ASEAN’s national borders,
many of which were set by colonial powers, have always been relatively
porous. Long stretches of interior frontiers
in Indochina are surpassed by the miles of coastline in the archipelagic states
of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines.
Thus, it should come as no
surprise that migration within ASEAN, temporary and permanent, has been a recurring
issue. The incursion by armed Filipino
militants into the Malaysian state of Sabah, eventually resolved through air strikes
and commando raids, is an extreme example.
More prosaic is the current debate in Singapore about the presence of
foreign workers, many from Malaysia and the Philippines. Nor is the issue a new one; recall the
Vietnamese boat refugees of the 1970’s.
In international trade
parlance, migration issues come under the rubric of “movement of natural
persons.” In a fully functional market,
both consumers and producers of services, e.g., people, would be able to cross
borders at will. This is largely the
case in the European Union, for example.
In ASEAN, there is a much
more limited Movement of Natural Persons Agreement that applies only to
temporary residence for managers and professionals on assignment (this
agreement has not yet been fully ratified).
Full movement of natural persons within ASEAN would be extremely
controversial, as the above examples from Malaysia and Singapore illustrate.
Yet the movement of natural
persons issue demonstrates how the three pillars of the ASEAN Community
interact. Economically, workers would be
displaced by incoming migrants. From the
socio-cultural point of view, migration would affect health, environment and
other issues. Perhaps most importantly,
from the political-security point of view, would free migration within ASEAN
for economic purposes come with legal and political rights? For example, in the EU, EU nationals resident
outside their home countries have such legal and political rights, such as
voting in European Parliament elections.
Would ASEAN leaders be willing to give internal migrants similar rights? Recognizing the fundamental nature of this
issue, U.S. Ambassador to ASEAN David Carden identified the natural movement of
persons as the most important issue facing ASEAN integration during one of my
NUS Law seminars.
It is doubtful that ASEAN
will be willing to address this issue anytime soon, because of the difficult
nature of the associated side-issues. Even
in more mature regional economic integration projects, the free movement of
natural persons is a controversial issue.
The EU does not have complete freedom of movement, and immigration
remains a hot-button issue in the major NAFTA member, the United States.
Because it touches so many
key issues for regional integration and development, the movement of natural
persons will be the last major hurdle for the AEC and other regional economic
integration projects. However, because
of the less mature political and social development within ASEAN, it will take
that much longer to achieve in Southeast Asia.
Again, this illustrates why
ASEAN leaders are correct in prioritizing the development of the AEC as a
single production base rather than the creation of the AEC as a single
market. The production base will deliver
more benefits to ASEAN’s citizens on a faster basis. Nevertheless, ASEAN needs
to keep an eye on this long-term goal of free movement of natural persons. Just don’t expect to see ASEAN leaders
address this “third rail” of regional integration any time soon.
