By TENGKU NOOR SHAMSIAH TENGKU ABDULLAH
KUALA LUMPUR: As Southeast Asia confronts an era of intensifying great-power rivalry, the question facing ASEAN is no longer whether it can lead the regional order, but whether it was ever designed to do so. In a year-end interview with TNS News, Dr Oh Ei Sun, Senior Fellow at the Singapore Institute of International Affairs (SIIA) and a long-time observer of regional geopolitics, offers a clear-eyed assessment of ASEAN’s structural limits.
His central argument is unambiguous: balance—not strategic autonomy—has always defined ASEAN’s role. Against this backdrop, Malaysia’s ASEAN chairmanship in 2025 stands out not for grand declarations, but for disciplined pragmatism in navigating U.S.–China tensions while preserving regional stability.
ASEAN and the Security Question: Designed to Stabilise, Not Command
Dr Oh is unequivocal in his assessment of ASEAN’s role in regional security. From its earliest foundations, he noted, ASEAN was never meant to drive the regional security agenda.
“ASEAN by itself has never really driven the regional security agenda,” he said, pointing out that security responsibilities in Asia have historically been shouldered by the United States and its allies, including Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
As a result, ASEAN evolved as a complementary platform rather than a commanding force—one that facilitates dialogue rather than dictates outcomes.
“ASEAN has always played a complementary role, sometimes even just providing good offices for various warring or antagonistic parties to engage in negotiations.”
This explains the emphasis on mechanisms such as the ASEAN Regional Forum and the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus: useful for confidence-building and communication, but never intended as instruments of hard security leadership.
Economic Integration: Progress Without Full Ownership
On the economic front, Dr Oh acknowledged that ASEAN has made more headway, particularly through the ASEAN Economic Community and participation in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). Even here, however, ASEAN’s agency remains constrained.
Financial software
“In a sense, RCEP is very much driven by China,” he observed.
ASEAN, in his view, is still in the process of carving out a more proactive economic role, operating within frameworks largely shaped by larger economies. Integration exists, but agenda-setting power remains limited.
groups who form the backbone of the electorate.
Policy reversals, in this context, are not anomalies.
“Sometimes a new policy is drawn up, only to be withdrawn a few months later after very negative popular feedback,” he observed, describing it as the natural outcome of competitive politics rather than policy incoherence.
The Real Strategic Risk: External Shocks and Internal Gaps
Ironically, Dr Oh identified Malaysia’s greatest security risk not as military or diplomatic, but economic.
Financial software
“Because we have an outward-looking economy, we are very much influenced by the worldwide economic climate,” he said.
A global slowdown would quickly reduce demand for Malaysian exports. Compounding this vulnerability is a widening perception gap.
“We keep saying that we are doing quite well economically, but many small and medium businesses and lower-income groups are simply not feeling it.”
Bridging this gap, he stressed, will be one of Malaysia’s defining challenges heading into 2026.
Conclusion: Balance as ASEAN’s Enduring Strength
As 2025 ends, ASEAN’s relevance lies not in claims of autonomy, but in its capacity to manage balance amid pressures it cannot escape. As Dr Oh Ei Sun makes clear, Southeast Asia was never designed to command the regional order—only to prevent it from fracturing. Malaysia’s ASEAN chairmanship reflected this reality: effective not because it redefined the rules, but because it worked within them. In an era of heightened rivalry and fragile domestic confidence, balance remains ASEAN’s quiet strength—and its most realistic path forward.
Source – TNS NEWS
