Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Can Malaysia become the Norway of South-east Asia?

The world was shocked and enthralled by the recent Malaysian general election’s outcome that swept the then opposition, Pakatan Harapan, into power and ousted the 61-year-old Barisan Nasional regime. With the new government helmed by the former prime minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, starting to drive policies of the country, there has not been much discussion so far on PH’s ambitious vision of positioning Malaysia as a “middle power” within the international community.

In the next five years or so, Malaysia’s foreign policy will be moulded and executed in a way that projects itself as an ethical power in the international arena, says the author.

In the next five years or so, Malaysia’s foreign policy will be moulded and executed in a way that projects itself as an ethical power in the international arena, says the author.

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

The world was shocked and enthralled by the recent Malaysian general election’s outcome that swept the then opposition, Pakatan Harapan, into power and ousted the 61-year-old Barisan Nasional regime.

With the new government helmed by the former prime minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, starting to drive policies of the country, there has not been much discussion so far on PH’s ambitious vision of positioning Malaysia as a “middle power” within the international community.

Sceptics of, or those unfamiliar with, Malaysian foreign policy will find such a middle-power vision unrealistic and not feasible to start with.

On the surface, the country does not enjoy the luxuries of a sizable economy, strong military or even huge population that speaks of the country’s market potential.  

From this perspective, Malaysia is certainly incomparable with Australia, Japan, Canada, South Korea and the European Union – actors that command sizable economies and stronger militaries but are still behind the great powers of the United States and China.

To name them as middle powers, therefore, is not a misnomer. They are, in fact, playing the roles of such powers in both regional and global affairs. But such conditions should not become the sole criterion in measuring any nation-state as a middle power or otherwise.

For a start, the concept of middle power is not new and the term itself is repeatedly used across centuries by Mencius, Bartolus de Saxaferrato and Giovanni Botero.

All of these ancient thinkers, nevertheless, are interested in the sizes and capabilities of fiefdoms, city-states and imperial states – the most palpable standards in defining “middle powers” in their respective eras.

Fast forward to the 21st century, such a concept, however, began to take broader and deeper connotation.

While distinguished scholar, Andrew Carr, divided contemporary middle powers based on their national capabilities, consensus-building actions and constructivist roles in international institutions, University of Melbourne's Allan Patience, on the other hand, provided a more eloquent conceptualisation of the middle powers in the contemporary world order.

Within Dr Patience’s categorisation, there are three groups of middle powers as to date: dependent middle powers, regional middle powers and middle powers as global citizens.

Whereas dependent middle powers are understood as those states that are tied to alliances with great powers and have lesser or negligible influences in regional or global affairs (such as Australia), regional middle powers are those that wield significant influences in regional affairs, such as the likes of European Union and Asean.

Aside from these two groups, there are also those middle powers which command respect for their ethical leaderships in international organisations but do not enjoy any alliance with great powers or wield any significant regional influence.

As such, Norway is being acknowledged by Dr Patience as the state that falls under this specific category.

In the case of Malaysia, PH has been clear in pivoting the country’s foreign policy along such a line.

In its Buku Harapan election manifesto, the alliance pledged to return Malaysia to a non-aligned country’s position – a status conveniently cast aside by the previous Najib administration for the need of hinging closer to the nation’s closest trading partner, China, for huge economic benefits and monetary support from the latter.

Restoring Malaysia into a non-aligned country status, therefore, postulates the country back into neutral ground – a pre-condition for the new government to drive its middle-power visionary agenda.

Altogether, there are four focus areas for such endeavours: good governance, human rights advancement, leadership in the Muslim world and sustainable development.

In terms of good governance, the Mahathir 2.0 administration is expected to participate in the multilateral open government partnership (OGP) initiative – a platform for national and sub-national governments to collectively promote open government, empower citizens, eradicate corruption and utilise new technologies for the pursuits of good governance.

As a new government, joining the OGP initiative itself is the first step in demonstrating to the world of Malaysia’s fortitude to install the rules, norms and practices of good governance within its domestic institutions and diplomatic conduct.

Moreover, the OGP’s membership is expected to boost Malaysia’s chances of becoming a full member-state of the Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) – ending the seven-year wait for the nation.

Should it become a reality, Malaysia will be the first Southeast Asian nation to join such respected global body known for its high compliance standards of transparency, accountability, inclusive growth and open society.

As far as human rights advancement is concerned, PH has vowed to ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention as part of its pledge to tackle the Rohingya refugee issue.

This includes ending the “temporary hosting” policy of the previous government and granting them legal status as “refugees” in the country.

Such tangible efforts will provide long-term solution to the Rohingya refugee crisis as they will no longer face the risk of repatriation back to their country (where they will likely face persecution), allow them to have access to proper jobs, healthcare and education as well as reduce the discriminations they faced here.

Aside from such a principled stance towards the Rohingya issue, it is expected that the new foreign minister will bring Malaysia’s activism into both regional and global institutions.

These may include proactively working within Asean-related bodies, such as the Asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights as well as cooperating with like-minded countries, such as Indonesia, to induce the Myanmar government to seek long-term solutions to this trans-national issue.

On the global front, it is foreseeable that the new Malaysian administration will work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to lobby various countries in pressuring Naypyidaw to extend full cooperation to the agency in handling the Rohingya refugee crisis.

In all, the PH government seeks to distinguish its Rohingya policy from its predecessor’s, which had been criticised for failing to provide long-term efforts in tackling the Rohingya problem.

As for the Muslim world, the new government is looking to exert leadership in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) from two fronts.

First is to proactively search for resolutions to the Palestinian issue in the OIC.

This will entail closer cooperation with the Muslim countries, especially regional powers, such as Turkey and Indonesia, to discuss and collectively implement successive measures on the Palestinian question within the OIC and beyond.

Arguably, one of the possible aims for these deliberations is to persuade the wider international community to recognise East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.

Second, Malaysia is eyeing the secretary-general post of the OIC after more than four decades.

Once held by the first prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, who became OIC’s first secretary-general from 1970 to 1974, helming such a position will not only rebrand Malaysia as one of the moderate leaders of the Muslim world but more importantly, it also facilitates the effective exercise of the country’s leadership within the OIC.

Finally, the PH government is bound to play an active role in realising the United Nations Development Programme’s Sustainable Development Goals 2030 (also known as Global Goals) in the next five years or so.

But this particular goal is the most elusive among the four pillars of its middle-power vision.

On top of the clear absence of tangible measures to spur Malaysia into one of the important contributors to the Sustainable Development Goals, PH also lacks a detailed plan to influence the implementation of the 17 Global Goals or within the UNDP itself.

But as a political coalition that prides itself on the environmentally friendly and poverty alleviation measures installed during its state-level administration in Selangor and Penang, it is predicted that the new federal government will likewise exercise its influence in these two areas (part of the 17 Global Goals) to accelerate the implementation of the Global Goals internationally.

The challenges for such “middle power” quest, of course, are huge and multi-faceted.

As far as Asean is concerned, Malaysia’s activism on the Rohingya issue will continue to put into question the regional bloc’s principle of non-interference of one’s internal affairs.

How to strike the right balance on this regional issue will be a huge challenge for Putrajaya in pursuing its activism approach.

Furthermore, the recent proposal to establish the Asian version of G7 grouping has the impacts of isolating Asean and smaller states like Malaysia, in its course of gathering the most powerful states in the region (China, Japan, South Korea, India, Indonesia) into one single bloc.

How to remain relevant in this forthcoming situation is worthy of consideration by the Malaysian government and foreign service.

Lastly, in seeking leadership and proactive player in the Muslim world, Malaysia will have to prepare confronting the US on various Middle East issues.

It is entirely possible that we may see the return of the same challenge in managing Malaysia's bilateral relations with Washington, as faced by the previous Mahathir administration.

In the next five years or so, Malaysia’s foreign policy will be moulded and executed in a way that projects itself as an ethical power in the international arena.

In adaptation to the term used by Democratic Action Party politician Liew Chin Tong, Malaysia is constructing itself into an ethical middle power that exercises moral leadership and activism at both regional and global fronts.

But only with skilful diplomacy and strong political will can we really translate such constructive ideas into concrete actions, and thereby, potentially become the “Norway of Southeast Asia”. THE MALAYSIAN INSIGHT

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Karl C.L. Lee is PhD candidate at the School of Arts and Social Sciences, Monash University (Malaysia) and visiting scholar at Guangxi University for Nationalities.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.