Tag: ASEAN

  • ASEAN Summit: Beyond Borders and Hopes for Fair Inclusivity

    ASEAN Summit: Beyond Borders and Hopes for Fair Inclusivity

    In a time when the global order is increasingly shaped by rivalry, protectionism, and digital divides, the ASEAN Summit stands as one of the few platforms where developing nations gather not merely to defend their interests but to design their shared future. The 46th ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, is more than a diplomatic meeting. The summit is a reminder that Southeast Asia’s collective voice matters. It symbolizes how unity among developing nations can transcend historical boundaries, nurture inclusivity, and build a fairer regional community.

    ASEAN was never conceived as a power bloc but as a bridge between economies, between cultures, and between stages of development. Unlike many international forums dominated by major powers, ASEAN’s strength lies in its diversity. Ten countries, and to be eleven with Timor-Leste, bring unique histories, religions, and governance models under a single umbrella. This diversity, often seen as a challenge, has become ASEAN’s greatest asset. The diversity shows that peace and cooperation among developing states are not only possible but productive.

    For Southeast Asia, the concept of fair inclusivity goes beyond economics. It touches on the right of each nation, large or small, to have a voice in shaping the regional agenda. The inclusion of Timor-Leste in 2025 embodies this principle. As the region’s youngest and smallest state, its admission reflects ASEAN’s moral commitment to solidarity and development over mere strategic convenience. Inclusivity, in this context, is not charity; it is the foundation of sustainable peace and collective progress.

    The summit’s theme, Inclusivity and Sustainability, reflects the dual challenge of the 21st century: growth that benefits all and development that endures. ASEAN economies, although varied in size and structure, share similar aspirations, including modernization, digital readiness, and equitable prosperity. By fostering a shared regional identity, ASEAN helps member states collectively resist the widening global inequality gap that leaves developing nations perpetually behind.

    Strategically, ASEAN sits at one of the most vital crossroads in the world, between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, between East and West, between tradition and innovation. Its geography makes it an essential hub for trade, logistics, and supply chain resilience. But more importantly, its moral geography, its position as a neutral, peace-oriented bloc, makes it a rare model of cooperation in a fragmented world. ASEAN’s balancing act between global powers offers lessons on how small and medium states can retain agency in international affairs.

    The economic dimension of the ASEAN Summit cannot be overlooked. With a combined population exceeding 680 million and a GDP surpassing US$4.3 trillion, ASEAN is projected to become the world’s fourth-largest economy by 2030. Yet its real power lies not in its statistics but in its philosophy: growth through cooperation rather than domination. Initiatives like the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), and the ASEAN Digital Economy Framework Agreement represent steps toward that vision.

    However, inclusivity must be tested in practice, not just declared in speeches. The region’s disparities in income, digital access, and institutional capacity remain stark. Some nations are global manufacturing hubs, while others struggle with poverty and instability. The ASEAN Summit, therefore, serves as a platform for mutual learning, where successful models of governance, education, and technology can be shared and adapted across borders. The collective aim is not uniformity but shared advancement.

    Beyond economics, ASEAN carries a profound social responsibility. The region’s young population, half under the age of 35, faces an uncertain global future marked by automation and climate disruption. By prioritizing human capital, technical education, and sustainable industries, ASEAN can chart a development path that empowers its youth while respecting local identities. This approach reflects an emerging paradigm: development rooted in culture, ethics, and community.

    In addressing challenges such as the Myanmar crisis or transboundary haze pollution, ASEAN’s diplomacy emphasizes consensus and dialogue. Though sometimes criticized for its slow pace, this model prioritizes stability over coercion. It recognizes that transformation in developing societies must come through gradual institutional building, not external pressure. The ASEAN Way, based on mutual respect and non-interference, may seem cautious, but it preserves trust in a region historically scarred by colonial divisions.

    The spirit of beyond borders is not merely geographical. It signifies the psychological shift from narrow nationalism to regional empathy. When ASEAN leaders speak of connectivity, they mean more than roads or fiber cables; they speak of people’s hearts, students, workers, and entrepreneurs, linking across the archipelago and the peninsula, across faiths and languages. Every summit reaffirms that the prosperity of one nation enhances the stability of all.

    The digital economy has become ASEAN’s new frontier. With initiatives on smart cities, fintech regulation, and cross-border data flow, the region is transforming from a production zone into an innovation space. Yet digital transformation must be inclusive, bridging the rural-urban gap and empowering MSMEs. The summit discussions reflect this awareness, as leaders increasingly view technology not as an elite tool but as a public good.

    Sustainability is another pillar of the 2025 agenda. From green energy transitions to climate-resilient agriculture, ASEAN’s environmental initiatives signify a growing consciousness of collective responsibility. Developing nations, often the first to suffer climate impacts, now position themselves as proactive actors in global sustainability. The region’s renewable energy potential, from geothermal in Indonesia to solar in Malaysia, offers both economic and ecological hope.

    Beyond its institutional role, ASEAN represents a moral experiment in how developing nations can govern themselves through shared ethics. It challenges the notion that progress must follow Western models. Instead, it offers a civilizational narrative rooted in Asian values, respect, harmony, and community-driven development. These values give ASEAN’s inclusivity not just an economic but also a cultural legitimacy.

    As global politics tilt toward polarization, ASEAN’s quiet diplomacy provides an alternative vision of coexistence. Its ability to engage both the United States and China without becoming a pawn illustrates the value of collective neutrality. The bloc’s centrality in regional dialogues, from the East Asia Summit to ASEAN+3, ensures that Southeast Asian perspectives remain integral to the global agenda.

    Ultimately, the ASEAN Summit is a mirror of the region’s aspirations: a fairer, more balanced future where every nation, regardless of size, contributes to the mosaic of progress. Beyond borders means daring to imagine a community not confined by geography but bound by shared destiny. For Southeast Asia and other developing regions, ASEAN’s story is not merely just about survival. It is about the dignity of shaping one’s own future in a world too often defined by others.

  • The New Era of Garuda-Danantara Partnership

    The New Era of Garuda-Danantara Partnership

    In a defining moment for Indonesia’s economic trajectory, the government has initiated the Garuda–Danantara investment, a strategic move designed to reignite the nation’s industrial economy post-covid revival through government link company (GLC/BUMN). Representing resilience and national pride, the Garuda–Danantara partnership integrates the strength of state-owned enterprises, investment body, and investors frameworks under one unified vision: to transform Indonesia into a modern, competitive, and sustainable industrial powerhouse.

    President Prabowo Subianto’s administration has positioned the Danantara initiative as a central pillar of its bold vision to transform the economy and long-term growth strategy. The plan emphasizes BUMN management approach, revitalization, and innovation as the drivers of national economy progress. Beyond accelerating investment expansion, it seeks to restore Indonesia’s economic sovereignty after years of structural dependence on investment and capital crisis.

    Functioning as a hybrid national investment model, Danantara operates under a coordinated structure, part state-led, part market-driven, enabling capital to flow efficiently into productive and emerging industries such as defense, manufacturing, renewable energy, logistics, and digital infrastructure. Danantara-BUMN framework represents “a new investment ecosystem, not merely a funding scheme.”

    Through this national investment body, the government aims to promote strategic autonomy by accelerating domestic productivity of key industrial economic systems. This approach supports Indonesia’s ambition to reduce the BUMN deficit, boost productivity, and strengthen domestic value creation across priority sectors.

    Amid the national optimism, Garuda Indonesia, the country’s flagship airlinem remains a critical test case for the success of the Danantara investment framework. After years of financial turbulence and negative equity exceeding Rp20 trillion, Garuda’s recovery has been a matter of national concern. The company, once a proud symbol of Indonesian excellence, has been constrained by high debt servicing costs, limited cash flow, and rising operational expenses following the pandemic downturn.

    Under the new framework, Danantara investment stepped in as a strategic investor, injecting Rp30 trillion into Garuda through a private capital participation scheme equivalent increase to approximately 93.5 percent ownership . This infusion effectively transforms Garuda’s balance sheet, turning its equity position from negative to positive territory for the first time in nearly a decade. The restructuring ensures that Garuda not only stabilizes financially but also regains access to credit facilities and international partnerships critical for global operations.

    This investment marks more than a financial turnaround; it represents a renewal of national confidence in Garuda’s role as Indonesia’s aviation ambassador. With its excellent service quality, strong safety record, and global brand recognition, Garuda Indonesia is once again positioned for sustainable growth. The Danantara investment thus stands as a decisive and forward-looking move, aligning financial health with national strategic interests and reaffirming the government’s commitment to revitalizing vital state enterprises.

    Economic observers and business associations have expressed optimism that this initiative will shift Indonesia’s economic narrative, from reliance on resource extraction to high-value industrial economic production. The IHSG’s market recent turbulence shocks in early October underscores renewed market antusiam on Garuda stock which still on FCA (Full Call Auction) list. Furthermore, this initiative are worth to appraise.

    Ultimately, Garuda–Danantara stands as more than an investment initiative, it is a national economy transformation framework. With unified leadership, coherent planning, and disciplined execution, it can become the cornerstone of Indonesia’s long-term journey toward inclusive, resilient, and sustainable prosperity.

  • Prabowo’s Ideological Social Program and Engineering-Wise

    Prabowo’s Ideological Social Program and Engineering-Wise

    As President Prabowo approaches his first year in office, we see that he is perhaps the only Indonesian president in the Reformasi era who has directly implemented the fundamental programs based on the Asta Cita political promises in less than a year. Prabowo’s flagship programs include free nutritious meals (MBG), the Red and White Village Cooperatives program, 19 million jobs, 3 million houses for the people, and agrarian reform, which involves expanding access to land for the people.

    The acceleration of these Asta Cita-based programs has certainly not been without obstacles. The creation of quality jobs has been hampered by the global economic slowdown and budget austerity policies, which have hampered economic growth. The MBG program has been hampered by cases of food poisoning affecting 5,194 receivers, including schoolchildren, pregnant women, and breastfeeding mothers. Cooperative programs, public housing, and others have been hampered by bureaucratic preparedness and ministers who do not understand Prabowo’s ideological programs.

    Not to mention the stance of academics and activists, such as the Aliansi Ekonom Indonesia dan Aliansi Akademisi dan Aktivis Peduli Masa Depan Indonesia , who reject Prabowo’s social programs, such as the MBG (Indonesian Development Goals) and Cooperatives, as populist and anti-democratic. The label of Prabowo’s social programs as populist and anti-democratic by academics and activists, most of whom are economists, legal practitioners, and doctors, is actually interesting, because populism is essentially a political style that emphasizes siding with the people (populares) and is the opposite of elitism, which emphasizes the exclusivity and privileges of the elite.

    By labeling Prabowo a populist, does this alliance of economists, legal practitioners, and doctors represent the interests of elites who are disturbed by Prabowo’s social programs, which are actually ideological? If they prioritize the interests of the elite status quo, how can they consider themselves to be upholding democracy?

    Populism is an Ideological and Democratic Attitude!

    Despite experiencing pejorative influence, populism, as a political style that emphasizes siding with the plight of the common people, is born from an ideological stance. The founding of the Republic of Indonesia, based on Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution, had the ideological goal of realizing social justice for all people. This means that if the government, as the state administrator, wishes to implement social programs, the benefits of justice must be felt by all citizens as a substantial manifestation of democracy.

    Contrast this with the policies of the 27 years of Reformasi, which were designed by elitist and pragmatic economists. Their formula for dealing with crises has always been deregulation, debureaucratization, and targeted social policies, specifically for the poor. However, according to the Statistics Bureau (BPS), Indonesia’s social structure is dominated by 66.35 % middle class and is moving towards the middle class.

    So, for economists, deregulation, debureaucratization, and targeted social policies are like magic mantras for all situations, both crisis and normal, like Pak Pung Oil, which is effective for all kinds of sickness!

    Pragmatic policies are indeed a kind of religion for mainstream economists. We certainly remember how mainstream economists like Dr. Sjahrir, Dr. Sri Mulyani, and Dr. Sri Adiningsih agreed to remove the principle of kinship from the fourth amendment to Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution, arguing that this principle was the cause of corruption, collusion, and nepotism during the New Order era.

    Instead of refining the principle of kinship with more ideological principles such as democratic equality and brotherhood, Ciil and Duo Sri instead sought to incorporate the principle of efficiency as the foundation of our country’s economy. Efficiency is, of course, a principle that encompasses the agenda of deregulation, debureaucratization, and targeted social policies, including liberalization and privatization, the neolib mantra of the Washington Consensus from multilateral institutions like the World Bank, WTO, and IMF.

    Prabowo, who repeatedly stated in his Gerindra Party declaration and election campaign that he wanted to restore Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution to its original form, would certainly not align with the elitist-pragmatic economists who carry this neolib mantra. And neoliberal mantra chanters will always label their ideological opponents as anti-democratic, even though it has been repeatedly emphasized that Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution is an effort to improve democracy in the areas of economic development and social welfare, not just politics.

    The Urgency of an Engineering-Wise Attitude

    In building his government, Prabowo’s choice to rely on academics and practitioners with backgrounds in mathematics, engineering, and agriculture (STEM) signifies a paradigm shift from a conservative-pragmatic, cautious policy to a progressive-ideological, engineering-wise approach. Government portfolios covering the health, nutrition, higher education, and financial sectors are held by figures with engineering-wise thinking.

    Therefore, in the petition, in the articles published by Aliansi Ekonom dan Aliansi Akademisi dan Aktivis Peduli Masa Depan Indonesia, you won’t find academics or activists with backgrounds in mathematics, engineering, or agriculture. An engineering-wise perspective almost always synergizes with the perspectives of politicians with military backgrounds like Prabowo, especially since military science is essentially science and engineering for the purposes of war.

    The engineering-wise perspective is a unique approach to implementing state policy. First, engineering-wise views all problems, whether simple or complex, whether regular, complex, random, or irregular, as things that can be structured, patterned, and analyzed using mathematical formulations, and can be explained in human language that is easily understood by the public.

    Second, engineering-wise views every problem as having a solution, constraints that can be engineered, and limitations or boundaries that cannot be violated. Therefore, every engineer is essentially a disciplined problem solver, and the constraints and limitations encountered in life are actually answers to the universe, which, based on God’s Law, will always strive to find equilibrium, like connecting vessels in a physics and chemistry laboratory.

    Third, engineering wisdom always considers building sustainable systems. An engineering-wise person will never just solve short-term problems, but also long-term and sustainable solutions for the future.

    An engineering-wise perspective is most appropriate for development in a democracy that allows for differences in political views and attitudes. Consider President Habibie, a politician with a background in aircraft engineering. He was able to use the principles of aerodynamics and aeronautics to implement economic policies, which helped economic growth rise from minus 13 percent to minus 4 percent, and the dollar exchange rate to the rupiah dropped from 16,000 to 6,700.

    But look at what the neolib economists of the Ciil and Sri camps did? They continued to criticize Dr.-Ing Habibie’s abilities even as he successfully rescued the nation’s economy from the monetary crisis. Public distrust grew stronger, until Habibie’s accountability report was ultimately rejected by the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), and he was not willing to be nominated for reelection as President of the Republic of Indonesia.

    Conclusion

    The Prabowo administration should be able to resolve the problems it faces in implementing its ideological social policies with an engineering-wise perspective. We see figures with backgrounds in mathematics and engineering becoming important officials in Prabowo’s regime. Politicians in Prabowo’s inner circle, Gerindra, generally have backgrounds in mathematics and engineering, such as Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives Prof. Dr. Ir. Sufmi Dasco Ahmad (Electrical Engineering), Minister of State Secretary Prasetyo Hadi (Forestry), Minister of Foreign Affairs Sugiono (Computer Engineering), Deputy Minister of Agriculture Sudaryono (Mechanical Engineering), and Pertamina President Director Simon Aloysius Mantiri (Marine Engineering).

    Six ministers and one agency head are professionals, academics, and bureaucrats with backgrounds in mathematics and engineering from Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB): Minister of Finance Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa (Electrical Engineering), Minister of Health Budi Gunadi Sadikin (Physics), Minister of Public Works Dody Hanggodo (Petroleum Engineering), Minister of Higher Education Brian Yuliarto (Engineering Physics), Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Sakti Wahyu Trenggono (Industrial Engineering), Minister of Manpower Yassierli (Industrial Engineering), and Head of the Statistics Indonesia (BPS) Amalia Adininggar Widyasanti (Chemical Engineering). Minister/Head of Bappenas Rachmat Pambudy is a livestock engineer, and Head of the National Development Planning Agency (BGN) Dadan Hindayana is an agricultural engineer from Bogor Agricultural University (IPB).

    As a Cabinet dominated by politicians and professionals with an engineering-minded approach, the scientists and engineers in the Prabowo regime are certainly capable of structuring and finding solutions to existing problems, obstacles, and limitations, and developing these ideological policies into long-term programs. And of course, scientists and engineers can address the increasingly evolving dynamics of democracy in society. After all, Prabowo’s ideological social programs can only be sustainable if they are trusted by the public, right?

    Let us embrace the changing tide of the times, from a conservative-pragmatic era that favored chanting the mantras of the neoliberal elite to development with ideological nuances, even tending towards socialism. We must face a few difficulties to realize the shared happiness of the Indonesian nation. Let us face these difficulties with science and technology.

  • Privacy Poverty – Lessons for Malaysia’s Digital Future?

    Privacy Poverty – Lessons for Malaysia’s Digital Future?

    Privacy in the digital age is often discussed as a universal right, but in reality, the poor face very different challenges in exercising it. “Privacy poverty” refers to the unique vulnerability of those living in poverty or unprivileged circumstances, who are often forced to surrender personal information simply to access aid, services, or recognition. Far from being indifferent, poor communities make difficult trade-offs, choosing between visibility for survival and the preservation of their personal boundaries.

    This reality was captured powerfully by a group of researchers in India who studied the country’s Aadhaar national biometric system—the world’s largest digital identity program. Their article, “The Poverty of Privacy: Understanding Privacy Trade-Offs From Identity Infrastructure Users in India”, revealed how people with low income often compromise privacy to gain access to essential benefits. Many gave up data regardless of the credibility of the collector, the clarity of purpose, or the existence of safeguards, fearing exclusion if they declined. The study also highlighted that even in poverty, individuals care about privacy—they calculate when to give up visibility and when to protect their information. This confirms that privacy is not a luxury, but a right that the poor value as much as the affluent.

    Malaysia today faces a moment where this lesson is highly relevant. In recent years, the government has introduced or updated major legal instruments to strengthen data governance and security. The amendment to the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 [Act 709], the new Cyber Security Act 2024 [Act 854], and the Data Sharing Act 2025 [Act 864]. Alongside these, the Ministry of Home Affairs recently tabled the National Registration (Amendment) Bill 2025, which aims to give statutory recognition to MyDigital ID as a valid identification document.

    MyDigital ID has sparked much debate on privacy and security. While its framework ensures that personal data is only verified against government databases and not retained by MyDigital ID itself, public concerns remain. Expanding biometric data collection raises questions about consent, purpose limitation, and safeguards—issues that disproportionately affect those in vulnerable or low-income groups.

    Here lies the lesson from India: building digital identity systems is not only about security and efficiency but also about protecting the dignity of those who cannot afford to “trade” their privacy. Malaysia’s strong legal foundation must now be matched by deliberate policies that:

    • Ensure informed consent is genuine,
    • Limit the use of personal data strictly to its intended purposes, and
    • Build credible safeguards that reassure all citizens—especially the poor—that their data will not be misused or exposed.

    It may be inappropriate to directly compare India’s Aadhaar system with Malaysia’s MyDigital ID, given their different purposes and designs. But acknowledging privacy poverty is not about rejecting MyDigital ID. It is about ensuring that digital transformation protects the most vulnerable, recognising them not merely as data subjects but as rights-bearing individuals. Safeguarding privacy in contexts of poverty is not an act of charity—it is an act of justice.