two decades have passed since Timor-Leste became Southeast Asia’s youngest country, their quest for membership in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) remains in limbo. Could a model like Switzerland in the European Union (EU) be a feasible solution for Timor-Leste’s relationship with the ASEAN? This article examines the idea first proposed by veteran diplomat Barry Desker, looking into case examples in Europe and prospecting its application in Southeast Asia. The concept of “differentiated integration”, in particular, is of interest within this discussion.

It has been over four decades since Timor-Leste first expressed its intent in joining the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Much has happened in the years between: East Timor was annexed by Indonesia until it regained its independence 27 years later following a period of transitional UN administration; ASEAN membership doubled; the ASEAN Charter was drafted in 2007, and the ASEAN Community was launched in 2015. However, little progress has been made regarding Dili’s accession to the Southeast Asian bloc.

The ASEAN Charter’s Article 6 Admission of New Members outlines the criteria for an aspiring country to be admitted into the ASEAN. It is non-debatable that Timor-Leste has already fulfilled the first three; the final one that remains is criterion (d) Ability and willingness to carry out obligations of Membership.

Timor-Leste is Southeast Asia’s smallest economy, with a GDP of only one-tenth of Cambodia, the smallest economy in ASEAN. However, all members must contribute an equal amount to the ASEAN budget, and this would certainly be a bigger burden to this young country than it is to other neighbors in Southeast Asia. As former ASEAN Secretary-General Ong Keng Yong stated, ASEAN member states attend over a thousand meetings of various nature each year. Attendance itself is already a rather demanding task, not to mention that member states must share the workload of hosting ASEAN Summits and other events.

Ambassador Barry Desker, senior Singaporean diplomat and the Founding Dean of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), proposed the idea of a “Switzerland model” for Timor-Leste in ASEAN. I had the opportunity of speaking with him personally at an academic conference in Singapore, July 2019. Desker envisioned a solution in which Timor-Leste could participate in ASEAN frameworks without having to comply with the rather high expectations membership entails.

Differentiated integration describes the phenomenon in which member states have varying levels of commitment and participation in different aspects of the organization. The official definition set out in the European Commission’s GLOSSARY: The reform of the European Union in 150 definitions is as follows:

Differentiated integration means a process of integration in which the Member States opt to move forward at different speeds and/or towards different objectives, in contrast to the notion of a monolithic bloc of States pursuing identical objectives at a single speed.

This definition of differentiated integration, however, does not include non-member states. They are addressed in Article 8 of the Treaty of the European Union:

The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.

There are differential treatments and expectations on member states and other countries with close relations. It is the state of “not completely within, not completely without” which Desker envisions would be the way forward for Timor-Leste’s inclusion into ASEAN.

There are variations of this pertaining to the European Union: The most well-known cases would be members of the European Free Trade Association like Switzerland and Norway; there are also microstates like Andorra and Monaco; finally, we have Central European Free Trade Agreement member states such as Romania which eventually left CEFTA and joined the EU, as well Serbia which is considered to be first in line as the next member to join EU.

ASEAN differs from the EU in the sense that it emphasizes the equality between member states. Unanimity is central to the ASEAN Way – everyone is equal in voting (and vetoing) rights. While the EU is accustomed to “tailor-made plans” designed to meet the needs and capacities of different countries, this would be a major hurdle for ASEAN.

Though Desker coined the idea of a “Switzerland model” as it is the most well-known example of a non-member state being highly integrated into the EU, Dili’s circumstances are more homologous to the CEFTA members. As the Balkan countries, Timor-Leste is the one lagging behind the regional average, and preparatory efforts for accession have focused on capacity building. Thus, the Timor-Leste model would actually be closer to a “Serbia model”.

In fact, elements of differentiated integration could already be seen in Southeast Asia, with Timor-Leste’s inclusion in the ASEAN Annual Meeting of Foreign Ministers (AMM) and ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). ASEAN may further include Timor-Leste in more multilateral meetings regarding various aspects of cooperation.

In the face of Timor-Leste’s long quest for ASEAN membership, there are three courses of action: immediate membership, indefinite rejection, and differentiated integration. Not only is a differentiated integration model ideal for Timor-Leste’s gradual inclusion into ASEAN, but the current mode of Timor-Leste’s involvement with the regional bloc is also already demonstrating elements of differentiated integration. Admittedly, the length of this article does not allow for a deeper examination of the ASEAN and EU’s complexity. There remain many more technicalities to be discussed under this topic, such as whether the model would be an intermediary or permanent, or which of the three ASEAN Community pillars Dili will be given access to first. Nevertheless, differentiated integration, in a broad sense, presents a new framework for understanding the possibilities for Timor-Leste in ASEAN, breaking the binary and the deadlock in the status quo.

Truston Yu is a research assistant at the University of Hong Kong. Their research interests include Southeast Asian Studies and Timor-Leste’s accession to ASEAN.

They could be reached at their e-mail: trustonyuofficial@gmail.com

5 Months Left for Southeast Asia to Build the Case in UNSC

/2 Comments/in /by

By Truston Yu (Photo: White House, Pete Souza)

On 17 June, the United Nations General Assembly elected the new class of non-permanent members to the United Nations Security Council. India was among four countries to be elected, signaling the end to a period with two Southeast Asian countries holding UNSC membership at the same time. With an ASEAN Day looming this month, this article advocates for the greater involvement of Southeast Asia in international security. The “7+7+7” proposal by Ambassador Kishore Mahbubani, in particular, will be explored in this article.

It certainly is intriguing that India’s election came at a time of heightened tensions with China, with the battles between the Himalaya borders. This election was also a reminder that Indonesia’s tenure is coming to an end – India is Indonesia’s successor and will be taking over the seat on New Year’s day in 2021.

The UNSC is arguably the most powerful international organ in the world. There are five permanent members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The P5 are joined with ten non-permanent members, elected in batches of five every two years. There are two seats for the Asian constituencies, with one up for election every year.

Two years ago, in June 2018, Indonesia was elected to the UNSC for the fourth time with the support of 144 out of 193 UN member states. As the only G20 member coming from Southeast Asia, Indonesia is commonly seen as a leading power of the region; They are a founding member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, having housed the Secretariat before it had its own building.

A year after Indonesia, Vietnam was elected to the UNSC with a near-unanimous 192 votes out of 193 in 2019. Vietnam was admitted to the ASEAN in 1995 and has been rapidly climbing up the ladder of economic development since then. They have been described as the biggest winner of the US-China trade war over the last few years, and in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic, Vietnam was one of the best-performing countries in Asia.

UNSC membership coincided with the year of ASEAN chairmanship – it was Vietnam’s turn after Thailand in the rotational system. The pairing of Indonesia and Vietnam, a founding member of the ASEAN and an impressive rising regional power, is an ideal one.

Spanning from Afghanistan to Samoa, Japan to Timor-Leste, the Asia constituency is a huge one. It is rare to have a Southeast Asian country on the Council at any given time, not to mention having two of them at the same time. Interestingly, the last time this happened was with the same pair of countries: Indonesia served between 2007-2008 and Vietnam, 2008-2009. At that time, ASEAN was celebrating its fortieth anniversary with the new ASEAN Charter. With the ASEAN Community in place now, Southeast Asia is and should be much more committed in the international arena.

Recently, there has been a push to call the non-permanent member states the “E10”, recognizing the mandate they were given. Indeed, people have challenged the P5’s legitimacy, claiming the fact that they won World War II does not mean that they could hold onto the permanent seats indefinitely. There have been significant changes in the world as well as the countries in question: the original seats were in fact, held by the Republic of China and the USSR, which were replaced by the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation respectively.

Amb. Kishore Mahbubani, prominent Singaporean diplomat and former UNSC president, famously proposed the 7+7+7 model, which is outlined in his book The Great Convergence. This is by far the most significant UNSC reform proposal coming from a Southeast Asian scholar. The first “7” are permanent members, including Brazil, India, Nigeria, and a single European Union seat.

For every Brazil, there is Argentina, which is antagonistic to its quest for permanent membership: Japan has South Korea, India has Pakistan, and Germany has its European neighbors. The way to circumvent this would be to give them a slice of it such that these countries, too, could benefit from the reforms. Thus, the second “7” comes from a pool of semi-permanent members that would rotate. Mahbubani named 28 countries on the basis of “share of global population and share of global power”, including 3 Southeast Asian countries: Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam.

The final “7” are for elections among the rest of the world. While the number of elected seats shrunk from 10 to 7, Mahbubani claims that this new arrangement helps small states like Singapore, as they no longer need to compete for seats with the middle powers.

It is worth noting. However, that much has changed since Mahbubani’s book was published in 2013. Brexit showed that the European Union is not as homogeneous as perceived back then. The ASEAN Community took off in 2015, creating a more united region which has a stronger voice in the international community. Mahbubani himself acknowledged the ASEAN as a “Catalyst for Peace” in his 2017 co-authored book The ASEAN Miracle.

It is apparent now that Southeast Asia in the future. ASEAN should have a permanent seat, either represented by the Secretariat or a member state. There is no evidence that a UNSC reform will take place anytime soon, but it is not too early for Southeast Asia to build a track record and entrench itself in the highest level of international security discourse.

The world is an increasingly polarized and volatile place; there are 5 months left for the Indonesia-Vietnam duo to make a case for Southeast Asia. Even then, Southeast Asia’s quest for greater involvement in international security affairs would not end here. We must continue to prove our worth as a Catalyst for Peace in the years and even decades to come.

Truston Yu is a research assistant at the University of Hong Kong. His research interests include Southeast Asian Studies and the external relations of Southeast Asia.

He could be reached at his e-mail: trustonyuofficial@gmail.com

ASEAN Cultural Exchange in the Era of Interconnectedness – Examining the 3 Campus Model

/0 Comments/in /by

By Truston Yu (Photo: Culture 360 Asia-Europe Foundation)

In my very first lecture on Southeast Asian politics, I learned about the creation of an institutionalized Southeast Asian Studies discipline in the United States. It nurtured a new generation of Southeast Asians who saw themselves not only in national terms but also as a member of the greater Southeast Asian region. It is this class of intellectuals whom, upon returning to their countries of origin after the 1950s, created a personal network that lasted decades. Could the youth today emulate the early classes of Southeast Asianists? In this article I recount my personal experiences with 3 Campus East Asia Programme, examining the prospects of emulating such a model in a Southeast Asian setting.

Socio-cultural integration is one of the ASEAN Community’s three pillars. Unfortunately, the phenomenon is that many Southeast Asians would know more about faraway countries like the United States or Japan more than their closest neighbors within the region. 2020 is the Year of the ASEAN Identity and if this is the goal, it is imperative that we instill greater regional awareness among the students today. While being a global citizen could do no harm, we must also recognize ourselves as regional citizens.

In my junior year, I had the honor of representing my home university in the 3 Campus East Asia Programme. Over the course of a year, students spend a fall semester in Tokyo, spring semester in Korea, and a summer semester in Hong Kong. The final section of the program includes a 2-week course and culminates in a social innovation internship. My primary motivation was that Japan and Korea are important players in the Southeast Asian region, and I did utilize the opportunity to speak with local scholars specializing in Southeast Asia. I thoroughly enjoyed my experience, but I wished that there was a Southeast Asian equivalent of such a program.

There are two unique features to 3 Campus: it is cohort-based and multi-destination. Unlike typical exchange programs where one would travel to their host institution alone, the diverse 3 Campus cohort is a group of ready-made friends. There are numerous dual or double degree programs around the world, but 3 Campus is unique in the sense that the cohort does not start with a blank page – they bring with them diverse perspectives from their home institutions.

The multi-destination nature of 3 Campus magnifies the benefits of the cohort-based program. Members of the consortium mirror each other in many ways: they are the oldest modern higher education institutions of their countries, enjoying great prestige and playing similar roles in their societies. Exploring the parallels and differences between destinations is part of the learning experience. Switching between three environments in one year is no easy feat, but having friends by one’s side surely helps. The shared experiences going through these challenges made the cohort bonding even tighter. Being in three destinations within the span of a year, students could triangulate and develop intercultural sensitivity, which allows them to understand and adapt to new cultures easily.

In terms of curriculum, 3 Campus incorporates a series of courses designed to provide students with deeper insights of the region beyond everyday life; The internship is a precious opportunity to experience work in an East Asian setting, setting students up for an international career. There is a profound social impact out of this program: Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans students are put together in one classroom to discuss each other’s culture and history, sometimes involving topics difficult and even painful. This paves the way towards mutual understanding and may nurture the next generation of leaders that are able to bring the region together. From Sabah to Preah Vihear, Konfrontasi to the Khmer Rouge, Southeast Asian neighbors have also been marred by historical rivalry and conflicts. a similar model in Southeast Asia could serve a greater purpose of reconciliation between rival nations.

If there is enough will from the various institutions in the region, the 3 Campus model could easily be replicated in Southeast Asia. A Bahasa-themed program could be created between Universitas Indonesia, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, and Universiti Malaya – they are the oldest universities of the Bahasa-speaking world, based in the respective capital cities: Greater Jakarta, Bandar Seri Begawan, and Kuala Lumpur. The quarrels for cultural relics like batik and rendang proves just how these neighboring countries (and Singapore) share much more than we would like to admit. Having lived in Java, Borneo, and Malaya, students would have a more nuanced understanding of the common regional heritage that connects the modern countries. A similar triangle could be drawn along the Mekong between Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, which make up the former French Indochina.

For an ASEAN studies perspective, we could form another trio between the Department of Southeast Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore, the ASEAN Studies Centers at Universitas Gadjah Mada, and Chulalongkorn University. Students would get a glimpse of all three ASEAN founding members, which are very different from one another: A highly modernized city-state with a president; a diverse republic boasting hundreds of ethnic groups and a sultanate; and a kingdom where the monarch still plays a highly influential role.

These are, of course, just a few examples, so to speak. With ten ASEAN member states and Timor-Leste in waiting, there are many more potential combinations. The incorporation of students from outside the region may also be a good opportunity to showcase Southeast Asia’s diversity. At any rate, these graduates would become a new class of Southeast Asianists that would contribute towards an interconnected region.

We are now in the age of experiential learning and greater interconnection between countries. The 3 Campus model has been extraordinarily successful in an East Asian context; As we strive to advance the narrative of an ASEAN identity, educational initiatives like the 3 Campus model would be a worthwhile investment to consider.

 

Truston Yu is a research assistant at the University of Hong Kong. They were nominated to participate in the highly selective 3 Campus East Asia Programme, spending half a year in Japan, and Korea respectively. They could be reached at their e-mail: trustonyuofficial@gmail.com

What Southeast Asian Studies Could Learn from Japan

/0 Comments/in /by

By Truston Yu (Picture: CSEAS Kyoto University)

The Center for Southeast Asian Studies (CSEAS) at Kyoto University could be seen as the pinnacle of Southeast Asian Studies in Japanese scholarship. During my exchange semester in Japan, I had the opportunity of visiting the Center on three different occasions, speaking to the Director, and attending an academic conference. From multidisciplinary to interdisciplinary and now transdisciplinary, the CSEAS ethos completely transformed my understanding of the discipline. This article looks into the work of one of the most renowned institutions in this field, drawing lessons from Japanese academia for Southeast Asian Studies.

The Kyoto University Center for Southeast Asian Studies (CSEAS) has its origins in a 1950s seminar series on research in Southeast Asia and was officially established in 1963. CSEAS prides itself on three principles: emphasis on long-term fieldwork conducted in local languages, interdisciplinarity, and “research agendas defined by local contemporary issues.”

Academia in Japan as a whole has been renowned for its excellence in Area Studies. Western institutions, such as Berkeley, required students of Chinese studies to learn the Japanese language in order to tap into the rich literature in this field. In the Western tradition, area studies tend to focus on the political and economic side of the region. CSEAS has a much more holistic perspective, which includes natural science and even medical science.

In a working paper published by CSEAS titled Bridging the Disciplinary Divide: 50 years of Research at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies, it is said that Japan’s study of Southeast Asia is not free from a Japanese “ancestral sin” known as the Southern Expansion Doctrine (Nanshin-ron) in the early years following the Meiji restoration. In this sense, Japanese scholarship could be seen as being motivated by Japan’s expansionist ambitions at that time. Agricultural research projects were conducted in newly acquired territories for the purposes of higher yields with cash crops. It is this experience that shaped Japanese area studies to be more diverse than its Western counterparts. Since the 1960s in the early years of CSEAS, they have already featured a host of diverse disciplines broadly grouped under humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences.

Despite the connection with imperialism in its early origins, Japanese literature on Southeast Asia has been and continues to be a great contributor towards our understanding of this region in different dimensions. Interdisciplinarity is an increasingly popular paradigm for understanding the world, and this is reflected in the way research is conducted at Kyoto University. Students would have at least two supervisors whose expertise is in different disciplines, and such an arrangement would allow for more nuances in research outputs.

In 2017, CSEAS launched a new initiative called the Japan-ASEAN Platform for Transdisciplinary Studies. Transdisciplinarity, as explained by CSEAS, is the idea of breaking the barriers separating academic and non-academic stakeholders. Compared to more theoretical disciplines, area studies have a more practical application as its fundamental purpose is to inform people about a particular region such that they could devise better policies. This is especially true for the various studies on Southeast Asia conducted by external parties, such as Europe in the colonial period, the United States during the Cold War, and now many more institutions around the world, given the rise of ASEAN. Much of their research output was intended to enable policymakers to engage Southeast Asia more effectively. In addition to involving the governmental, private, and civil sectors, CSEAS also works closely with local Southeast Asian researchers. In a way, CSEAS is playing a role in the notion of “bringing Southeast Asian Studies back to Southeast Asia”.

CSEAS Kyoto has become a household name for those with decent exposure to Southeast Asian Studies. In this case, why is Japanese scholarship in this region often overshadowed by its Western counterparts? The working paper suggested that it is not for lack of writings published in English, but rather “a persistent hierarchy in knowledge production that privileges both writing and publication in an Anglo-American continuum”.

To create synergy for the Asian perspective in Southeast Asian Studies, CSEAS led the establishment of the Consortium for Southeast Asian Studies in Asia (SEASIA) in 2013. The charter was signed by various regional universities, including the National University of Singapore, University of the Philippines, and Universiti Brunei Darussalam. The Consortium seeks to connect scholars and stakeholders from the region, fostering exchanges on a wide variety of topics. In some sense, this is an antidote to criticisms of Southeast Asian Studies as being affected by Orientalist perspectives.

Southeast Asian Studies in Southeast Asia is much closer to the ground, and local scholars research institutions are thus even more well-placed than those based in Japan and the West. While external parties like China or the United States only require research insights insofar as they are relevant to specific engagements such as trade or security, Southeast Asia needs to have a comprehensive understanding of itself in relation to the goals of greater regional integration. Area studies must transcend the boundaries of social sciences or humanities; Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity should be the aspiration for researchers of Southeast Asian Studies in the region.

Truston Yu is a research assistant at the University of Hong Kong. Their research interests include Southeast Asian Studies and its manifestations. They could be reached at their e-mail: trustonyuofficial@gmail.com

Southeast Asian Studies and ASEAN Studies: What’s the Difference?

/0 Comments/in /by

By Truston Yu (Picture: Businesswest)

Ever since I began my research on Southeast Asia, there has been a lingering question that intrigued me: what is the difference between Southeast Asian Studies and ASEAN Studies? Having worked with various institutions on numerous projects relating to the Southeast Asian region, I believe I now have a more well-informed answer to this question. Though, in practice, there are large overlaps between them, the two have slightly different focuses, which will be examined in this article.

Southeast Asian Studies has a longer history than ASEAN Studies. Research on Southeast Asia, such as ethnographies and ecological surveys, can at least be dated back to the colonial period. Russel Wallace’s book The Malay Archipelago is one of the most famous pieces of literature of this nature; It chronicles a British naturalist’s scientific exploration over the other side of the Earth. The first institutionalized academic program, as Benedict Anderson recalls in his book The Spectre of Comparisons, would later be offered at Yale University in 1947. It was also around that time that the world established the current conception of what “Southeast Asia” consisted of. Before there could be an ASEAN Studies, however, there must have been an “ASEAN” to begin with. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations only came into existence following the Bangkok Declaration of 1967. Hence any notion of ASEAN Studies would only come into existence afterwards. Naturally, ASEAN Studies also looks at more contemporary topics rather than historical ones.

ASEAN Studies often carry official prerogatives. ASC UGM, for example, was established by the Directorate General of ASEAN Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia, in collaboration with the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences of Universitas Gadjah Mada. With a mission of “Bringing ASEAN Closer to you”, the Center organizes a wide array of events seeking to inform the wider public of regional issues. At any rate, the notion that ASEAN’s existence is desirable is taken as a given.

Most institutions that bear the name “ASEAN Studies” are found within the ASEAN region, such as the ASEAN Studies Centers at Chulalongkorn University and at Prince of Songkla University. Apart from that, institutions that carry the name “ASEAN” remain to be a minority compared to those of “Southeast Asia”.

The term “ASEAN Studies” itself implies a focus on this regional organization. ASEAN is composed of its member states, which also hints that this discipline would have a state-centric approach more or less. In certain aspects, the ASEAN Studies discipline can be described as rather rigid and narrow. Timor-Leste, for example, is a Southeast Asian country without ASEAN membership, and would often be left out of ASEAN Studies. On the contrary, Southeast Asia, has a wider and more fluid interpretation: it may include the study of religion, society, and even ecology.

In practice, however, there would be much overlap between the two fields. It ultimately depends on the institution in question. If their work covers Southeast Asian Studies in the context of contemporary politics and economy, it is more likely to overlap with ASEAN Studies. The Center for Southeast Asian Studies (CSEAS) Kyoto University, on the other hand, is renowned for its interdisciplinary study of the region, which features scientific and even medical research.

In some cases, ASEAN Studies may be seen as a branch of Southeast Asian Studies. At the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute (originally named the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies), for example, there is an ASEAN Studies Center, which is a unit set up alongside country studies programs such as Myanmar Studies and Indonesia Studies. Comparing it with other disciplines, a similar parallel would be the subtle distinction between European Studies and EU Studies; Perhaps we could even consider the two fields of Sinology and China Studies as a homologous pair.

Perhaps a criticism of Southeast Asian Studies and ASEAN Studies is that both fields may have a tendency of delving too much into the country-by-country distinction. Southeast Asia was divided into these boxes following the demarcation of colonial boundaries, which still restricts our thinking today. With an awareness of this potential problem, we may think out of the box to see the threads that transcend national borders.

Admittedly, the above characterizations are from a personal perspective, and the interpretation of what discipline entails is ultimately up to those who do research in it. It is up to each of us to decide what Southeast Asian Studies or ASEAN Studies mean, and what good scholarship in either field entails. That being said, hopefully, the above frameworks could serve as a paradigm for students of Southeast Asia to think about their academic goals.

Truston Yu is a research assistant at the University of Hong Kong. Their research interests include Southeast Asian Studies and ASEAN Studies. They could be reached at their e-mail: trustonyuofficial@gmail.com

A Provincial Level Approach to Studying China-Southeast Asia Relations

/0 Comments/in /by

By Truston Yu (Picture: Wikimedia)

With the implementation of projects under the Belt and Road umbrella, China is becoming increasingly relevant to Southeast Asia. While China’s relative influence might be diluted by Taiwan and South Korea, which provided supplies and expertise under the pandemic, but China-Southeast Asia interactions would continue to increase on an absolute level. Thus, learning about China remains to be imperative for those in the field of Southeast Asian studies. This article seeks to shed light on the significance of a provincial framework of understanding in the study of China, explaining their roles in engaging Southeast Asia.

Contrary to what many people have assumed, China is not one single monolithic being – there are competing ideas within the ruling Chinese Communist Party; there are different ethnic groups, languages, and dialects across the country. Sinologist Lucian Pye famously described China as a “civilization pretending to be a nation-state”. To look into the black box, one possible way would be to examine China on a provincial level.

The People’s Republic of China claims 34 provincial-level administrative divisions, including five autonomous regions and two special administrative regions. This article investigates seven provincial-level divisions in the southern part of China, discussing their relevance to Southeast Asia with regard to China’s ASEAN engagement, overseas Chinese populations, and historical connections.

The Chinese province with the most overlaps with Southeast Asia is Yunnan, bordering Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam. This province is home to the Dai ethnic group, one of the many ethnic minorities in China. They are closely related to the Thai, and like their counterparts to the south, Dai celebrate the water-splashing festival and speak a related language. Certain scholars would regard the current distinction between China and Southeast Asia as arbitrary; indeed, borders have changed over the centuries, and Southeast Asia’s northern frontier remains closely related to the southern tip part of China. Dai is a testament to how southern China is an extension of Southeast Asia.

Yunnan was one of the less advanced areas in China, but trade with ASEAN made it one of the fastest-growing provinces with an 8.8% growth rate, top of the national figures. Naturally, the local population has a high awareness of ASEAN and plays a role in China-ASEAN interactions. China is now working on an ambitious project to build a railway from Yunnan’s capital Kunming all the way to Singapore, passing through the Laotian capital Vientiane. The Kunming-Vientiane section was completed earlier this year.

Next to Yunnan is the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. Bordering Vietnam, Guangxi’s capital city Nanning is known to be China’s “strategic gateway” to ASEAN. It is the origin of the China-Indochina Peninsula Economic Corridor, later incorporated into the Belt and Road framework. Naning now hosts the annual China-ASEAN Expo (CAEXPO), co-sponsored by the Chinese commerce ministry and that of the ASEAN member states as well as the ASEAN Secretariat. The Expo Center’ architecture is said to resemble the ASEAN emblem. One of Nanning’s latest projects is the China-ASEAN Financial Town, which aims to provide services and supporting infrastructure for China-ASEAN businesses.

Also closely related to ASEAN is the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, most renowned for its role as China’s gateway to the world and vice-versa. ASEAN is Hong Kong’s second-largest trading partner, and this city also serves as an entrepot for goods flowing between China and Southeast Asia. Most recently, the ASEAN-Hong Kong, China Free Trade Agreement was concluded and entered into force 2019.

Hong Kong is a former British colony and has long been a cosmopolitan destination, and many prominent Southeast Asian figures have spent a substantial amount of time in the city where the East meets West: Jose Rizal, National hero of the Philippines, spent some time as a doctor in Hong Kong; This is also where Malaysian business magnate Robert Kuok built his Kowloon Shangri-La Hotel, the second of his chain of highly successful luxury hotels.

In the years following WWII, Hong Kong continues to be highly connected with the British colonies in Southeast Asia. The University of Hong Kong (HKU), for example, has nurtured generations of doctors from Malaya. Revered chemist Rayson Huang and historian Wang Gungwu have both served as Vice-Chancellor at HKU, and spent a substantial portion of their academic career in Singapore and Malaysia before that.

Today, Hong Kong is home to hundreds of thousands of domestic workers, of which roughly half are from the Philippines, and another half comes from Indonesia, a tiny minority is composed of Thais, Nepalis, and other nationalities. Up to ten percent of the Philippine GDP comes from remittances of overseas workers.

A short ferry ride away from Hong Kong is the Macau Special Administrative Region, a former Portuguese colony and now a casino hub known as the “Las Vegas of the East”. While the Portuguese were one of the very first seafarers to set foot in Malacca and Nagasaki, Macau and Timor-Leste remained to be the only Portuguese colonies in East Asia towards the end of the 20th century.

Naturally, Macau became a platform for China to engage the Lusophone community, which Timor-Leste is a member of. In 2002, Macau became one of Timorese capital Dili’s very first sister cities. In 2003, China set up the Forum for Economic and Trade Co-operation between China and Portuguese-speaking Countries (Macao), also known as Forum Macao.

Both Hong Kong and Macau are under the sphere of influence of Guangdong, formerly known to the West as Canton. Southeast Asia is home to one of the biggest overseas Chinese populations, and many of them originated from this province. Cantonese popular culture, such as music and cinema, has become the collective memory of many ethnic Chinese adults in Southeast Asia.

Another significant group of Southeast Asian Chinese migrated from the Hokkien area known as Fujian province today. In Medan, for example, the spoken variety of the Chinese language is not Mandarin but Hokkien. More specifically, many overseas Hokkien descendants trace their ancestry back to the city of Xiamen, also known as Amoy. Partly due to this ancestral connection, Xiamen hosts hundreds of thousands of Southeast Asian tourists each year, and CCTV calls it a “pivot city” connecting China to Southeast Asia.

Xiamen University (XMU) is one of the top universities in China and hosts a Center for Southeast Asian Studies dating as far back to 1956. The XMU main campus itself was founded by a Malayan Chinese, and in 2015 a Malaysia campus was established – marking the very first time a Chinese University has established a campus abroad. This was a result of coordination between the governments of both countries, after a 2011 meeting between Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak and then Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.

In addition to Guangdong and Fujian, the southernmost province of Hainan is also the origin of Chinese descendants in Southeast Asia, though a smaller proportion. It is an island which is also the namesake of Singapore’s famous chicken rice. The next “big thing” to look out for is the Hainan free-trade port. Said to be one of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s own initiatives, the port plans to “allow duty-free imports and lower taxes to attract investors.” This is also a rather ambitious plan as the goal is for the free port to be set up by 2025. In the future, Hainan may serve as an important avenue for Southeast Asian businesses making inroads into Mainland China.

The reality is that there is more than just “one” China – just like how Bali is different from Sunda, which is different from Padang, different parts of China have their history, ethnic groups, and culture. The heterogeneity of China requires a provincial framework of understanding, which lets us see China in a more nuanced manner, distinguishing between the different roles played by numerous regions – particularly with respect to the various Belt and Road projects In examining China’s engagements with Southeast Asia, it may be worth asking “how” and “from where?”. Guangxi and Yunnan’s proximity to Mainland Southeast Asia made them perfect hubs for connectivity projects; Hong Kong and Macau’s international status as well as their colonial heritage served as a bridge for China-Southeast Asia interactions; Guangdong and Fujian leveraged their connection to the Chinese diaspora abroad; finally, the southern tip Hainan is expected to play a bigger role with its free port project. This paradigm may give rise to more precise analyses of China’s engagement with Southeast Asia.

Truston Yu is a research assistant at the University of Hong Kong. Their research interests include Southeast Asian Studies and Southeast Asia’s external relations. They could be reached at their e-mail: trustonyuofficial@gmail.com

How Taiwan Could Capitalize on its New Southbound Policy

/0 Comments/in /by

By Truston Yu (Picture: Wikimedia)

20 May 2020 marked the inauguration ceremony of Taiwan’s reelected President Tsai Ing-wen, signaling a continuation of her New Southbound Policy (NSP), which engages eighteen countries, including the ten ASEAN member states. This article looks into the Southeast Asia section of the NSP, exploring the narratives and actions Tsai may take if her administration is determined to deepen ties with this region.

Tsai was first elected in 2016, succeeding Ma Ying-jeou, who served two terms as president. Within months after her election, she rolled out the New Southern Policy to deepen ties with South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Oceania. Spanning across eighteen countries from India all the way to New Zealand, the NSP coincides with the Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy. It is however, a comprehensive policy directive – ranging from trade and technology to cultural exchanges and talent development. Notably, there are four strategic links: Soft power links, Supply chain links, Linking regional markets, People-to-people links.

Certain challenges are facing Taiwan today. To begin with, Taiwan is rather late in the game compared to its Northeast Asian neighbors. Japan has long played a significant role in modernizing Southeast Asia; China has been stepping up its Belt and Road Initiative which started in 2013; even South Korea has firmly established its presence in mainland Southeast Asia long before President Moon Jae-in’s New Southern Policy in 2017.

Even more fundamentally, Taiwan is not a widely recognized country, and Beijing has been rather aggressive in depriving Taipei of diplomatic recognition. Cambodia and Laos, which have been China’s closest partners in Southeast Asia, would likely pose an obstacle towards ASEAN engagement with Taiwan. Therefore, unlike Hong Kong, a unified policy within ASEAN for engaging Taiwan would be immensely difficult.

An often overlooked issue would be Taiwan’s stake in the South China Sea conflict. As a party to the dispute without official diplomatic relations with the others, Taiwan’s involvement adds to the complexity of the issue. The U-shaped line drawn on the South China Sea, otherwise known as the nine-dash line, actually began as the eleven-dash line proposed by Nationalist China before Chiang Kai-shek’s government moved to Taipei. Communist China simply inherited these claims, making slight modifications with regard to the Gulf of Tonkin.

Beijing naturally overshadows Taipei in the South China Sea dispute. Still, if the Nationalist faction were to prevail and retain control over China up till this day, they would be the one at odds with the ASEAN member states.

If Taipei is to demonstrate amity towards the ASEAN member states and willingness to participate in a rules-based international order, it would be wise for them to renounce the claims of its predecessor regime: it was already ruled by the Permanent Court of Arbitration to be inconsistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Philippines v. China).

Despite the above obstacles, there are certain advantages that are unique to Taiwan. In the context of the South China Sea, Taiwan has set an example for the world with its conservation efforts on Dongsha Island. While the militarization of the South China Sea has often been associated with environmental destruction, the Dongsha Atoll houses a well-equipped scientific center that welcomes researchers and provides them with amenities for fieldwork. This has been dubbed by regional analysts as “coral diplomacy”.

Taiwan is one of the Four Asian Tigers, and many developing countries see their growth as a model to emulate; The cutting-edge semiconductor industry is one of Taiwan’s most unique advantages. This year, Taiwan has come under attention for their incredible performance in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic. “Taiwan can help, Taiwan is helping” is the narrative they are currently presenting. In the second wave of mask diplomacy, over a million masks were donated to NSP countries.

Perhaps the unique advantage for Taiwan in engaging Southeast Asia would be the intricate links between the two places. They share a lot of historical connections, leading to two potential narratives in the present day: the Austronesian connection and the Chinese connection.

For Southeast Asian archaeologists, the biggest significance of Taiwan would probably be the “Out of Taiwan” model. A group of scholars believes that the Austronesian populations migrated South from Taiwan. Indeed, in terms of geographical distance, the Island of Taiwan is only some 700 kilometers from Luzon of the Philippines, even shorter than that between Jakarta and Indonesia’s new capital city.

Taiwan is home to sixteen officially recognized indigenous groups, which are ethnically akin to the populations in the Malay Archipelago. On one hand, archaeologists studying Southeast Asia would be amazed by the similarities between these populations; On the other hand, Bruneians, Indonesians, Malaysians, and Filipinos may be intrigued by the culture of the Taiwanese indigenous.

Southeast Asia is home to one of the most significant foreign Chinese populations, many of which are of Hokkien descent, closely related to the Taiwanese Chinese community in terms of language and culture. Some of the older generations of Chinese Southeast Asians still have ties with the Kuomintang or affiliated entities in Taiwan. Because of these connections, Taiwan is an incredibly familiar destination for the “Nanyang Chinese”. This connection extends to the present through popular culture: The 2001 Taiwanese TV series Meteor Garden gained massive popularity in Southeast Asia, while several famous Southeast Asian artists such as Namewee from Malaysia and JJ Lin from Singapore have been based in Taiwan. On this note, it is worth considering how pop culture from Taiwan constitutes a facet of soft power, albeit not as powerful as the Korean Wave – again, this is an aspect which Taiwan could capitalize on in the context of the NSP. The above examples show how the Chinese connection serves as a bridge between Taiwan and its neighbors to the south.

Indeed, the modern definition of “Southeast Asia”, primarily determined by ASEAN membership, is a somewhat arbitrary construct. The interpretation of “Southeast Asia as connectivity” looks at this region not only from a geographical aspect but the spheres of influence and trade with Taiwan, South India, and Southern China as well. Philip Bowring’s “Nusantaria” is an embodiment of this paradigm, stretching from Ceylon (Sri Lanka today) all the way to Formosa (Taiwan today). Under this framework, Taiwan can be seen as a part of Southeast Asia.

To further build up soft power in Southeast Asia, it is in Taiwan’s interest to show their willingness to abide by a rules-based international order. Regardless of the specific steps taken by Tsai, Taiwan is already headed towards greater interactions with Southeast Asia. However, they may even take it a step further to advance new narratives of Austronesian and Chinese connections. Not only would they bring Taiwan closer to Southeast Asia, but this also puts Taiwan within Southeast Asia itself. For Taiwan, the positive impacts are manifold – in addition to economic gains and greater security through building relations with multiple countries, it also consolidates their contribution towards the Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy.

Truston Yu is a research assistant at the University of Hong Kong. Their research interests include Southeast Asian Studies and Southeast Asia’s external relations. They could be reached at their e-mail: trustonyuofficial@gmail.com

Press Release – “Diplomatic Briefing on the ACWC 10th Year Commemoration – Solidifying the Role of Think Tanks and CSOs in the Advocacy to Strengthen the ASEAN Commission of Women and Children (ACWC)”

/0 Comments/in /by

In continuation of the commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children (ACWC), the ASEAN Studies Center UGM conducted a Diplomatic Briefing discussing the Commission’s work in the past decade and future outlook of its work. This event was held virtually on Friday, 9 October 2020, also with the support of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and FORUM-ASIA.

Carrying the same theme, namely “Solidifying the Role of Think Tanks and CSO in the Advocacy to Strengthen the ASEAN Commission of Women and Children (ACWC)”, the forum invited the insights, experiences and thoughts from the audience on ways to further the cause of promoting the rights and protection of women and children in the region.

The meeting commenced with opening remarks delivered by Dr. Dafri Agussalim, Executive Director of ASEAN Studies Center UGM, followed by speech by Prof. Roel van der Veen, Head of Political Affairs of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and also Shamini Darshni Kaliemuthu, Executive Director of FORUM-ASIA to launch the Report of FORUM-ASIA titled Assessing the Commission’s Impact on Protecting Women and Children’s Rights in ASEAN. Dr. Dafri emphasized the importance of promoting, ensuring the rights of women and children as they are an integral part of a thriving community. The success of ASEAN in empowering  and protecting the rights of women and children will likely lead us to become a successful region in the future. In line with this, Prof. van der Veen also stated the commitment of the Netherlands to always support ASEAN in reinforcing its regionalism, where it can be achieved by having strong regional institution that can ensure and protect the rights of its citizens, including women and children.

The discussion session of the Diplomatic Briefing was moderated by Andy Yentriyani Commissioner of the Committee for the National Commission on Violence Against Women (Komnas Perempuan). To start the discussion, Rachel Arinii Judhiastri, FORUM-ASIA, highlighted several key findings on FORUM-ASIA Report on the ACWC+10 including the fact that only 25% of the 2016-2020 Workplan had been implemented. This was due to several challenges in the region such as the Rohingya crisis, other human rights abuse towards marginalized groups, and lack of engagement in CEDAW and CRC reporting which clearly affected the responsiveness of ACWC in addressing issues relating to human rights of women and children. However, ACWC had also achieved notable milestones such as the Declaration on the Protection of Children from all Forms of Online Exploitation and Abuse in ASEAN, the campaign on Trafficking in Persons and also the nexus to Violation Against Women. Therefore, as she also emphasized, there is a need to have strong regional mechanism which can accelerate the efforts in achieving gender equality, particularly within the Southeast Asia region.

Agustina Kustulasari, Senior Fellow, ASEAN Studies Center UGM, highlighted how ASEAN principles have hindered the decision making process and implementation of regulations and conventions related to the human rights issues, such as the rights of women and children. Therefore, to address this situation carefully, several recommendations included to involve more policy actors and media as the fourth pillar of democracy which can bring public opinions into the agenda setting and accelerate policymaking processes in the region. Engagement with the media in campaigning sensitive journalism will help amplify the use of appropriate terms when advocating issues to the government. She also mentioned the importance of involving the academia in conducting research related to the concerns of ACWC . This will help nudge ASEAN governments to place the issue of women and children, higher in the regional agenda.

H.E. Dr. Ratchada Jayagupta, ACWC Thailand, as respondent, focused her presentation on the implementation of ACWC TOR in Thailand. The ACWC Thailand had endorsed the ACWC gender sensitive guidelines on handling women victim of human trafficking in 2016, and translated the guidelines into Thai. A pilot project for capacity building was also conducted where it involved officials and CSOs working together on advocating particularly on anti-human trafficking. ACWC Thailand also attempted to increase the visibility of ACWC through various social media and channels to provide information and regular activities of the commission, as well as making the channels as a direct communication platform with all ACWC Representatives. The dialogue was then followed with a Q&A session where it discussed the hindrances of substantive engagement between ACWC and other ASEAN bodies, CSOs, think tanks, and also donors within the region. In general, during the ten years of the ACWC journey in advocating rights for women and children, the engagement with ASEAN mechanisms and other CSOs in the region had faces various challenges including limited resources, staffing in implementing its activities and overall support from ASEAN member countries. The limited visibility of the information about ACWC also may be one of the factors that affected the quality of the substantive engagement with the bodies, compared to other ASEAN human rights mechanisms.