In Asia: Weekly Insight and Features from Asia

No sooner did I warn in last week’s blog on my way to Washington, D.C., that there is “a danger that U.S.-Philippine relations will be viewed entirely through the lens of ‘the rise of China’” than I was greeted upon arrival by the morning front-page story in The Washington Post entitled, “Philippines may allow greater U.S. military presence in reaction to China’s rise.”

News that the Philippines may allow greater U.S. military presence sparked controversy. However, SWS surveys consistently show that the majority of Philippine citizens feels that they benefit from military cooperation with the United States. Photo: U.S. Navy.

The article stated that “the sudden rush by many in the Asia-Pacific region to embrace Washington is a direct reaction to China’s rise as a military power and its assertiveness in staking claims to disputed territories, such as the energy-rich South China Sea.”  Immediately, other pundits piled on, agreeing that “U.S.-Philippines Relations Benefit from China’s Poor Public Image” or discussing “The Great Game:  Philippine Edition.”

Unsurprisingly, neither China nor Philippine opponents of the United States were pleased. A Global Times editorial said, “Make Philippines pay for balancing act,” and this was certainly noticed in the Philippine press. But then diplomats began to calm the roiled waters. The Joint Statement on Friday after the finish of the 2nd Philippines-United States Bilateral Strategic Dialogue listed a whole host of items being discussed – well beyond a focus on China. Over the weekend, the Presidential Palace in the Philippines insisted that territorial disputes in the South China Sea (which the Philippines calls the West Philippine Sea) was not the main motivation behind the Strategic Dialogue. In turn, the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a more measured statement, taking note of the report. Finally, some U.S. analysts argued that the entire “pivot” to Asia, much less specific U.S.-Philippine initiatives, were “not all about China.”

Read more »

After a series of reports emerged across the archipelago in recent weeks of children being arrested and prosecuted for petty crimes, Indonesians are raising questions about the state of juvenile justice in the country. The first was a confounding case that resonated around the globe: a 15-year-old boy from Central Sulawesi was incarcerated and tried last month after a police officer accused him of stealing a pair of used flip-flops worth about $3. Claims emerged that the boy was badly beaten by police during interrogation, and the officer who reported the minor was formally punished. The case galvanized the Indonesian public, and infuriated citizens collected over a thousand of pairs of sandals and dumped them on the steps of police stations across the country.

Days later, news surfaced of a teenager from West Timor who was put on trial for stealing bouquets of flowers from his aunt, and a Balinese teenager who was tried for stealing a wallet containing Rp. 1,000 (around 10 cents). The cases prompted similar outrage and hatched wry campaigns from a frustrated public, with citizens gathering flowers and coins to mock law enforcers for their heavy-handedness.

Juvenile inmates wait to be inspected at Indonesia's Tangerang Juvenile Prison, located just outside Jakarta. The prison is considered to have the best rehabilitation program and most spacious facilities for young detainees in Indonesia. Photo: Leo Sudaryono.

Sadly, such cases are not uncommon here. If you are a child over the age of eight, are Indonesian or just happen to be in Indonesia, and take someone’s property – intentionally or not – and are then reported to the police, there is a high chance you will be prosecuted. According to UNICEF, around 80 percent of children over age eight who were reported to police ended up being tried, with 91 percent of them spending between three months to three years behind bars. Today, there are 5,515 child inmates in Indonesia, 85 percent of whom are in adult detention facilities.

Read more »

From January 25-29, the world’s most powerful leaders from the public and private sectors gather in the Swiss town of Davos to try to agree on measures that will eventually impact billions of people across the world. The event is being held against an unprecedentedly gloomy global economic picture.

While many Asian nations have shown great resilience to the global economic crisis, the European slowdown is threatening their heavily export-dependent economies. Photo by flickr user OlliL.

The World Bank recently reported that the world economy will grow by only 2.5 percent in 2012, far below initial estimates of 3.6 percent. In Europe, leaders have yet to come up with a comprehensive solution to the eurozone crisis. As a result, World Bank forecasts for eurozone growth are now predicted to be at -0.3 percent, down considerably from a low but slightly positive 1.8 percent. In order to deal with this situation, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde recently called for a “larger firewall” against default in Greece, Spain, and Italy through a European Stability Mechanism (ESM).

While the World Bank predicts a positive growth forecast of 2.2 percent for the United States, problems in the eurozone are having an impact on U.S. growth. The Department of Commerce estimated that U.S. exports to eurozone countries dropped 6 percent in November of last year. In addition, a contentious U.S. election season could give lawmakers an incentive to move slowly on economic issues – including taxes and the budget – which could further impair the U.S. economy.

Read more »

It would be a gross exaggeration to say that panic swept the development community in Manila when word spread that after 12 years on the scene as country representative of The Asia Foundation I was disappearing into a 4-month teaching sabbatical at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, D.C. But some folks – donors, academics, and civil society types – did take notice, occasionally flatteringly making sure I would only be gone a short time.

Truth be told, this absence from the Philippines will be my longest since a 1989 stint at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, and my stay in the States will be my longest since departing for the Philippines in 1981. I’m looking forward to stepping off the treadmill of heading a dynamic office full of energetic, brilliant staff and devoting some deeper thinking time to a wide range of issues.

I’ll be team-teaching “Domestic Politics of Southeast Asia” with Karl Jackson, who directs the SAIS Asian and Southeast Asia Studies programs. I get to talk about the Philippines, a subject which I find endlessly fascinating. (That I have opted to spend my life in the country makes this quite obvious.) The immediate audience will be SAIS graduate students, but I’ll also be engaging in discussions with policy-makers in D.C. and beyond. I’m also looking forward to blogging here weekly during my sabbatical.

Read more »

Weeks into his new post, In Asia editor Alma Freeman spoke with The Asia Foundation’s new Korea country representative, Peter Beck, from Seoul for his insight on South Korea’s domestic politics, North Korea’s transition, Seoul’s new mayor, the contentious National Security Law, and more.

You have lived and worked extensively in South Korea, and you’re an expert on issues related to the region, particularly North Korea. How did you first become interested in Korea?

When I was a college student, my mother worked for United Airlines and I was lucky enough to spend my summers traveling. In the spring of 1987, I visited Seoul on the very eve of Korea’s democratization. Right outside my humble inn I could see students fighting for the freedoms I had been born with. This made a lasting impression on me. I also became fascinated by Korea’s rapid economic development. How did one of the poorest countries in the world develop so quickly?  For me, a dynamic country with friendly people was an unbeatable combination. So, when I got back to college, I immediately started studying Korean and changed my major to Asian Studies.

What do you see as the most critical issues facing the Korean peninsula now?

South Koreans are watching the transition in North Korea closely. The vast majority hope the transition will be smooth and stable. Almost no one here wants a sudden collapse of the North Korean regime.

Domestic politics is also in a state of flux. There is going to be a presidential election here in December and, true to the nature of democracy, it’s too hard to tell who is even in the lead right now. Meanwhile, voting irregularities in the Seoul mayoral election and a still unfolding bribery scandal are rocking the ruling Grand National Party.

In terms of Korean society, the issue that is getting the most attention right now is the education system and in particular the problem with bullying and suicides among students. There is growing public awareness that even though Korean students are some of the best test-takers in the world, more attention needs to be paid to developing students’ social skills and civic values.

On the economic front, Koreans are very anxious about the world economy. Korea is heavily dependent on trade. If Europe goes back into recession and China slows down, that could have a serious impact on the Korean economy.

Read more »

The Economist, in its recent issue “The World in 2012,” gave this thumbnail prediction for India in the New Year: “The Congress-led government is leaking support because of widespread corruption and a patchy economic record… Nevertheless, the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will hold on until the end of its term in 2014 – not least because the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party is equally tarnished. Strong internal growth and foreign demand for India’s services will propel the economy, though the rate of expansion will slow.”

A comparable prediction for the United States in the New Year would be similar, starting with the Obama administration’s own “patchy economic record” and likelihood of slow growth in 2012. Added to this would be the near certainty of continuing, highly partisan battles in Congress and the uncertainties (and risks) associated with a steady stream of foreign policy “flashpoints” from the ongoing military engagement in Afghanistan, to Iran and Iraq, to the Middle East and North Africa.

Read more »

On Monday, Malaysia’s High Court acquitted opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim of sodomy charges after a highly publicized and controversial 2-year trial. As Malaysia looks to elections in 2013, which are widely expected to be called later this year, In Asia‘s editor, Alma Freeman, interviews Herizal Hazri and Nurshafenath Shaharuddin in The Asia Foundation’s Malaysia office for insight into how the verdict could affect elections, Prime Minister Najib Razak’s recent democratic reforms, what this says about the independence of Malaysia’s judiciary, and more.

How is Anwar Ibrahim’s acquittal being received among the public in Malaysia?  

Overall, the verdict has been received positively by the public in Malaysia. Opinions on what positive effects Anwar’s acquittal could have on the political discourse in the country vary depending on political sympathies: pro-Anwar responses generally hail it as a sign for future reforms and Anwar’s innocence in the matter, while pro-establishment responses mark the verdict as a sign of already existing judicial independence and the liberal-mindedness of the Najib administration. For the general public who are not aligned to either Anwar or Najib’s administration, the verdict presents a hope for a more transparent and mature democracy in Malaysia.

Prime Minister Najib said that the verdict exhibits the independence of Malaysia’s judiciary, and that it “will help extend this transparency to all areas of Malaysian life.” What are your thoughts on this?

It is always reassuring to know that the prime minister is focused on reforms, and there have been bold decisions made recently that could promote better transparency in Malaysia, such as the repeal of the Internal Security Act and three Emergency Ordinances, as well as the formation of the Electoral Reform Select Committee. Certainly, and no doubt, Malaysia is transforming. However, I don’t think Anwar Ibrahim’s acquittal should be viewed as an example of the prime minister’s democratic reforms efforts. This verdict came from the strength of the judiciary’s ability to be impartial in exercising its responsibility to uphold law in Malaysia.

Read more »

For much of the past two decades, many Southeast Asians have expressed frustration that U.S. policy treated their region with benign neglect or indifference, and that the United States’ attention was episodic rather than consistent.

In 2011, the Obama administration announced that the U.S. needed to pay greater attention to the Asia-Pacific, particularly Southeast Asia. In the past, many Southeast Asians have expressed frustration that U.S. policy has neglected the region. Photo by Karl Grobl.

In 2011, the Obama administration announced that the U.S. needed to make “a strategic pivot” in its foreign policy, where over the next decade the dynamic will be to downsize the United States’ presence in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and to invest more and pay greater attention to the Asia-Pacific, particularly Southeast Asia. In the past year, Washington accelerated its relations with Southeast Asia in a number of symbolic and important ways. The U.S. was the first non-ASEAN country to establish a dedicated mission to ASEAN in Jakarta, named and confirmed a special representative and policy coordinator for Burma (also known as Myanmar), and expanded and deepened its bilateral relations with most Southeast Asian nations, particularly Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia. Moreover, the Obama administration has made clear that it wants to be involved in regional architecture where ASEAN serves as the “fulcrum,” to borrow Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s word. Hence, the importance of U.S. participation for the first time in the East Asia Summit (EAS) as a full-fledged member this past November in Indonesia. By engaging ASEAN nations, both multilaterally and bilaterally, the U.S. is dispelling the widespread belief in the region that it does not have a sustained commitment to Southeast Asia and its importance in helping to address both regional and global issues.

Read more »

In 2011, Asia grappled with a host of devastating shocks, both natural and man-made. As challenging and economically harsh as they have been, they have provided an opportunity for Asia’s emerging economies to dramatically assert their economic resilience and regional influence.

Despite a suffering global economy Asia, mostly driven by emerging super-powers like China and India, has emerged as a credible long-term partner for the United States and the European Union.

Despite a global economy plagued by low economic growth, high unemployment rates, and threatening debt levels, Asia has emerged as a credible long-term partner for the United States and the European Union, shedding its long-familiar image as merely a trade partner. Driven by emerging super-powers like China and India, Asia in 2012 is more self-confident in positioning itself as a global economic, financial, and political power.

A Year of Challenges

In 2011, two major natural disasters underscored Asia’s place at the center of global trade. March’s massive 9.0 earthquake off the northeast coast of Japan and subsequent tsunami constituted the most expensive natural disaster on global record, with a total estimated cost of $235 billion, according to the World Bank. In Thailand, monsoon flooding over the past six months has resulted in approximately $45 billion in economic losses thus far. In both cases, global supply chains were severely disrupted, sending ripple effects through the global economy.

Additionally, a stagnating eurozone and anemic U.S. recovery have created market anxieties over the strength of Asia’s own recovery. While Asia’s emerging economies are still on a growth trajectory, slumping global trade tied to a potential slide of the eurozone and the U.S. economies back into recession could slow Asia’s growth significantly. At the same time, Asia’s two largest emerging economies face serious domestic challenges of their own. China may find itself face-to-face with its own real estate bubble in 2012, and critics are quick to point out that consumer spending and household consumption lag far behind overall growth. Meanwhile, India’s large fiscal deficits threaten to derail its already slowing recovery. The government now faces the stark choice of raising taxes, which may further dampen growth, or cutting popular programs for the poor.

Read more »

Indonesia’s economy could grow even faster than its current rate of around 6 percent, according to a statement made by Vice President Boediono last week, if the government and private sector worked together to overcome a major technical hurdle – infrastructure.

The collapse of one of Indonesia's longest bridges, above, on November 26 took the lives of more than 20 people. Despite concerns over technical problems, the local government did not allocate funds for repairs until this fiscal year. Wikimedia Commons: Katakutu.

And, it’s not just Boediono who feels this way: 38 percent of 12,391 private firms – mostly small and medium enterprises – surveyed in the 2011 Local Economic Governance Survey also named infrastructure constraints as their main impediment to growth. The Asia Foundation and Regional Autonomy Watch (KPPOD) have implemented four such surveys since 2007, covering 444 districts (90 percent of all districts in Indonesia). Of the nine aspects of local economic governance covered, infrastructure has consistently been identified as the most important factor.

Roads, water supply, and street lighting – all of which are managed by local governments in Indonesia – were considered to be in bad condition by more than 40 percent of firms surveyed. The most likely cause of this sobering statistic is the limited funds allocated for infrastructure development. In June 2011, Standard Chartered Bank estimated that less than 5 percent of the $145 billion worth of infrastructure projects earmarked at the beginning of President Yudhoyono’s first term in 2004 had been completed. Local government road budgets were, on average, only about one quarter of the amount needed for periodic maintenance according to a local budget study conducted by the Indonesian Forum for Budget Transparency (Fitra). Funds lost to corruption in procurement and implementation of infrastructure projects is another pressing issue.

Read more »