Dr Oh Ei Sun
By TENGKU NOOR SHAMSIAH TENGKU ABDULLAH
KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 29 -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.
“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.
Malaysia’s ASEAN Chairmanship: Quiet Diplomacy Done Right
Within these constraints, Dr Oh assessed Malaysia’s performance as ASEAN Chair positively. The achievement, he stressed, lay not in redefining ASEAN’s role, but in managing its realities effectively.
“Malaysia has done quite a good job in trying to navigate the ongoing U.S.–China confrontation,” he said.
By hosting both Xi Jinping and Donald Trump during its chairmanship, Malaysia reinforced ASEAN’s long-standing dual approach: aligning more closely with Washington on security matters while engaging Beijing on economic opportunities.
“We successfully continued this ASEAN tradition—siding more with the Americans when it comes to security concerns, and siding more with China when it comes to economic opportunities.”
For Dr Oh, this was diplomacy rooted in pragmatism rather than ideology.
Strategic Autonomy: An Ideal Beyond Reach
Calls for ASEAN or individual member states to pursue full strategic autonomy are, in Dr Oh’s view, detached from reality.
“Strategic autonomy is a luxury,” he said bluntly. “I sincerely don’t think any ASEAN country is in a position to attain that sort of autonomy at this point.”
Economic interdependence, security reliance and domestic political constraints mean that balance—rather than independence—remains the only viable strategy for Southeast Asian states.
Malaysia–China Relations: Economics First, Strategy Deferred
Dr Oh characterised Malaysia’s relationship with China as overwhelmingly economic in nature.
“From the Malaysian perspective, the relationship is very much economically driven,” he said, while noting that China may seek broader strategic or even security engagement.
Malaysia, however, remains cautious, preferring to keep the relationship transactional and selective.
“Malaysia would pay lip service to broader strategic cooperation, but it is still very much economic and perhaps a little technological.”
This divergence in expectations, he warned, will not be easy to reconcile.
Domestic Politics After 2020: Stability Without Certainty
Turning to domestic politics, Dr Oh was frank about the lasting impact of the 2020 Sheraton Move.
“I frankly don’t think we would ever have political stability post-2020,” he said.
Malaysia’s parliamentary system allows governments to survive only so long as majority support holds—a support that can be withdrawn at any time, even by members of the ruling coalition. As a result, policy continuity exists alongside persistent vulnerability.
The current administration, he noted, is expected simultaneously to maintain stability and deliver reform—two goals that often pull in opposite directions.
Cautious Governance and Policy Reversals
This tension explains the government’s cautious governing style.
“The approach is more cautious balancing,” Dr Oh said, as the administration attempts to satisfy reform-minded supporters while protecting the livelihoods of rural voters and lower-income 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.
“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. – TNS NEWS