Understanding Trump’s Tactics

In the first few weeks since his inauguration, President Donald Trump followed through on his campaign promises to impose tariffs on other countries.

Initially, his administration imposed 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico – except for energy imports from Canada at 10% – plus additional 10% tariffs on all Chinese products coming into the United States.

The media and pundits quickly signalled the return of Trump’s trade war. However, it is worth considering that Trump’s imposition of high tariffs is not an end in itself – it is part and parcel of his psychological warfare with other countries.

This was demonstrated when Trump decided to delay the tariffs on Canada and Mexico after “fruitful” discussions with both countries’ leaders. In this regard, tariffs should be understood simply as an economic tool to achieve the United States’ national interests, though critics have decried and deemed it illegal.

Trump’s co-written book The Art of the Deal gives an insight into his aggressive and assertive negotiation tactics in doing business, which he has applied to his political game as well. This negotiation style involves setting the initial terms aggressively – terms which may be bold and ambitious – to set the standard and tone of the negotiations around this reference point.

This is called the anchoring tactic, though he likes to impose extreme terms to turn the negotiations in his favour. His recent ordeals with Mexico and Canada exemplify this – he has also issued follow-up threats of increased tariffs should these countries retaliate.

Trump understands that his unpredictability has given him an advantage over others, thus making his threats more effective. He succeeded; following these salvo of threats, Canada and Mexico agreed to address the issue of drug smuggling and illegal immigration in exchange for a one-month pause in tariffs.

Unlike his first term – which saw him imposing tariffs on others and allowing negotiations only after some time had passed – this time he had reached an agreement with Canada and Mexico before any real actions were taken.

This is exactly what Trump hopes to achieve. He is using aggressive tactics by instilling fear and unpredictability to get what he wants before really starting a tariff war. In fact, a tariff war might be something that he does not desire after all, as it would cause inflation in the United States.

Sun Tzu might have approved – in The Art of War,he postulated that a “skillful leader subdues the enemy’s troops without any fighting.”

Past Lessons

As this is his second and last presidency, Trump understands that he is running out of time to achieve his political agenda. He hopes to quickly achieve concessions that others will make in exchange for not imposing high tariffs.

Although Trump has toyed with the idea of running for a third term, the odds are almost zero. The US Constitution limits a person from getting elected more than twice as a president and it would be very difficult to amend the constitution because of its rigidity.

Constitutional expert Bruce Fein argues that one possible way for Trump to hold on to power is by disregarding the law, though this is very unlikely to happen given that the United States has a long democratic tradition that provides checks and balances. A case in point: Trump’s bid to hold onto power after he lost the 2020 election was unsuccessful.

Even more important is that Trump seemed to have learned lessons from his first presidency.

After a years-long trade war with China, Trump concluded his Phase One trade deal successfully. This trade deal appeared to be a massive victory for the United States, as China pledged to protect intellectual property rights and agreed to purchase more goods from the United States to correct the trade imbalance between both countries. However, China failed to fulfil its obligations under the Phase One trade deal.

Trump is not keen to repeat this mistake, which could explain why Trump would want to achieve concessions as soon as possible.

He is using this plan of reciprocal tariffs as a bargaining tool for countries to reduce tariffs or eliminate non-tariff barriers.

A recent poll run by Reuters showed that over 90% of economists believe that the rapidly shifting trade policies would increase the likelihood of a recession, which could lead to unintended consequences of Trump’s own doing. This is a situation that Trump would want to avoid.

Weeks before he unveiled his “Liberation Day” plan, Trump also announced the imposition of 25% tariffs on all aluminium and steel imported to the United States without any exceptions or exemptions.

Interestingly, after a phone call with Australia’s prime minister, Trump said that an exemption for Australia is under consideration, given that Australia is one of the few countries with which the United States has a trade surplus. Such statements have sent an ambiguous signal to other countries, thus prompting countries such as South Korea to also request exemptions.

Trump also managed to extract concessions from India and Japan, both of which promised to buy more goods from the United States. Before the meeting with Trump, Modi announced that India would cut import tariffs on selected products. Following the meeting between both leaders, India agreed to buy more energy from the United States, thus aligning with Trump’s goal to make the United States the leading energy supplier.

Trump’s tariff tactic would be a mainstay in his administration – his unveiling of a base 10% global tariff on the rest of the world suggests he is willing to play this long, uncomfortable game with both allies and enemies alike.

Trial and Error

However, this kind of psychological tactic may not always work.

The United States and China were unable to come to an agreement and have since led to China’s quid pro quo levies. While the Chinese do not want to back down from the trade tensions with the United States, news reports from early March showed that Trump might visit China in April to hammer out a deal. This indicated that Trump might not be interested in fighting a tariff war.

Though the prospect of Trump visiting China has been dampened by Chinese countermeasures against his recently announced global tariff plan, he responded by threatening to further increase tariffs on China by 50%, in addition to the recently announced 34% tariffs as part of the Liberation Day plan. This led to over 100% cumulative tariffs on Chinese goods exported to the United States.

Due to the price and quality competitiveness of Chinese products, Chinese products are not easily replaceable. Since American consumers have to bear the brunt and inflation is expected to rise, Trump will be put in a difficult position, potentially prompting a revision to his tariff policies.

Impacts to Southeast Asia

Trump announced his Liberation Day global tariff plan on 2 April 2025, a drastic move that caused stock markets across the globe to tumble. A baseline of 10% tariffs on all exports to the United States are imposed, but all Southeast Asian countries are levied different rates of tariffs depending on their trade balance with the United States.

Cambodia and Laos are slapped with the highest tariffs (at 49% and 48%, respectively), followed by Vietnam (46%), Myanmar (44%), Thailand (36%), Indonesia (32%), Malaysia and Brunei (24%), the Philippines (17%) and finally Singapore (10%).

Barely a day after the new regime came into effect, however, Trump announced a 90-day pause on tariffs for 75 countries, including those in ASEAN. This hard reverse adds on to the psychological pressure that Trump aims to impose on leaders of other nations.

Before the Liberation Day announcement, ASEAN countries had diverse responses to the ongoing situation. Vietnam was already restless and expressing willingness to purchase more US agricultural products, open its market to US investments and refrain from imposing retaliatory measures. Thailand, on the other hand, was seen to be slow in responding to the trade issue and had no clear negotiation strategy, which was a great concern for the private sector in Thailand.

The Philippines and Malaysia appeared more optimistic, holding the opinion that the United States’ tariff policies have less direct implications on them. Both believed that they should maximise the existing regional trade agreements and diversify their trade partners in light of the steps pursued by the Trump administration.

Needless to say, the announcement must have sent massive shocks across the region, especially to countries with no concrete strategy and response plan.

Moving forward, ASEAN countries need to understand that Trump’s end goal is not to have a tariff war with the rest of the world. The United States is simply using threats of tariffs to force other countries – particularly those who have trade deficits with the United States – to reduce or remove tariffs and non-tariff barriers.

If this is a psychological war, how should Southeast Asian countries respond to it?

In such a setting, it is never a good idea to fully accede to the demands, as it would only lead to more concessions. We have seen, for example, how Vietnam’s good offer to the United States was being rejected.

Instead, countries should preserve their autonomy and continue to engage with the United States to get a mutually beneficial deal. A good instance is how the president of Mexico handled Trump – she kept a “cool head” and persuaded Trump with evidence that the deployment of Mexican soldiers to the borders has slowed down the flow of fentanyl.

Such a diplomatic approach led to praises from Trump and also to Trump’s decision to reverse some of the tariffs. Though Trump also reversed some of the tariffs on Canada, Trump continues to target its prime minister due to the latter’s more aggressive approach.

As ASEAN chair this year, Malaysia bears a huge responsibility to ensure that ASEAN has a united and coordinated response towards the trade issue. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has engaged some ASEAN leaders and called for a united front against this challenge.

If ASEAN is divided and chooses to negotiate bilaterally with the United States, the deals that each member secures would be different, potentially benefiting the United States more than ASEAN collectively. In the negotiation, ASEAN must present the hard facts to the United States, showing that the tariffs would not only harm ASEAN but would also be equally damaging to the US economy. If it is indeed psychological warfare, then ASEAN needs to know that it goes both ways.

Partnered Content

Assalamu’alaikum and greetings!

CCIGE is pleased to invite you to our upcoming Webinar Session via Zoom. Come and join us for an engaging and insightful discussion with Dr. Zouhir Gabsi. The session will be opened and moderated by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Danial Yusof (Director, CCIGE).

 Date: Thursday, April 10, 2025

 Time: 11:30 AM (Kuala Lumpur Time)

 Platform: Zoom

 Join Zoom Meeting:
https://iium.zoom.us/j/99543389366?pwd=mrJI2z6pSqXk3G5I3HAYLprjbkmM6b.1

 Meeting ID: 995 4338 9366

 Passcode: 613359

Looking forward to your participation! 

Please feel free to share this invitation. 

Agriculture has long been the backbone of Southeast Asia, contributing significantly to food security, economic stability, and rural livelihoods. The ASEAN region, rich with diverse agricultural practices and resources, faces common challenges such as climate change, urbanization, market volatility, and policy discrepancies. As countries navigate these complexities, understanding the socio-economic dimensions of agriculture within the ASEAN context becomes crucial for fostering resilience, sustainability, and collective growth.

In light of these challenges, Yayasan Strategik Lestari (YSL) and stratsea are honored to create a platform for dialogue and knowledge exchange to achieve three primary aspirations: to cultivate a society that understands international relations, to identify Malaysia’s role in addressing agricultural socio-economic issues through expert perspectives, and to gather recommendations for further research and policy benchmarking.

The webinar will delve into critical questions such as:

• What are the socio-economic dynamics shaping ASEAN’s agricultural sector?

• How can collaboration among ASEAN countries enhance agricultural productivity and resilience?

• What policy interventions are necessary to address the impacts of climate change and market volatility on the region’s food security?

• How can Southeast Asia harness its agricultural diversity for mutual benefit and sustainable development?

Webinar Details

Date: Friday, 11 April 2025

Time: 09:30 AM (Indonesia/Thailand) / 10:30 AM (Malaysia/Philippines/Singapore)

Speaker Details

Dr. Dona Laily Wahyuning is a prominent scholar in agribusiness management, specializing in agricultural competitiveness, trade dynamics, and rural socioeconomics. As Head of the Agribusiness Management Laboratory at Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Jawa Timur, her research offers valuable insights into Indonesia’s agricultural landscape and its regional implications.

Among her notable works is the analysis of rice farming competitiveness in Bojonegoro Regency, which explores strategies to enhance productivity and resilience in one of Indonesia’s key rice-producing areas. She has also examined factors influencing rice imports in Indonesia, shedding light on trade policies and food security challenges. Additionally, her study on the competitiveness of Indonesian cloves compared to Tanzania and Madagascar provides critical perspectives on global spice markets and Indonesia’s position within them.

Dr. Dona’s research reflects a deep commitment to strengthening agricultural resilience and market performance, making her a valuable voice in advancing sustainable agricultural development across ASEAN.

Introduction

In the age of mercantilism, economic dominance was not merely about trade—it was enforced through brute military strength.

European empires deployed gunboats to the coasts of nations, coercing them into opening markets, signing lopsided treaties or even submitting to colonial rule.

The Opium Wars of the 19^th century stand as a stark example—when China resisted British trade demands, gunboats rained fire upon its ports, forcing the Middle Kingdom to cede Hong Kong and open its economy on unfavourable terms.

Power was exercised through the barrel of a cannon while nations bent under the weight of superior firepower.

Today, the battlefield has shifted, but the objective remains the same: influence, control and dominance. Gunboats no longer dictate policies; instead, social media does.

The rise of digital platforms has created a new arsenal of influence operations—one where narratives, not naval fleets, determine the direction of entire countries. Algorithms replace admirals and viral trends become the new cannonballs.

Those who can shape public opinion can shape long-lasting policies. No warships needed; no shots fired—yet the effects can be far more enduring. A single viral campaign can sway elections, overturn governments or redefine national identities.

The ASEAN Landscape

In ASEAN, where youth make up a significant portion of the population and digital adoption is at an all-time high, this reality is unfolding at an unprecedented pace.

From likes to legislation, the power once wielded by empires through brute force is now in the hands of millions of young, digitally empowered individuals. What they believe, share and push into the mainstream today will become the policies that shape their nations tomorrow.

ASEAN’s economic rise has been nothing short of remarkable. In 2024, the region contributed 7.2% of the global economy and was responsible for 8.6% of the world’s GDP growth over the past decade.

With a combined GDP projected to reach US$4.25 trillion by 2025, ASEAN is on the verge of surpassing major economies and cementing itself among the world’s top five economic powerhouses.

This growth is not merely a statistic—it is reshaping global supply chains, investment flows and economic alliances.

Unlike the aging economies of Europe, where labour shortages are becoming a structural problem, ASEAN enjoys a demographic advantage. With a median age of just 31, its workforce is young, vibrant and digitally connected.

The contrast with Europe, where the median age is over 40, is stark. While Western nations grapple with declining birth rates and economic stagnation, ASEAN’s youths are driving an unprecedented wave of innovation, entrepreneurship and consumption. This demographic dividend is fuelling the rise of a powerful middle class, which is expected to reach 350 million people by 2030—larger than the entire population of the United States today.

These are all concrete indicators which enable the possibility of a digital revolution which squarely puts power and influence in the hands of the digitally savvy young generation.

Youth’s Digital Revolution

Over the past decade, the digital landscape in the ASEAN region has undergone a significant transformation, marked by substantial increases in internet access, mobile phone usage and social media engagement among young people.

In 2013, the average internet penetration rate in ASEAN was approximately 34%. By 2021, this figure had more than doubled, reaching 73%. This surge reflects the region’s rapid digital adoption and infrastructure development.

A study conducted in 2019 revealed that 97.5% of Thai high school students owned smartphones, while in Indonesia between 2013 and 2018, smartphone ownership among young adults (ages 18-34) surged from 17% to 66%.

To compound on to this trend, the average youths spend close to five hours a day on their smartphones, thus making them the most digitally reliant generation.

The omnipresence of youths on social media has blunt the influence of mainstream media which in nascent democracies are largely controlled by the government or its cronies.

In Malaysia, for over six decades, the Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition maintained political dominance, partly by controlling mainstream media narratives. The BN government either directly controlled the mainstream media through its ownership of news agencies like The Star and Bernama, or indirectly through strict media licensing laws that promote censorship.

Billionaires linked to the government through monopoly-like multibillion dollar concessions also owned other major media houses.

However, in the lead-up to the 14^th general election (GE14), social media platforms emerged as vital arenas for political discourse, especially among the younger demographic, thus breaking the long-held information monopoly.   

A study analysing 187 news pieces from six online news platforms during the 11-day campaign period highlighted that social media was effectively utilised to influence public perception.

Key issues such as the Goods and Services Tax (GST), the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal, and the reputations of political candidates were extensively discussed online, contributing to a wave of political dissent and activism.

This online engagement played a crucial role in shifting public sentiment, leading to BN’s unprecedented electoral defeat.

This was particularly evident on the night before voting, whereby the prime minister candidate for the opposition directly communicated to the public via a Facebook-live event, a feat that was viewed by more than 220,000 people and reached 10 million people in less than 24 hours.

This last figure was more than half of the voting population. Comparably, the then sitting prime minister, who enjoyed the full backing of the media establishment, only garnered 15,000 audience while conducting a similar event.

Knowing that the government had a solid grip on the media establishment, the opposition then actively mobilised the youths to showcase the opposition videos to their parents and grandparents via WhatsApp groups, or in-person when they meet to cast their votes. This merged the influence of social media and the youths to successfully break the government-controlled information monopoly, thus leading to a historic election win.

The same trend could be seen in Thailand. The Move Forward Party’s (MFP) rise in Thailand’s 2023 general election is a testament to the power of social media and youth-driven political engagement in disrupting traditional power structures.

Winning 151 seats, the MFP effectively leveraged digital platforms to bypass mainstream media controls and mobilise grassroots support. On election day alone, the party was mentioned over 245,932 times across social media, with post-election engagement reaching 83.4 million interactions, 70% higher than any other party.

This surge in online activism translated into real political momentum, particularly among Thailand’s younger generations. Of the 52.3 million eligible voters, nearly 44% belonged to Gen Z (18-26 years old) and millennials (27-42 years old)—the demographic that overwhelmingly backed the MFP’s progressive policies.

Their engagement contributed to a historic 75.22% voter turnout, one of the highest in Thai electoral history. Through a combination of digital mobilisation, targeted messaging and political activism, the MFP demonstrated how social media can break conventional information monopolies, empowering young voters to reshape national politics despite institutional resistance.

The Dark Side of Social Media

Social media in the hands of the youths can also be a double-edged sword. It can empower the people, but it can also be weaponised to deceive them. Nowhere is this more evident than in the whitewashing of corruption and dictatorship.

In the Philippines, the Marcos family turned social media into a propaganda machine, rewriting history and painting the brutal Marcos dictatorship as a “golden age”. YouTube and Facebook were flooded with revisionist content, downplaying human rights abuses and glorifying an era of plunder and oppression. This relentless online misinformation campaign worked—Marcos Jr. rode the wave of digital deception all the way to the presidency.

In Malaysia, Najib Razak, convicted for his role in the 1MDB scandal, used social media to rebuild his image. His “Bossku” persona on Facebook and Instagram transformed him from a disgraced leader into a man of the people. He posted selfies. He cracked jokes. He played the victim. Suddenly, he was not a kleptocrat anymore—he was a hero to many.

This is the terrifying power of social media. It does not just shape the present—it rewrites the past.

In the digital age, the erasure and rewriting of history through social media not only deceives the present but also imperils the integrity of future generations’ understanding of truth.

The youth of today are unshackled from the past. They do not carry the weight of old political battles or the emotional baggage of previous generations. History, to them, is not lived experience—it is content they consume online.

Just like how Marcos Jr. benefitted from a rewritten past, we see the same phenomenon in Malaysia with Anwar Ibrahim’s Reformasi movement. In 1998, Reformasi was a fiery rebellion against Mahathir Mohamad’s rule, marked by street protests, mass arrests and cries for justice.

For those who lived through it, Anwar was either a hero or a threat—there was no in-between. But for today’s youth, 1998 is not a memory, it is a hashtag. They see Reformasi not through the lens of those who fought for it, but through the narratives being shaped today.

The same Anwar who was once the face of resistance is now the prime minister, navigating compromises and coalitions. For the youth, the past is not set in stone—it is fluid, shaped by what trends, what gets shared and what is most convincing in the digital age.

Indonesia, ASEAN’s most populous democracy, is no different. President Prabowo Subianto’s transformation is nothing short of a political masterclass in digital rebranding. Once a controversial military figure, even banned from entering the United States, he is now Indonesia’s president—winning outright in the first round with 58.6% of the vote.

How? Social media magic. His campaign deployed the gemoy strategy, turning him from a feared general into an adorable, meme-worthy grandfather figure. Viral videos showed him dancing with his cat Bobby, AI-generated animations softened his image and TikTok flooded with content making him look fun, lovable, and approachable.

This was not just a campaign—it was a full-blown digital personality makeover. And it worked. Youth voters, who once saw him as a relic of the past, now saw him as their gemoy leader. In today’s politics, perception is reality—and social media decides both.

Final Reflections

The latest ISEAS survey in six Southeast Asian countries showed that young undergraduates rarely engage in political discussions online, with more than 50% of youths in five out of the six countries surveyed never or rarely discuss political or social issues online.

However, it fails to capture the nuances of youth activism.

Just because they do not actively post about politics does not mean they are apolitical or politically ignorant. More often than not, these youths are “lurkers” online—consuming hours of political content without actively posting. In fact, they are often more politically informed than older generations (the boomers), thanks to their constant exposure to digital information and reliance on social media as their primary news source.

This phenomenon becomes most evident during elections, when young people, once labelled as “politically disinterested”, suddenly mobilise in massive numbers to vote—often becoming the decisive force in political outcomes.

A local poll conducted just one month before Malaysia’s GE14 showed that more than 50% of youths were disinterested in politics. Yet, in less than 30 days, over 80% of young voters turned up to vote. Not only that, they also actively convinced their parents and grandparents to vote in their favour—triggering the greatest political upset in Malaysia’s electoral history.

All of these show that social media has become the new battleground for power. It can spark revolutions, rewrite history, elevate the fallen and bring down the mighty. It has given the youth of ASEAN a voice louder than ever before—a voice that can shape policies, influence elections and redefine national narratives.

But with great power comes great risk. The same platforms that expose corruption can also whitewash it. The same digital tools that empower democracy can also manipulate it.

The future of ASEAN will not be decided in old halls of power alone, but in the ever-evolving digital arenas where perception is reality and those who control the narrative control the future. The question is no longer whether social media matters—it is who masters it first.

A Book Review of Dr. Murni Wan Mohd Nor’s “From Hate to Hope: A Holistic Approach to Address Hate Speech” and an Analysis of Related Developments in ASEAN

Introduction

While reading the latest book by Dr. Murni Wan Mohd Nor, an Expert Researcher at the Institute of Diplomacy and Foreign Relations (IDFR), titled From Hate to Hope: A Holistic Approach to Address Hate Speech, one question arises: How should ASEAN play its role in combatting hate speech in the Southeast Asian region?

Before delving into that question, we should explore what this book discusses. Published by IDFR, the book primarily explores Malaysia’s experience with hate speech, focusing on the complex intersections of race, religion, and nationalism. One of the key takeaways from this book that should be highlighted and discussed is the politics of language.

Dr. Murni explained that hate speech has been used as a tool to achieve power and dominance by influencing public perception. Hate speech – whether rooted in ethnic, religious, or national divisions – poses a significant threat to social harmony and peace, particularly in a region as diverse as Southeast Asia. It undermines the fabric of trust and mutual respect amongst diverse communities, which threatens peaceful coexistence in the region.

This year, Malaysia holds the ASEAN Chair and has introduced the theme of inclusivity and sustainability. This theme carries significant depth and can be applied to address a variety of issues, including hate speech. As hate speech becomes more widespread in Southeast Asia and beyond, it directly impacts inclusivity by silencing the voices of different groups, particularly the marginalised and oppressed. In addition, it weakens social cohesion, which forms a nation’s foundation—adversely impacting political stability, economic well-being, and national security. In this environment, it becomes difficult to achieve sustainable peace.

Thus, the problem of hate speech – alongside regional issues such as territorial disputes in the South China Sea, geopolitical rivalry between major powers, cyber-security threats, internal political instability, human rights issues, and climate change – all pose a security risk which may disrupt regional stability.

From Animalisation to Dehumanisation and Genocide

Animalisation is a tactic used by political figures to make people believe that the colonisation or elimination of a certain social group is justified because they are seen as having a lower status due to their supposed “animalistic” nature. This concept of animalisation serves as a powerful tool to justify violence, a notion supported by John Locke, who argued that such individuals could be destroyed like “a lion or a tiger, one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security.”

The Israeli Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant made it abundantly clear without any disguise, “We are fighting against animals, not people.” His statement was directed at Hamas to justify Israel’s actions of bombing and killing Palestinian civilians, resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of lives. The animalisation process leads to dehumanisation, where people lose their sense of morality and empathy, viewing those who are “animalised” as not human, but as wild animals that need to be controlled or destroyed to stop them from causing harm.

In the book, Dr. Murni explained that high-ranking Israeli officials went well beyond employing dehumanising statements by referring to Palestinians in general as “human animals,” and “monsters” who deserve it when Israelis “break their backbone” because “an entire nation out there…is responsible.…” She also referenced other human rights lawyers, activists and scholars who highlighted that such vitriol was indicative of Israel’s intent to commit genocide.

What is occurring in Palestine mirrors the situation faced by the Rohingyas in Myanmar; both groups are suffering from similar animalisation. Amnesty International reports an incident where a Rohingya Muslim human rights defender was labelled a “national traitor” in a post shared over 1,000 times, with social media comments that included threatening and racist messages such as, “He is a Muslim. Muslims are dogs and need to be shot,”, specifically referring to the Rohingya community.

Given the situations in Palestine and Myanmar, it is clear how language can be used as a tool for hate through animalisation by removing their humanity. Such rhetoric encourages violence and may even result in genocide.

Depower the Language of Hate; Empower the Language of Hope

As much as language can become a convenient weapon of dehumanisation which often can lead to human rights abuses, war crimes, and crimes against humanity – language can equally be used as a crucial tool of reconciliation and peacebuilding.

Underscoring this critical point, Dr. Murni advocates for a whole-of-nation approach to address hate speech. She believes this multi-stakeholder approach may promise a more effective execution of ideas and yield better results, as it would bring together the government, private sector, NGOs, and grass-roots leaders toward a common goal.

In addition, Dr. Murni advocates for a culture of genuine dialogue by outlining a guideline when responding to hate speech that emphasises patience and rational language. She also encourages the principle of being gentle yet firm when addressing a wrong. This is followed by the need to restrain ourselves from reciprocating hate with even more hate. Instead, she encourages the values of being proportionate and moderate in our recourse.

Dr. Murni also emphasises the importance of responding to hate with what is better, acting with wisdom, and avoiding the need to exaggerate which demonstrates our magnanimity. This guideline is hoped to help achieve the justice needed in combatting hate speech.                                                                                                                                                  

ASEAN and the Fight Against Hateful Narratives

As part of its mandate to promote regional stability, and indeed, due to its diverse ethnic and religious makeup, ASEAN has always been at the forefront in addressing human rights issues, including hate speech.

Following the intercommunal conflicts in Myanmar, ASEAN spearheaded the establishment of a five-point consensus (5PC) peace commitment in 2021. The 5PC, which was signed by Myanmar’s military leader and nine other ASEAN heads of states, remains ASEAN’s most notable collective resolve with respect to the deteriorating humanitarian situation caused by ethnic and religious conflict in Myanmar.

To enhance ASEAN’s influence on the global stage and actively address the challenge of hate speech, ASEAN could explore strengthening the role of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) to make it more impactful beyond its capacity as a consultative body. If the AICHR is given the mandate to create a complaint and monitoring mechanism for ASEAN member states, the human rights situation in the region would likely improve, especially in tackling hate speech to preserve social harmony, both domestically and regionally.

Malaysia has been prominent in the assertive leadership within the Global South for decades. Coupled with its globally commended vocal stance on global humanitarian issues under the Madani government, Malaysia can thus capitalise on its growing soft power to advocate for the promotion of human rights and mitigation of hate speech in the region and beyond as the chair of ASEAN.

Indeed, hate speech has become more pervasive than ever in our globalised, highly connected world. The proliferation of social media connectivity has meant that the dehumanisation of a people can be carried out at our fingertips, through a simple click of a button. Recognising the problems at hand, Dr. Murni’s new book, From Hate to Hope: A Holistic Approach to Address Hate Speech aims to address this problem bypresenting a practical and holistic approach requiring the whole-of-nation collaboration.

The book offers a glimmer of hope in a hate-fuelled environment by emphasising the importance of diplomacy, effective communication strategies, and most importantly, the power of counterspeech initiatives. Under the ASEAN 2025 theme of inclusivity and sustainability, Malaysia as ASEAN 2025 chair is best positioned to address hate speech in the region and beyond. This will further enhance the country’s and ASEAN’s credibility and relevance on the regional and global stage.

The free PDF copy of From Hate to Hope: A Holistic Approach to Address Hate Speech is now available and can be accessed via https://www.idfr.gov.my/ or https://www.idfr.gov.my/publication/other-publications/2025-publications

Introduction

In collaboration with Taras Institute, stratsea is kickstarting 2025 with a webinar series on Energy. This second of three webinars, entitled “Electric Vehicle (EV) Adoption in Southeast Asia: Bridging Consumer Concerns and Industry Solutions”, is aimed at providing insights on regulations and consumer sentiments on EV in Southeast Asia.

Notably, this webinar is also part of stratsea’s launching of its first report based on its recent article series entitled “Renewable Energy & the Climate Crisis in Southeast Asia.” This report is available for access and download here. Additionally, keep a look out for our upcoming online business reports for sale in early-April 2025.

Webinar Details

Date: Thursday, 28 January 2025

Time: 09:00hrs – 10:30hrs (WIB)/ 10:00hrs – 11:30hrs (MY / SG)

Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85303411263?pwd=eQK5HnPC02NDbbU7aGEci6WyWd029t.1

Zoom Meeting ID: 853 0341 1263

Passcode: CCS2025

Speaker’s Profile

Fitra Eri

Fitra Eri Fitra Eri is a race car driver , journalist , and internet celebrity . He is also the Editor-in-Chief of Otodriver , an online media specializing in automotive.

Reza Edriawan

Reza Edriawan is APAEC Officer at the ASEAN Centre for Energy. He is a sustainable and renewable energy enthusiast with multiple experiences in renewable energy development, adoption, and project management in Indonesia.

Moderator’s Profile

Dr. Juita Mohamad is an economist and Editor at TIA Editors.

stratsea is proud to promote the upcoming SEAN-CSO webinar entitled, “Global Responses to 2025 Trends and Threats.”

This webinar will deep dive into how current global affairs influenced decision-making and responses of governments and civil society organizations working on peace and conflict studies, particularly in Southeast Asia.

In this webinar, we will:

1) Analyze key global trends: Examine the most pressing issues facing Southeast Asia and the global international setting, including geopolitical shifts, technological advancements, and social and economic inequalities.

2) Discuss emerging threats: Explore the potential risks and challenges that could disrupt global stability, such as pandemics, cyberattacks, and conflicts.

3) Explore global responses: Analyze how governments, international organizations, and civil society address these challenges and develop innovative solutions.

4) Engage in a lively discussion: Participate in a Q&A session with leading experts and engage in a dynamic conversation with other attendees.

Webinar Details:

Date: Friday, 17 January 2025

Time: 03:00PM (WIB) / 04:00PM (MY/PH) / 07:00PM (AUS)

Registration Link: bit.ly/globalresponses2025 / https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/QRWzeeYnRPmB6pmHBWgLBw

Speakers:

Dr. Greg Barton; Founder of the SEAN-CSO Network, Australia

Wahid A. Abdulla; Executive Director, Gagandilan Mindanao Women Inc., the Philippines

Dr. Haezreena Begum; University Malaya; Malaysia

Moderator

Aziff Azuddin; Research Director of IMAN Research, Malaysia

The first article under “Policies” written by Novia Xu covers the difficulties Indonesia faces in mitigating climate change. Subsequently, Calvin Khoe provides insights on the potential direction President Prabowo could take on renewable energy exports. In a co-authored article by Jitsai Santaputra and Muhammad Vito Hamzah, they iterate the importance of youth involvement in accelerating energy transition across Southeast Asia.

Under “Technologies”, Diofanny Swandrina Putri and Taqi Hammam Ariza outline how Indonesia has taken great strides in developing its Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) capability. Dr. Juita Mohamad next argues how implementing carbon pricing measures now may disrupt the competitiveness of local MSMEs in Malaysia. This compilation of curated articles ends with two articles written Assoc. Prof. Zul Ilham Bin Zulkiflee Lubes and Rif’at Abdillah highlighting electric vehicle regulations in their respective countries: Malaysia and Indonesia.

Via this and subsequent compilations of our article series, stratsea strives to heighten focus and facilitate constructive discussions within and outside Southeast Asia. Keep a look out for our next compilation on the impact of the Middle East conflict on Southeast Asia.

Slowing Down the Sciences

“Science needs time to think. Science needs time to read and time to fail.”

Such is the powerful proposition made by the Slow Science Manifesto, supported by the Slow Science Academy in Germany. Considering the state of sciences and academia in ASEAN today, it is a message that intellectuals here must heed.

The concept of “slow science” is sparking a lively debate in academia, particularly in Europe and other Western nations. Slow science aims to address a fundamental issue: How can we produce meaningful, quality science in today’s fast-paced academic environment?

Ironically, this movement – despite calling for a slowdown – has gained momentum because of the perceived problems in academia recently.

The pressure to publish more papers is what proponents of slow science are concerned about. The obsession with metrics – paper counts, citation scores and institutional rankings – turns research into mere accumulating numbers rather than about the true quality and impact of the work.

This critique is mainly reflected in the works of scholars like Christian Fuchs and Isabelle Stengers.

In many fields, particularly economics and medicine, the pressure to publish frequently has led to practices like “salami slicing”, where researchers break down a single, comprehensive study into smaller, less substantial papers simply to meet publication quotas.

Similarly, in engineering and psychology, the pressure to meet publication targets has contributed to the unethical practice of “p-hacking”, where researchers manipulate data analysis to achieve desired outcomes, thus undermining the integrity of scientific work.

This problem is not just a Western one; it is unquestionably relevant in developing economies, especially ASEAN, where academic pressures can be intense.

Scientists in ASEAN are pressured to meet artificial targets and work within rigid deadlines that prioritize output over substance. For instance, in Indonesia, the “publish or perish” culture demands a specific number of publications in high-impact journals for promotions and funding.

Similarly, in Malaysia, academics must meet rigid Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) tied to publication quotas, which often result in fragmented or less meaningful studies. In Thailand, graduate students are required to publish in indexed journals just to graduate, which leads to superficial work.

All of this phenomenon creates a dilemma: how can we produce truly impactful, interdisciplinary research when the conditions for such work—time, focus, and critical thinking—are in short supply solely to meet immediate institutional demands?

At its core, slow science calls on academicians to take a step back from rushing publications and examine their professional lives carefully. This is not just about a slower pace for the sake of it; it’s about creating space for deeper thinking and better science for all.

But how does slowing down help? If universities are too focused on trying to hit big numbers and rankings, it can compromise the depth and quality of research. When we focus too much on numbers, we forget what really matters—conducting research that helps people and makes a difference.

Publish or Perish?

When scientists discover something new, they share their findings in scientific journals so others can learn from them and make even more discoveries. This helps science move forward.

However, research papers can be retracted if there are issues concerning their accuracy or ethical standards. In fact, this issue has surged in recent years. In 2023 alone, over 10,000 papers were retracted globally, setting a new record.

Recent studies show that the pressure to quickly produce data and publish research has a detrimental effect on the quality of studies, leading to more papers being retracted. Plagiarism is the second most common cause, responsible for 16% of these retractions.

Fake peer reviews are also a big problem. Normally, experts review research papers and give helpful feedback, but in the last 10 years, these issues have become much more common – increasing 10 times – eroding the integrity of this essential process.

To make it worse, some companies sell fake research papers—about 2% of all research published in 2022 came from these companies.

More science papers are being retracted because the research was not conducted right. This underscores a worrying misuse of government spending on research or studies that are not relevant.

But it is not just about wasting money. Erroneous studies can mislead other scientists into spending time and resources on ideas that do not work. This can slow down progress, harm public trust and undermine the credibility of science. Therefore, there is an imperative to address these cracks in the system.

Nourishing Science

The slow science concept borrowed its rationale from the Slow Food movement that began in Italy in the 1980s. The idea behind it was simple: Fast food, while convenient, is often stripped of nutritional value and people would be healthier if they cooked nourishing meals made from fresh ingredients.

As a movement, Slow Food started with big ideas, though it has faced challenges against fast food corporations.

People who support slow science believe that the research process today is a bit like fast food—it is undertaken quickly, yet lacking the depth and quality.

This notion has been propagated by individuals like Dr. Joël Candau, an anthropologist from Université Nice-Sophia-Antipolis, who equates “fast science” to fast food—one that focuses on accomplishing a lot quickly instead of properly.

To truly embrace the idea of slow science, we need to think beyond just research practices and consider the mindset it calls for—a focus on slowing down and fully immersing in the process.

This approach resists the pressure to “publish or perish”, a pressure that often reduces research to a numbers game, turning science into a fast-food simulacrum that is produced for consumption rather than contemplation.

Just like slow food means taking time to make food tasty and healthy, slow science means scientists should take their time with research. In other words, conducting studies that are genuinely beneficial for humanity.

Concerns for ASEAN Countries

Ethical issues, plagiarism, the “shortcut” to professorship and poor welfare for academicians are some key challenges that stem from our obsession with fast-paced science. This is because, as mentioned above, universities are pressured to produce high output as quickly as possible, in large part to climb the global rankings and attract elusive research funding.

This system may produce more papers, but it often misses the true purpose of academic research—advancing knowledge in ways that benefit society. If Indonesia wishes to build an academic system that genuinely contributes to its development, it must start by valuing depth over speed. The government must invest in fostering an environment where scientists are encouraged to think critically and freely rather than just “producing on demand”.

The conversation about “slow science” is one that academic leaders and thinkers in Southeast Asia must start. Indeed, for Indonesia and many other ASEAN Member States (AMS), there is an urgent need to speed up higher education reforms to catch up with leading global institutions elsewhere, an imperative that cannot be ignored.

The push for modernization, funding and global recognition is real, and there is no question about the necessity of speeding up these processes. However, this swift pace must not come at the cost of quality and depth in research.

The hard part is getting things to balance. AMS have to rapidly transform the quality of their educational institutions to meet global standards. However, if these changes are solely focused on speed and quantity, they risk undermining the very essence of what science should be – thoughtful questioning, deep exploration, and significant discovery.

Thus, AMS must not only reform quickly but also create environments where researchers can work with the intellectual freedom and time needed to truly innovate, reflect, and contribute to societal development in ways that are sustainable as well as impactful in the long run.

Where to from Here?

So, what is the solution? The government, representing the general public interest, bears the greatest responsibility to address the externalities of fast-paced science.

One of the first steps in reforming our higher education system is to restore the autonomy of public research universities. By autonomy, we mean the ability of universities to function without undue external interference, especially from government bodies, political influences or commercial interests.

In practical terms, this autonomy allows universities to define their own academic, research and institutional priorities. This reform is pivotal, as it holds far-reaching implications—from securing stable funding to enabling researchers to pursue long-term goals that prospectively lead to groundbreaking discoveries.

At the same time, it is essential to streamline bureaucratic processes that often impede progress. Revising centralized policies and cutting down on unnecessary administrative barriers will create a significant change.

The new Minister and Deputy Minister of Higher Education of Indonesia, Satryo Brodjonegoro and Stella Christie, can take the lead by focusing on this reform. Once universities regain their autonomy, they will be able to function as dynamic knowledge hubs, addressing national challenges deliberatively.

Furthermore, universities, research institutions and funding agencies need to improve their due diligence and hold those responsible for misconduct accountable. These steps are crucial to ensure scientists can focus on their research without unnecessary distractions – creating an environment where they can approach their work with the care and attention it deserves.

Pioneering initiatives, such as the Max Planck Society in Germany and the Wellcome Trust in the United Kingdom, could serve as valuable benchmarks for ASEAN research ecosystems. These institutions exemplify the power of good governance, strategic funding and thoughtful institutional design, enabling researchers to pursue long-term goals without the pressure of immediate results. Ultimately, it is up to the scientists themselves to engage with society’s problems – in a different kind of academic atmosphere – one that is not defined by speed but by the quality of reason. Therefore, a slower, more thoughtful academia will enable real progress in solving our most pressing social challenges.

Introduction

China’s maritime coercion directed against the Philippines reached a peak in 2024, with ships and boats from China harassing Philippine civilian vessels between July and September 2024.

Such reports of aggressive and dangerous conduct on China’s side have been increasing at an alarming rate. Since February 2023, the Philippines has accused China of unsafe behavior on at least 12 occasions, often within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

To illustrate this, there were two separate “ramming” incidents that had taken place between the ships of the Chinese and Philippine coast guards. One of such incidents caused severe damage to the hull of one of the latter’s vessels in waters near Sabina Atoll, well within the Philippines’ EEZ.

A spokesperson of the Philippine National Maritime Council stated that China’s illegal actions do not contribute to confidence-building measures that are necessary to achieve mutual respect and preserve a rules-based international order.

Despite both sides agreeing in July 2024 to avoid confrontations during resupply missions to Philippine troops at a disputed shoal, recent events have called into question China’s sincerity. A month later, two Chinese planes released flares in the path of a Philippine military aircraft over the Scarborough Shoal, thus contradicting the agreement.

Geopolitical Concerns and Chinese Maritime Aggression

Southeast Asia is beset by a host of maritime security threats, including illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, piracy, sea robbery, illegal trafficking in arms, people, and drugs, as well as environmental crimes.

Institutions responding to these issues have proliferated, both inside and outside the purview of ASEAN. Indeed, the region is considered the “center of intensifying geopolitical competition with multiple potential flashpoints.”

Within Southeast Asia, the Philippines is a major maritime trading hub. Its territorial waters abound with enormous natural resources, beautiful beaches, minerals and hydrocarbon deposits. The protection of merchant, fishing and tourism vessels has thus created the need for constant monitoring of the maritime area. 

Given the tremendous maritime traffic, the Philippine Navy and the Philippine Coast Guard are tasked with dealing with IUU fishing, piracy, armed robbery, the trafficking of drugs and people, as well as the transport of illegal goods by sea.

With such hefty tasks at hand, the intrusion of Chinese vessels has thus added another problem to the mix.

However, it is a mistake to perceive this problem solely from the Philippines’ perspective, as China’s maritime activities can never be extricated from its broader strategic competition with the United States in the Indo-Pacific region.

On the United States’ part, it has political and moral obligations to maintain its position in areas threatened by Chinese incursions, including in the South China Sea, the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea.

Among others, these include: 1) keeping the regional balance of power favorable to the United States and its allies; 2) safeguarding US-led security architecture in the Western Pacific, and; 3) upholding its commitments to Japan and the Philippines.

The United States has undertaken various actions to attain these goals, which comprise activities such as: 1) transferring military personnel, equipment and supplies to bases at sites occupied in the South China Sea, and; 2) upholding the July 2016 tribunal award in the South China Sea arbitration case of the Philippines and China.

The Academic Perspective

It should be noted that China’s maritime strategy is derived from serious academic works on naval study and the alignment of military doctrine with national defense modernization, as written by Lidong Wang in “Theory of National Maritime Interest.”

These studies are done by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Academy of Military Science and the PLA National Defense University, which focus on the use of armed force, tactics, and military theories.

Many sea power theorists center their assessments on China’s continental power and its rising international status. Interestingly, some, like James Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara, found the commonalities between China’s strategy in the South China Sea and the United States’ in the Caribbean Sea.

These studies offer adequate knowledge regarding China’s increasing naval capability as well as the implications of China as a sea power—China’s intrusion into the Philippines’ waters being one manifestation of such.

Accordingly, a narrative has emerged into how the state should pursue its maritime policies. Such studies suggest the expansion of naval influence, the acquisition of deterrent sea power and the focus on the protection of sea lines of communication, according to Wenmu Zhang in Discussion of China’s Sea Power.

As shown, extensive research has been pursued pertaining to Chinese maritime power development.

In 2009, Chinese academics such as Wu Shicun, Xu Liping, Zhang Jie and Zhong Feiteng promoted their ideas on China’s international roles, diplomatic relations with the United States and China’s prominence in Southeast Asia. Their research centered on raising possible policy approaches to resolve debates and foster collaboration in the region.

Other studies also cover non-dispute-related maritime issues. Scholars of these areas posit that the information environment is strategic to China’s energy and logistic supply. Examples include studies on the “Malacca Dilemma” and the “String of Pearls,” which are associated with China’s energy imports and sea control.

Efforts to Safeguard Territorial Integrity

The Philippines has undertaken steps to safeguard its territorial integrity by emphasizing the importance of international law and through engagement with ASEAN.

While leveraging on international law is important, the Philippines still needs to continuously highlight in international forums about China’s violations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), especially considering both the Philippines and China are parties to UNCLOS.

For example, the Philippines needs to highlight the outcome of the 2016 South China Sea Arbitration that found China’s claim as incompatible. The arbitration resulted in several key decision points.

Firstly, China’s claims to historic rights and resources have no legal basis. Secondly, none of China’s claimed land features in the Spratly Islands are islands capable of generating a 200-nm EEZ. Thirdly, China violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights on several layers: 1) interfering with the latter’s oil exploration activities; 2) prohibiting its fishing vessels from operating; 3) failing to prevent Chinese fishing vessels from operating and; 4) conducting land reclamation in areas where the Philippines enjoys sovereign rights to explore for and exploit natural resources. Lastly, China violated its marine environmental protection obligations under UNCLOS by causing “severe harm to the coral reef environment” with its land reclamation activities and harvesting of endangered species.

Despite this, China has lodged its non-participation and non-acceptance of this ruling.

The impact of the 2016 arbitral ruling is threefold. First, the arbitration denies the effectivity of China’s maritime security strategy in the South China Sea. Second, it denies China’s historic rights claim. Third, it gives independent states recourse to the merits of UNCLOS in the face of China’s sea power in the South China Sea.

In other words, it has reinforced the Philippines’ contention that the actions of China in the South China Sea are “Illegal, Coercive, Aggressive and Deceptive.”

As a strategy to promote this ruling, President Ferdinand Marcos signed Executive Order 57 on 25 March 2024, to deal with issues that impact the country’s national security, sovereignty, sovereign rights and maritime jurisdiction over its extensive maritime zones. The Philippines continues to present the merits of the 2016 Arbitral Ruling in all public forums and implement exhaustive efforts to maintain its full adherence to the rule of law.

Efforts to Counter Maritime Aggression

The Philippines’ strategic alignment with the United States, Japan and Australia is a clear response to China’s intrusion. Under the auspices of the US Indo-Pacific Strategy, the Philippines can coalesce international support to maintain its position vis-à-vis China’s activities in the South China Sea.

There is strength in number. The leaders of the United States, Japan, India and Australia have collectively declared their concern about the situation in the East and South China Seas,  the “coercive and intimidating maneuvres” by China in the latter.

Even with such support in place, the Philippines must adopt a two-fold strategy to deal with China’s recurring activities within its EEZ.

The first strategy is to allow the United States and other foreign vessels to join the regular resupply mission to the BRP Sierra Madre, a tank-landing vessel under the Philippine Navy. If the Philippines’ resupply vessels are accompanied by foreign vessels, this may deter the Chinese maritime militia from carrying out its ramming techniques. Thus, the resupply missions can be peaceful and may be completed without any incident.

The second strategy is to allow active-duty Filipino Americans in the United States’ armed forces to join the resupply mission on board Philippine vessels.

The Philippines is one of several countries that recognize dual citizenship, with more than 15,000 Filipino Americans actively serving in the United States Navy, some of whom have achieved ranks of leadership at all levels. 

Many Filipino American officers are known as “mustangs,” naval service members who have worked through their career path from the bottom to the top. This is an honor that is difficult to attain and those mustangs are valuable repositories of knowledge as well as experience wherever they go.

The Philippines may put a request to the United States to allow Filipino-American naval officers to participate in regular resupply missions to the BRP Sierra Madre and in the patrolling of territorial waters in the South China Sea. The presence of Filipino Americans inside the Philippine vessels would help boost confidence among the Philippine Coast Guard and the Philippine Navy officers.

Conclusion

Chinese aggression within the Philippines’ EEZ has increased dramatically in the second half of this year. These actions have resulted in increased tensions between the two, thus threatening regional stability. Furthermore, despite a joint China-Philippine arrangement, which focuses on refraining from aggression during resupply missions to BRP Sierra Madre, China has not adhered to its commitments. This has called into question the viability of any diplomatic agreements with China.

The time has come for the Philippines to adopt more creative ways to deter China. The two-pronged strategy of including American vessels and Filipino American naval officers for regular resupply missions may offer a boost to maritime stability.

Filipino officials need to go beyond just diplomatic efforts to address the tensions in the South China Sea. These two creative solutions, which constitute peaceful strategies, may lead to better maritime security and regional stability in the long term.