Today Malaysian prime minister Najib
Razak made two major proposals for reforming the ASEAN institutions. This is rather important as Malaysia will
take over as ASEAN Chair in 2015.
First, Prime Minister Najib
proposed the possible creation of a fourth “pillar” of the ASEAN Community, in
addition to the existing political-security, economic and socio-cultural
pillars. The fourth pillar would deal
with cross-sectoral issues which involve two or more pillars. The prime minister specifically identified
climate change and transboundary haze (air pollution) as such issues, but other
issues that come to mind include food security, public health (e.g., regulation
of liquor and tobacco) and law cooperation.
Involving the ASEAN Economic
Community (AEC), in particular, would be significant because this would raise
the possibility of economic sanctions (e.g., withdrawal of ASEAN Trade in Goods
Agreement (ATIGA) preferential tariffs) in order to achieve goals currently under
the mandate of the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC). For example, the
Malaysian health minister had proposed withdrawing tobacco from the zero
percent duty rates of ATIGA, but since health issues fall within the ASCC,
and ATIGA falls within the AEC, this proposal was a dead letter. Similarly, some
in ASEAN (particularly Malaysia and Singapore) have called for trade
retaliation against countries that fail to control the origin of haze (e.g.,
Indonesia).
Prime Minister Najib’s
suggestion is commendable, but I think it should be tweaked to make it more workable. Creating a fourth ASEAN pillar is probably
confusing and could create another policy “silo”, which his proposal attempts
to avoid. It would be better to keep the existing three pillars but create
another ASEAN Council of ministers that would deal with cross-sectoral
issues. This could be called the “ASEAN
Inter-Pillar Council” or the like. More importantly is that the ministers
serving on this council should have a proper cross-sectoral perspective; they
preferably should not be on the current ASEAN Community Councils. To maintain the cross-sectoral perspective
that the ASEAN Summit of leaders itself has, this new council should be made up
of ministers who report directly to the ASEAN leaders, at least in their own
countries (the current ASEAN Coordinating Council of foreign ministers would
maintain its necessary organizational role and support/coordinate this new
Inter-Pillar Council). Hence instead of foreign ministers or economic
ministers, the ASEAN Inter-Pillar Council would be made up of deputy prime
ministers, vice-presidents, ministers in the prime minister’s office or even
new “ASEAN” ministers. To do otherwise by populating the new council
with existing economic or foreign ministers would risk continuing the current
“silo” effects that currently exist in the ASEAN Communities.
Second, Prime Minister Najib
addressed the issue of ASEAN member states’ annual contributions to the ASEAN
Secretariat. Currently each member state
contributes US$ 1.7 million annually.
The prime minister suggested that instead of a set amount, the
contribution would be set as a minimum sum, which countries could exceed on a
voluntary basis. He also proposed that
contributions be made on a three-to-five year basis rather than on a yearly
basis, in order to promote funding predictability.
Again, these are good ideas
that need some elaboration. There is
currently no formal restriction to prevent ASEAN members from making additional
voluntary contributions to the ASEAN Secretariat. What prevents this from happening is the
potential negative reaction from other ASEAN members, e.g., that additional funding would mean additional
influence over the ASEAN institutions, or that a revised funding formula could
be established based on GDP or economic development. Singapore, among others, has historically
opposed changes to the contribution methodology for these and other reasons. On
the other hand, the current overall funding of the ASEAN institutions (including
the aid support for ad-hoc ASEAN projects) is much greater and much more
dependent on donor funding from the US, EU, Australia and others, yet there is
no (public) criticism that these countries have commensurate influence over the
ASEAN institutions. In any event, any
change in the funding methodology for the ASEAN institutions, even the modest
proposals made by Prime Minister Najib, are welcome and I hope that they are
accepted by the other ASEAN member states in some form.
I
had predicted that any lasting ASEAN initiatives would have to wait until
Malaysia took over as ASEAN Chair in 2015, and it looks like I may be
right. In addition, Malaysia serves as
chair of the ASEAN working group studying reforms of the ASEAN institutions so
it can pursue these initiatives immediately.
Either way, I hope that Prime Minister Najib’s proposals are the
beginning of a dialogue on these issues.
