Opinion

RECENTLY-MINTED deputy president of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), Nurul Izzah Anwar, was reportedly mocked and criticised for joining the lawyers’ march for an independent judiciary.

Reportedly, Nurul Izzah tried to justify her presence, claiming she had taken similar stances in the past and that she must speak up again to ensure the current government continued to protect the integrity of the judiciary.

It sounds politically correct and to a degree, decent.

Yet, her presence did not sit well, even with the marchers she was trying to show solidarity with.

The reasons were obvious – she is the deputy president of a party that is part of the ruling coalition, and more than that, she is the daughter of the sitting Prime Minister (PM) Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

While she may not be the first daughter of a PM to protest against her fathers’ rule, Nurul Izzah is probably the first to do so while serving as deputy president of the same party her father is in, and that means she should have been able to address the problems from within.

Furthermore, those other first daughters made it clear that they opposed their fathers’ manner of rule, from the very beginning, they had distanced, if not completely severed, their political ties with their fathers and their administrations.

The episode should serve two bitter dishes to Nurul Izzah — first, that nepotism, no matter how it is cloaked — is frowned upon in politics, and second, because of it, no matter how she tries to justify her presence, it is unlikely to be readily accepted — and is, in fact, more likely to be rejected.

But bigger than the personal baggage Nurul Izzah has to carry, the episode further exposed the lack of clarity among political players and their supporters.

Nurul Izzah’s justification attempts to create a simplistic context for what the whole issue is all about.

If she did it consciously, then it is a political effort to diffuse the growing distrust towards the administration — particularly the PM –regarding their commitment to the independence of the judiciary and the administration of justice.

However, if she believed that the gathering was merely about protecting the independence of the judiciary, then Nurul Izzah was truly out of her depth and out of context.

All roads on this issue concerning the independence of the judiciary lead to Muhammad Yusoff Rawther, Anwar’s former aide, who filed a civil suit against the PM alleging sexual assault.

In response, Anwar, through his lawyers, has sought judicial interpretations on several questions, which in essence seek immunity for the PM from facing the suit.

While all these development were unfolding, the then-sitting Chief Justice was not given an extension when her term ended, and there were numerous vacancies in the upper echelons of the judiciary.

Since the PM is responsible for advising the King on who should fill these vacancies, some lawyers began expressing concern that a conflict of interest could arise when these judges are recommended by the PM.

Simply put, the PM would be choosing the judges who are to preside over his cases, and if he were granted the immunity he is appealing for, Mhammad Yusoff’s case would not be heard.

Adding another twist to the plot is a leaked “memo” purportedly from the  Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), alleging that a senior judge tried to influence the Chief Justice regarding case outcomes and the assignment of certain judges to specific cases.

An investigation is already underway to identify who leaked the memo and to determine its authenticity, but so far, there is no clear indication that the content of the memo is also being investigated.

All these had riled up legal eagles and even members of the public, who feel that the judiciary is being pushed into a corner to serve the interests of the executive, whether perceived or otherwise.

There are attempts to defend the PM’s right to appoint judges, as it has been the law and practice of previous PMs.

Again, the crux of the matter is missed, intentionally or otherwise.

The Opposition to the PM having a hand in determining the judges this time around is premised on the fact that he is facing a suit and that he decided to get himself immunity.

With the argument dismissed, those still defending the PM’s position insisted that previous PMs had interfered in the judiciary.

Actually, the strategy of deflecting criticisms from oneself is quickly becoming the norm for the current government, using previous misconduct or failures to justify its own.

Lest these defenders forget, previous misconduct was the staple used by the present leaders to demand the ousting of the then governments and PMs.

In many ways, the benchmark and barometer set by the present PM and government is the denunciation of previous practices.

It is therefore ironic if the current administration has to rely on the alleged misconducts of previous administrations to justify its own shortcomings.

The idea that two wrongs make one right is of the essence. Unfortunately, in numerous cases, there is only one wrong and it is one that wasn’t committed in the past.

Against this very backdrop, Nurul Izzah, once heralded as the princess of reforms, has now been mocked to have morphed into a drama queen.

A drama that is both tragic and comedic.

---

The post Friday Jottings: One wrong cannot make one right appeared first on The Malaysian Reserve.

THE Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), signed on Nov 15, 2020 and entering into force on Jan 1, 2022, is the world’s largest free trade agreement (FTA). 

It brings together all 10 ASEAN member states with five of their Free Trade Agreement (FTA) partners—China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand—into a comprehensive trade bloc encompassing around 2.2 billion people and 30% of the world’s GDP and global trade.

RCEP is a landmark ASEAN-led initiative that aims to harmonise and deepen existing ASEAN+1 FTAs under a unified, modern, and inclusive framework. 

With 20 chapters, including trade in goods, services, investment, intellectual property, e-commerce, competition, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and dispute settlement, RCEP is expected to catalyse trade flows, strengthen regional value chains (RVCs) and boost post-pandemic economic recovery.

But as ASEAN foreign ministers gathered in Kuala Lumpur for the 58th ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting (AMM), urgent questions loom: Does RCEP genuinely empower ASEAN economies? Or does it risk reinforcing asymmetrical benefits that favour larger, more developed partners?

What makes RCEP unique? 

Unlike agreements such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) or the EU Single Market, RCEP reflects ASEAN’s distinct model of “soft regionalism”: voluntary, flexible and consensus-based. 

It is designed not to impose deep political integration or rigid regulatory convergence but instead to create a pragmatic and inclusive economic partnership adaptable to development diversity among member states.

RCEP’s key innovations include:

1. Consolidated Rules of Origin (RoO): A single RoO framework that simplifies trade documentation and reduces compliance costs, thus enabling firms to source inputs from across RCEP countries without losing preferential access.
2. Differential Tariff Concessions: These allow flexibility for countries to maintain sensitive sector protections while still advancing gradual liberalisation.
3. Special and Differential Treatment (SDT): Targeted support for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) within ASEAN—especially Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam (CLMV)—to facilitate their integration into regional trade.
4. Living Agreement Structure: RCEP includes institutional mechanisms (for example RCEP Joint Committee, subcommittees) to review and expand the agreement’s scope to address emerging challenges like digital trade, climate change and pandemics.

However, RCEP remains modest in ambition in areas like labour protections, environmental standards, data flows and state-owned enterprise (SOE) disciplines—areas where the CPTPP sets higher benchmarks. Critics argue that without stronger commitments in these domains, RCEP’s long-term contribution to sustainable development may be limited.

Benefits and risks for ASEAN: Strategic leverage or unequal promise? 

In principle, RCEP offers numerous strategic advantages to ASEAN:

1. Enhanced economic centrality: ASEAN remains at the centre of the agreement’s architecture, reinforcing its convening power and diplomatic relevance in the Indo-Pacific.
2. Trade and investment gains: According to CGE simulations (Itakura, 2022), ASEAN countries stand to experience notable gains in GDP, exports and welfare by 2035, especially under scenarios that include tariff reductions, trade facilitation and services liberalisation.
3. SME and GVC participation: The agreement promotes inclusive integration by helping SMEs join RVCs through simplified customs procedures and regional trade facilitation.

Yet, the benefits will be asymmetrical. Countries such as Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam, already integrated into global value chains (GVCs) and possessing strong digital infrastructure, are well-positioned to benefit early and significantly. 

Conversely, CLMV countries with weaker institutional capacity, infrastructure deficits and limited trade readiness may struggle to fully leverage RCEP without capacity-building support.

Moreover, the pandemic and the US-China trade war have exposed ASEAN’s dependency on external markets. There is growing concern that RCEP could entrench such dependencies further, particularly on China, unless balanced by internal ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) integration.

Key enablers of success for ASEAN

To transform RCEP from a legal agreement into a transformative engine for inclusive growth, ASEAN must prioritise the following policy enablers.

1. Domestic readiness and reform

1. Upgrade trade infrastructure (ports, logistics) and adopt paperless trade systems.
2. Strengthen digital and human capital, particularly for SMEs and underserved populations.
3. Encourage private sector engagement and public-private partnerships (PPPs).

2. Deepening ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) Integration

1. Eliminate non-tariff barriers (NTBs), harmonise standards and streamline customs procedures.
2. Strengthen intra-ASEAN connectivity and production networks.
3. Develop unified digital and green standards to align ASEAN with future trade demands.

3. Digital and Services Integration

1. Expand the scope of digital trade rules within RCEP by advocating for stronger provisions on cross-border data flows, cybersecurity and digital inclusion.
2. Enhance services liberalisation through a negative-list approach and stronger regulatory frameworks.
3. Support skills upgrading for workers in ICT-enabled and high-value services sectors.

4. Institutional Governance and Implementation Monitoring

1. Empower the RCEP Joint Committee and subcommittees to carry out robust implementation reviews.
2. Create inclusive, transparent and participatory mechanisms to monitor RCEP’s impact on SMEs, women, informal workers and rural communities.
3. Provide technical assistance and dispute resolution access for smaller and less developed member states.

ASEAN leadership at 58th AMM: What must be done 

As ASEAN Foreign Ministers gather at the 58th AMM in Kuala Lumpur, strong political direction is needed to steer RCEP implementation toward equitable outcomes. Recommended actions include:

1. Establish a Regional RCEP Implementation Taskforce under the ASEAN Secretariat to assess commitments, facilitate peer learning, and enhance transparency.
2. Create an ASEAN RCEP Transition Fund, contributed by more advanced economies, to support institutional capacity-building, regulatory reform, and infrastructure enhancement in CLMV countries.
3. Reaffirm ASEAN Centrality in RCEP Governance, ensuring the ASEAN Secretariat works closely with RCEP institutional bodies to steer policy alignment and manage tensions between large partners.
4. Mainstream Sustainability and Inclusivity, embedding Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), gender equality, labour safeguards, and environmental sustainability into RCEP’s evolving work programme.

Between opportunity and test

RCEP is a reflection of ASEAN’s ability to lead regional integration in an era of fractured globalisation. It offers a unique opportunity to bridge development gaps, modernise economies and reassert ASEAN’s relevance in global economic governance.

But it also poses a test of political will and institutional coherence. Without urgent reforms, the agreement may inadvertently deepen regional inequalities and reinforce asymmetric dependencies. The success of RCEP, therefore, depends on ASEAN’s commitment to leadership, solidarity, and shared prosperity.

The message from Kuala Lumpur must then be bold and clear: ASEAN does not merely seek a seat at the table but it aims to lead, shape and humanise the future of regional economic integration.

• Nurul Amellya Azhar  is a doctorate student in International Political Economy at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

 

The post RCEP and the future of ASEAN’s economy: Between potential and pitfalls appeared first on The Malaysian Reserve.

The OPR cut is important, but banks and govt machineries at the federal, state and local level need to make a paradigm shift to promote expansionary sentiments 

LAST week, Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) duly delivered what was expected from the central bank, lowering the banking system’s interest rate to promote spending and investment — in theory, at least. 

The benchmark Overnight Policy Rate (OPR) was cut down for the first time since July 2020, by 25 basis points (bps) to 1.75%, heralding an incoming economic slowdown and trade headwinds. 

With the global economic growth expected to moderate in the second half of the year (2H25) against the backdrop of trade tensions and geopolitical risk, Malaysia cannot afford to allow domestic demand to be weighed down by external factors. 

The Malaysian economic growth is already projected to slow down to around 4% this year, from 5.5% in 2024 as US President Donald Trump’s tariff tantrum continues, dampening export momentum. 

Nonetheless, economists are confident that domestic demand, driven by labour market improvements and tourism recovery, will remain resilient. 

Upward sentiments in the labour market are underlined by the unemployment rate holding steady at a decade-low of 3% in May 2025, supported by the stable growth pace of the labour force (0.2% month-to-month) and decline in loss of employment (-14%). 

The tourism industry, in the meantime, is estimated to record up to 7.8% growth, or 26.9 million tourist arrivals this year, marking a full recovery to pre-Covid-19 levels in 2019. The World Travel & Tourism Council projects that the tourism and travel industry will contribute 11.3% to the national GDP, or RM332 billion, in 2025, significantly higher than last year’s RM218 billion. 

However, economists have cautioned that policy interventions by the central bank would be useless if the banking system and the whole government machinery — either at federal, state or local govt level — fail to shift-up and follow through. 

The lowering of OPR will only affect consumers’ pockets positively if banks decide to channel the savings to real loan rates. 

An economist also cautioned that despite OPR being cut down to 2.75% the real interest rate stood at 1.55%, which is still high by historical standards. 

The long-term average real interest rate in Malaysia is 0.88%, which means borrowers are still paying an expensive cost for loans in real terms, he argued. 

Monetary policy needs to be accommodative, and business policy needs to be entrepreneur and people-friendly for consumer confidence to flourish and spending to grow. 

Unbeknownst to the public, local governments are especially influential in determining spending patterns among their constituents, as they have wide-ranging, self-interpreted local laws at their disposal, which, in some occasions, are ridiculously baffling and beyond common sense. 

Take, for instance, one particular state city where its enforce- ment division is making restrictive interpretations of the law governing food kiosks, which, in effect, sabotage genuine entrepreneurs and discourage customers from frequenting the joint. 

This kiosk, selling toasts and simple breakfast delicacies at a local lake park, was a hit and went viral even before the word “viral” was invented. 

It was, however, recently slapped with a weird ruling by the local authority, banning it from placing tables and chairs for its customers, even though the area in front of the kiosk is vacant and clearly designed to accommodate dining chairs and tables. 

Weird, to say the least. But frankly speaking, it clearly looks like spiteful sabotage by the very people who are supposed to promote and support entrepreneurship. 

Now, with the aligning of powers between the state and federal, the government might want to consider covering these local councils as part of the economic support system. 

It is developmental economy on a longer horizon, which should be a priority for the nation. 

• Asuki Abas is the editor of The Malaysian Reserve, and a former entrepreneur disillusioned with bureaucracy. 

---

• This article first appeared in The Malaysian Reserve weekly print edition

The post Interest rate cut needs institutional follow through to be adequate appeared first on The Malaysian Reserve.

I GOT into cycling just about a year after someone bought and ate an infected bat from a market in Wuhan, China. 

Yes, I was one of the millions of stir-crazy people got sucked into cycling as we tried to escape the claustrophobic restrictions during Covid. 

Well, that is not entirely true. Actually, I got into cycling in the 1960s, when I used to bike to school, the corner sundry shop and other places. But that was out of necessity, just to transport myself. 

In those days bicycles were beasts made of steel. Their frames were steel, they had steel brakes, steel rims and steel bells. They were heavy — both to carry as well as pedal. Mine was made in Nottingham and, of course, it was a Raleigh Robin Hood. 

They had history, looked the business, but were terrible to ride. So as soon as I discovered other forms of transportation, I dumped my bicycle as a means of getting around. 

So, when I came back to cycling in 2020, it was a completely different world. Bicycles were now made from titanium, carbon fibre or aluminium. And all cyclists were required to wear spandex — it seemed that way, at least. 

“Only dinosaurs and crazies ride steel nowadays, but these are all I’ve got,” Bruce said, gesturing to the two bicycles we were going to ride that day. 

Bruce, a history buff and “old-school” cyclist who rides the back alleys of Kuala Lumpur in search of artefacts, had been pressed into service to teach me how to ride a bike again. 

Thank God, none of us were wearing spandex, because we were going to ride “gravel”, a new branch of cycling that sneers at tarmac and 

thrives on plantation roads and muddy logging trails. 

“Mind the snakes, sometimes they cross the path, try not to run over them,” said Bruce as we set off into the oil palm on that fine Sunday morning. 

We went on a 40km ride through oil palm, swamp and rubber plantations, interspersed with the occasional sandy tracks over old tin mines. 

Bruce would periodically point 

out some geographical feature on or near the trail to show where someone had broken a rib, fallen into a ravine, or sighted a cobra or two. 

“Excuse me, Bruce. It seems this gravel cycling thing is a bit dangerous, no?” I asked, once the sweat had dried and my heart rate was no longer doing aerobatics in the over-100 BPM range. 

“Riding a bike is inherently dangerous. You are sitting a few metres off the ground, trying to work against natural sensibility and gravity. You will always teeter on that delicate balance between pleasure and disaster. Unless all your senses are turned on and alert, you will fall.” 

“Oh,” I said. 

He went on to talk about the old days of cycling, when there were fewer riders before the Covid gang took up the sport. 

“I remember the time when we shared the tarmac peacefully with other people. There we were, bicycles, cars, bullock carts, tricycles, and yes, even buses — all smiles and goodwill.” 

But times have changed, Bruce felt. We now have TikTok and social media. Everyone wants to find something to hate, and adults going around in tight clothes are easy targets. 

“They forget that behind every cycling bib, pair of sunglasses and expensive bicycle is a human soul, with feelings, desires and a sense of humour, “ Bruce said. 

“A cyclist is human too, let’s be kind to one another.” 

I would have listened to Bruce for longer, but the accumulated mud and sweat on my skin needed a shower, so I thanked him for the lesson and bid him farewell. 

“Goodbye, and ride safe,” he said. 

“Whatever you do don’t argue with bus drivers.” 

• ZB Othman is an editor of The Malaysian Reserve.

---

This article first appeared in The Malaysian Reserve weekly print edition

The post Give and take on tarmac appeared first on The Malaysian Reserve.

WHILE planting an agarwood (gaharu) sapling to commemorate his 100th birthday, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad quipped that he would return 100 years later to see how much it had grown by then.

It was probably just a random joke, but coming from Dr Mahathir, many felt it was perhaps a self-parody — a reminder to himself and those present that he would not live to see the tree mature.

Yet, an agarwood tree matures within four to five years, and possibilities regarding Dr Mahathir and the plant are clear.

More than whether Dr Mahathir lives on to see it bloom, planting a tree is about providing shade for the future generation — both symbolically and literally.

And that is what Dr Mahathir is, and has been, to those of his generation — the man who shaded them from the harsh glare of life.

Indeed, his critics would say otherwise, mostly those who only come to know him after his retirement in 2004, or those who were among the many politically vanquished in their quest to depose him, and they are many.

But in their single-mindedness to hate him, they picked on some of his enduring legacy — whether it was infrastructure, tales of his diplomatic spats, unconventional economic policies, or his firm handling of managing the nation.

The infrastructure built during his time was often criticised as mega projects, white elephants, or coming at the expense of basic infrastructure that was still lacking in Malaysia then.

But those who had followed Dr Mahathir’s plans to develop Malaysia would notice that infrastructure was one of the strategies to transform the nation from an agrarian society into an industrialised concern.

The strategy was all encompassing, involving comprehensive communication networks – roads, airports, seaports and even cyberspace.

The critics generally focused on the high-rise buildings, which were pursued for very obvious reasons, from maximising limited urban spaces to declaring to the rest of the world that the Malaysian construction industry has arrived and was ready to explore the global markets.

If these infrastructure developments involved a foreign conglomerate, it was obviously to transfer technology and expertise to Malaysians.

Following that, these buildings attain prestige, become iconic and landmarks worthy of a nation ready to stand tall and on equal footing with the rest of the world.

More than that, it is the underlying philosophy of any other civilisations that is always associated with infrastructural wonders. And these wonders served as catalyst in other civilisations for the spread of development to its outer fringes.

Today, these infrastructure have proven to be a key component in Malaysia’s development programmes, with some elements proving insufficient to meet growing demands.

One glaring incongruity in the present-day economic strategy of the administration, compared to Dr Mahathir’s, is its approach to wages.

During Dr Mahathir’s era, the emphasis was on purchasing power rather than a regular push for higher wages. It kept inflation at bay, allowing ordinary folks to enjoy comfortable purchasing power.

Economists may argue that this opinion is simplistic, but the crux of the matter is that those who grew up during that period remember how far their money could stretch.

While it is arguable, one of Dr Mahathir’s greatest contributions to Malaysians was instilling a sense of worth and pride.

Dr Mahathir does not tolerate those with a superiority complex, especially those from the West.

When he decided to take on the British in particular, it was obviously to remind Malaysians that they were as good, if not better, than those who had colonised the nation for centuries.

His Buy British Last campaign, the Dawn Raid and even taking back the Carcosa Hill from the British High Commission — replacing it with another elsewhere — were deliberate measures to remind Malaysians that they are sovereign and to send a message to the West that Malaysia is equal.

In a recent interview, Dr Mahathir said the decision to take back Carcosa Hill — which had been given to the British by a previous prime minister (PM) — was not out of spite.

“Imagine Carcosa Hill — the prime land high above the rest of the Kuala Lumpur landscape — belonging to the British. From the top of that hill, they flew the Union Jack, almost as a symbolic act of still lording over us.

“The flag flown at such a location should be that of Malaysia.”

That is Dr Mahathir, a nationalist to a fault. And how can anyone blame him for that? To him, for a nation to progress and move beyond what it once was, the ghosts of the colonial past must be exorcised.

Indeed, the legendary Dawn Raid, in which Malaysia managed to regain control of Guthrie Corp from the British through a well-executed share purchase strategy, caught the British by surprise.

It was a bold assertion of Malaysia’s economic sovereignty. It became a source of pride and a legend echoed through the corridors of power for years on end.

Dr Mahathir celebrated his 100th birthday yesterday. It was expected to be a lengthy affair, which, at the rate things are going, may continue for months on end. It is not surprising.

After all, it is not every day that someone celebrates turning 100. For that matter, few do — and rarer still are those who can do it in style.

Even his critics joined the list of well-wishers, some of whom even listed his contributions and achievements. Dr Mahathir has indeed cast a long shadow over the nation.

It shaded Malaysians well.

---

The post Friday Jottings: A tale of two shades appeared first on The Malaysian Reserve.

THE 58th ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting (AMM) is highly significant and timely, given the range of strategic uncertainties at both regional and global levels that require attention. 

Among the key issues demanding focus are the tense relations between Thailand and Cambodia following border clashes, the ongoing internal conflict in Myanmar, escalating tensions in the South China Sea, and tariff threats from the US under President Donald Trump’s administration.

ASEAN is seen to be in a suitable position to play an active role in managing these regional conflicts and to act as an intermediary in geopolitical and economic relations with major world powers. 

While some may doubt ASEAN’s capacity to resolve conflicts, it is important to maintain realistic and measured expectations of what ASEAN, as a regional bloc, can effectively achieve in handling strategic issues.

A reflection on ASEAN’s founding objectives reveals that its primary purpose was to serve as a platform for conflict management, rather than conflict resolution. This stems from the operational mechanisms adopted by ASEAN. 

To understand its limitations in resolving conflicts, we must revisit the founding principles and objectives that guide its operations.

ASEAN was established on Aug 8, 1967 following the end of the Indonesia–Malaysia Confrontation and amid escalating tensions from the Vietnam War. 

The organisation was founded on key pillars aimed at fostering peace, stability, and prosperity in Southeast Asia. 

At its inception, the five founding members—Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines—envisioned ASEAN as a platform to strengthen diplomatic ties among regional states and to promote cooperation in socio-economic development and cross-cultural understanding.

Since the end of the Cold War, ASEAN has expanded to include all Southeast Asian countries, with Timor-Leste expected to become a full member by the end of 2025. 

ASEAN has also extended its multilateral engagements through various platforms such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM), and the ASEAN Community, which facilitate dialogue and cooperation on regional security and economic development. 

However, ASEAN has often struggled to produce unified and concrete decisions on sensitive and controversial matters, particularly in geopolitics.

To better understand ASEAN’s mode of operation, two core principles define its identity: non-interference in the internal affairs of member states and decision-making by consensus. 

These sacrosanct principles have enabled ASEAN to remain an inclusive and sustainable organisation. 

ASEAN’s approach to regional disputes is guided by these principles, as seen in the “Five-Point Consensus” addressing Myanmar’s internal conflict and ongoing negotiations on the ASEAN-China Code of Conduct in the South China Sea.

The Five-Point Consensus was formulated in April 2021 when ASEAN leaders collectively agreed on how to handle the Myanmar crisis. 

However, the consensus lacks enforcement power and mechanisms. Hence, it is ultimately up to Myanmar whether or not to comply. It must be remembered that due to ASEAN’s consensus-based decision-making, Myanmar still has a say in any discussions involving its national interests—making it highly unlikely that the Myanmar government would support any ASEAN proposals or actions seen as detrimental to their regime.

Negotiations over the ASEAN-China Code of Conduct in the South China Sea—ongoing for over two decades—highlight ASEAN’s inclusive approach, which values input from all member states. Yet this inclusiveness also presents challenges in reaching consensus on complex and sensitive issues.

Therefore, it is necessary to shift expectations regarding ASEAN’s ability to resolve difficult and sensitive regional issues. 

The mechanisms it employs are better suited for conflict management rather than conflict resolution. It lacks binding and enforceable legal instruments. 

The consensus-based decision-making approach is often hindered by the differing political interests of member states, especially on matters of national interest.

Nevertheless, ASEAN’s true value lies in its ability to provide a crucial platform for fostering dialogue. While it may fall short of producing swift, tangible outcomes, this role is vital for building long-term regional stability. 

By enabling open communication and the exchange of views, ASEAN helps to prevent strategic tensions in Southeast Asia and acts as a bridge for strategic and economic engagement with other countries.

In conclusion, ASEAN must continue playing its role as a regional bridge-builder and facilitator of dialogue. Its strength does not lie in directly resolving conflicts but in mitigating the risk of conflict through sustained communication and confidence-building among member states. 

In a world filled with uncertainty and complex geopolitical challenges, ASEAN’s inclusive and pragmatic approach remains relevant as a vital regional organisation for preserving peace and stability in Southeast Asia.

• Dr Adam Leong Kok Wey is a Professor in Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Defence and International Security Studies (CDISS), Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia (UPNM).

The post ASEAN tackles regional strategic issues in its own way appeared first on The Malaysian Reserve.

by DR KAMARUL ZAMAN YUSOFF

THE Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC), signed on Feb 24, 1976 in Bali, Indonesia, marked a pivotal milestone in ASEAN’s institutional and diplomatic evolution. 

It is not merely a treaty, but a living embodiment of ASEAN’s normative framework — anchored in peaceful coexistence, mutual respect, and non-interference — that has enabled the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to navigate shifting geopolitical currents for nearly five decades.

Historical genesis of TAC 

The TAC emerged against the backdrop of Cold War tensions, following the Fall of Saigon in 1975 and the retrenchment of the United States from Southeast Asia. 

In the face of growing uncertainty, the founding ASEAN members — Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and Singapore — convened the first ASEAN Summit in Bali in 1976, where they adopted the TAC as a formal, legally binding expression of regional solidarity.

More than just a peace pact, the TAC laid the foundation for what came to be known as the “ASEAN Way”—a diplomatic culture rooted in quiet diplomacy, non-confrontation, and consensus. 

Its principles reflect ASEAN’s unique context: a region of remarkable political, cultural and economic diversity, home to monarchies, democracies, socialist republics and military regimes, all of which must coexist without igniting regional conflict.

The core principles of TAC 

The TAC is founded upon the principles articulated in its Preamble and codified in Article 2. These are:

1. Mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations;
2. The right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference or coercion;
3. Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another;
4. Settlement of disputes by peaceful means;
5. Renunciation of the threat or use of force; and
6. Effective cooperation among states.

These principles remain central to ASEAN’s external relations, regional cooperation and conflict resolution mechanisms. 

They are reinforced by institutional structures such as the High Council, established under Chapter IV of the TAC, designed to mediate disputes through good offices, inquiry or conciliation.

ASEAN’s organisational culture and the “ASEAN Way”

The TAC exemplifies ASEAN’s intergovernmental character and aversion to legalism. 

Disputes are preferably resolved behind closed doors, with leaders resorting to quiet diplomacy, informal consultations and personal rapport. 

As such, while the TAC envisions dispute settlement mechanisms, these are rarely invoked formally.

ASEAN relies instead on senior-level diplomacy, consensus and mutual accommodation.

The TAC’s structure allows ASEAN to function effectively without a supranational authority. 

This is especially crucial for a region with stark developmental disparities and divergent political systems. 

The TAC thus acts as a stabilising force, enabling cooperative integration without the necessity of uniformity or political convergence.

Evolution and expansion of TAC 

Initially limited to Southeast Asian states, the TAC has since undergone three amendments in 1987, 1998 and 2010 expanding eligibility for accession to states outside the region and to regional organisations composed of sovereign states.

The Treaty was first opened to non-ASEAN states in 1989, beginning with Papua New Guinea. Since then, the TAC has grown into a globally embraced framework. 

Before this, 55 states and entities had acceded to the Treaty and today Uruguay and Algeria became the 56th and 57th High Contracting Parties respectively.

This expansion reflects a growing recognition of the TAC’s values and ASEAN’s rising profile as a convening power in global diplomacy. 

Countries wishing to participate in ASEAN’s multilateral platforms — such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), East Asia Summit (EAS), and ASEAN+3 — are often required to accede to the TAC as a prerequisite, reinforcing its central role in regional and inter-regional engagement.

Why countries outside ASEAN are joining TAC 

The global resonance of the TAC lies in its flexibility, neutrality and the universality of its principles. 

As Wisma Putra Secretary-General Datuk Seri Amran Mohamed Zin recently noted, more countries are now seeking to accede to the TAC as a means of opening the door to deeper cooperation with ASEAN. 

The Treaty offers a diplomatic “gateway” for peaceful engagement and mutual development — particularly attractive in an era marked by great-power rivalry and geopolitical fragmentation.

Accession to the TAC signals a country’s commitment to the ASEAN ethos: peaceful coexistence, non-alignment, and a preference for multilateral dialogue over confrontation. 

In the words of Malaysia’s Foreign Minister, Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan, Algeria and Uruguay’s accessions reflect their “firm commitment to these principles” and their desire to “foster dialogue, mutual respect, and peaceful coexistence in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.”

Procedure for accession 

The process of accession is deliberate and inclusive. Interested countries submit their request to the ASEAN Senior Officials’ Meeting (SOM), which evaluates their readiness and political commitment. 

Recommendations are then forwarded to the ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting (AMM) for final decision. 

The accession culminates in the formal signing of the Instrument of Accession, as witnessed during this 58th AMM in Kuala Lumpur.

This procedural rigor ensures that new signatories genuinely share ASEAN’s foundational values and enhances the legitimacy of the TAC as a global diplomatic instrument.

The 2025 milestone: Algeria, Uruguay join TAC 

The accessions of Algeria and Uruguay mark a significant moment in the TAC’s journey. 

Algeria represents North Africa, while Uruguay hails from Latin America — two regions historically distant from ASEAN’s immediate geographical orbit. Their inclusion signifies the growing appeal of ASEAN’s model of peaceful diplomacy.

In his remarks at the signing ceremony, Mohamad highlighted how this event deepens ASEAN’s linkages with “regions that share our aspiration for peace, prosperity, and sustainable development.” 

It illustrates ASEAN’s capacity to bridge continents and ideologies through shared commitment to the rule of law and peaceful coexistence.

With 57 members now under the TAC umbrella, the treaty has become a symbol of multilateral consensus in a fragmented world. 

It is one of the few intergovernmental frameworks where the Global North and South, liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes, and large and small states coexist under a common code of diplomatic conduct.

The TAC in a fragmented world 

The TAC’s endurance is a testament to ASEAN’s pragmatic diplomacy and soft institutionalism. 

It has allowed ASEAN to transform from a Cold War security alliance into a mature and outward-looking community. 

It has also helped ASEAN maintain a semblance of neutrality amidst great power rivalries, from the Cold War to today’s multipolar order.

In an age when many multilateral structures are under strain, the TAC offers a unique model — non-binding in enforcement, yet binding in principle; slow in process, yet steady in delivery. 

It provides an inclusive, ideologically neutral framework for engagement — attractive to countries from every continent seeking peace and partnership in the Indo-Pacific century.

As the accession of Algeria and Uruguay has shown, the spirit of Bali 1976 continues to resonate far beyond Southeast Asia. 

TAC is no longer just ASEAN’s diplomatic pillar but it is now one of the world’s most quietly successful instruments of peace.

• Dr Kamarul Zaman Yusoff is a Senior Lecturer at the College of Law, Government and International Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia

The post TAC: A cornerstone of ASEAN’s diplomatic architecture, global outreach appeared first on The Malaysian Reserve.

Is there a way to take the edge off locals’ current outrage over grime and misdemeanours by visitors? 

IN ROME, all roads seem to lead to the Trevi fountain. On my last visit, every other time I asked Google Maps to figure out a route to sites in the historic centre of the city, the app coursed me through the tourist magnet commissioned by Pope Clement XII in the 18th century. 

If I’d never seen the Trevi before, I’d be grateful. But three round trips on one day past the baroque aquatic fantasy made me rococo loco. The standing room in front of the fountain was an intake pond for tourists streaming in from all over. I was drowning in the tussle and drenched in summery sweat — not all my own. Ick and eek. And this was just the start of Rome’s high season. 

Foreign tourists like to complain there are too many of themselves. But the locals do too — and have horror stories to tell. A grainy CCTV video apparently shows a visitor to the crowded Uffizi Gallery in Florence awkwardly posing in front of an 18th portrait of a Medici heir only to buckle a bit and tear a hole in the painting with either his hand or elbow. 

Last summer, the mayor of Rome declared that “there can certainly be no space for hooligans and idiots” after a visitor allegedly used a key to carve his name into a wall of the Colosseum. The previous year, a visitor from Bristol had done the same and pleaded ignorance of the monument’s antiquity. 

A month ago, there were news accounts of an American tourist who impaled himself on a metal fence while trying to take a selfie at the 1,953-year-old ruin. The veracity of those reports, however, has been questioned. For many Italians, however, it was the perfect fable of comeuppance: Foolish tourist gets punished by his own foolishness. 

To be fair, tourists weren’t the impetus for Italy’s 2024 punitive law against defacing art, monuments and scenic sites — with fines as high as US$70,000 (RM305,900). The targets of that legislation were so-called eco-vandals who’d gone after the Trevi and Milan’s La Scala opera house in the name of saving the planet. For that matter, it was a tourist who alerted the police to the person who keyed in his name on the Colosseum. 

Still, real and imagined offenses committed by tourists have fuelled local outrage from Portugal to Japan that verge on xenophobia. In Tokyo, one celebrity called tourists and migrants “invasive species” and speculated that visitors could overstay and eventually dilute Japan’s unique culture. 

A lot of the blame for the current flood of revenge travel can be fairly assigned to the Covid lockdowns, the end of which released pent-up demand. Many countries at first welcomed the profusion of profit until visitor numbers and bad behaviour swirled out of control. But the roots of visitors-versus-locals go back much farther in history. 

The nature of tourism — even before the English word was coined in the late 18th century — was always bedevilling. When Dante sketched out his eighth circle of hell, he had horned demons whip- ping queues of sinners to keep them in line, comparing them to the crowds of pilgrims in Rome who were policed into one-way lanes as they crossed back and forth on the bridge of Castel Sant’Angelo (which led to St Peter’s Basilica). Even back in the 14th century, the tourist hordes were problematic, despite being encouraged by the popes themselves, in part to juice local businesses. 

Pilgrims were the first tourists — and they travelled not only to gawk at the holy sites but to buy blessings and souvenirs and, often, to fraternise with the locals (yes, they did have sexual relations). The ex-mistress of Pope Alexander VI made a healthy living by running inns in Rome, one of which incorporated the pontiff’s family crest into its own coat of arms and still stands near the Campo de’ Fiori. 

The British upper classes set off on their own elitist Grand Tours in the 18th century, eating, drinking and fornicating their way through the great cities of Europe. But it wasn’t until the middle of the 19th century that Thomas Cook scaled up and democratised travel with his family-friendly, respectably middle-class excursions. 

Cook’s tours pioneered what many today expect from tourism: Cocooned experiences where people can remain comfortably and extraterritorially themselves in the middle of a foreign country, perhaps the root of some of today’s privileged behaviour among travellers. The tours were also the genesis of an industry that now accounts for about 10% of global GDP, including close to 8% of Japan’s and more than 10% of Italy’s. 

So, our so-called crisis has age-old roots. The alleged miscreants are an amalgam of clueless pilgrim, bougie sightseer and loutish scoundrel. 

The situation is also exacerbated by the super-sizing of expectations by airlines, hotel chains, the luxury business, the restaurant trade and a host of industries whose aim is to separate this mass movement of people from their disposable income. You can blame go-for-growth commerce. It’s not ideal, of course. But everyone has derived some benefit along the route. 

The point is to prevent local irritation over bad behaviour from going madly off track. Misdeeds — even if committed by a fraction of a fraction — can inspire holier-than-thou ethnocentrism and exclusionary rules. It’s important to remember that domestic tourists can behave like yokels too. 

So calm down. Large countries like France, Italy, Japan and others will find it difficult to restrict tourism without making them- selves less attractive — including to their own citizens. The obvious case in point, as Bloomberg Opinion columnist Chris Bryant has written, is the US, where anecdote after anecdote of travellers being accosted or detained at the border has led to a decline in tourism. 

New York City has revised its expectations for international visitors downward by 17%. Spending by foreign tourists may come down as much as US$12.5 billion (RM54.63 billion) in the US in 2025, according to the World Travel and Tourism Council. Before this round of strictures, travel and tourism made up close to 10% of the US$30.5 trillion GDP. 

Perhaps there is a kind of solution to be found in human guides, accredited to personalise tours and save the more hapless visitors from themselves. It’s not new, of course. An essay by the English polymath Francis Baconin 1625 advised travellers to take along “one that hath the language and hath been in the country before; whereby he may be able to tell them what things are worthy to be seen.” As for disputes and quarrels, he said: “They are with care and discretion to be avoided.” So, behave. 

Building a system of capable guides may just end up with more bureaucracy. We tourists should therefore be more conscious of why we are traveling. It’s important to get out of one’s comfort zone, to experience a different existence. As Bacon wrote, let the traveller “sequester himself from the company of his countrymen and diet in such places where there is good company of the nation where he traveleth.” 

My corollary: Skip the generic bucket list and come up with an original one. Do the research. Don’t go flowing downstream with the perspiring masses of humanity that know only to stare at the Trevi fountain. The bigger cities — as crowded as they are — almost always have quiet alternatives that allow you to absorb their ethos without suffocating in the equivalent of mosh pits. In Rome, opt for the elegance of the Via Giulia over the coarseness of the Corso. 

Being far from the maddening crowds could make all the difference. — Bloomberg 

• This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

---

• This article first appeared in The Malaysian Reserve weekly print edition

The post A brief 700-year history of overtourism appeared first on The Malaysian Reserve.