A+ A-

Articles & Commentaries

2021/121 “China’s Vaccine Diplomacy in Malaysia: Problems and Prospects” by Peter T. C. Chang

 

A medical staff member administers a dose of the Sinovac Covid-19 coronavirus vaccine on an elderly man outside a mobile vaccine truck in Kuala Lumpur on 21 June 2021. Photo: Mohd RASFAN, AFP.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • China-manufactured vaccines are part of a diverse portfolio that Malaysia relies on to inoculate its population out of a devastating Covid-19 wave. But concerns over its relative effectiveness have led to China’s Sinovac being relegated to a secondary supporting role in Malaysia’s national immunization programme
  • The downgrading notwithstanding, China’s vaccine diplomacy remains crucial for containing the Covid-19 pandemic in Malaysia and other developing countries. This is because China continues to produce vaccines that are more readily available, affordable, and easier to administer.
  • Vaccine diplomacy is also part of Beijing’s broader strategy to strengthen global public health governance within the Health Silk Road (HSR) initiative. The ‘fill-and-finish’ agreement that Malaysia has with Sinovac facilitates technology transfer and develops local vaccine production capability.
  • Meanwhile, as Malaysia and the developing world continue to face a tight supply of and inequitable access to vaccines, and with the crisis fast transmuting into a two-track pandemic of the haves and the have-nots, the richest nations can and should do more in helping the poorest.

* Guest writer, Peter T. C. Chang, is Deputy Director of the Institute of China Studies, University of Malaya.

Download PDF Version

INTRODUCTION

Malaysia’s National Immunization Programme (NIP) chose Pfizer, AstraZeneca (AZ) and Sinovac as its vaccine portfolio. At the outset, Beijing assured Putrajaya of prioritized allocation and timely delivery of its vaccines. However, issues of vaccine effectiveness have affected the agreement. In July, Sinovac was removed from Malaysia’s mainstream vaccination rollout.

Beijing’s campaign also faces competition from geopolitical rivals who have stepped up their vaccine donations to Malaysia. Despite these setbacks, China’s vaccine diplomacy has two redeeming features:

a. The first pertains to prevailing criticism of ‘vaccine nationalism’ directed at the wealthier nations. By contrast, though not considered the best, China’s vaccines remain accessible, ensuring a fairer allotment to the developing world.

b. Secondly, aside from one-off donations, the United States’ longer-term commitment to aid countries like Malaysia to contain the pandemic remains unclear. China’s current campaign can in contrast be seen as part of Beijing’s broader and comprehensive strategy to strengthen global public health governance within the Health Silk Road (HSR) initiative.

OVERVIEW: MALAYSIA’S COVID PANDEMIC 

Malaysia is still in the trough of a devastating fourth wave of Covid-19 infections. The Delta variant is crippling efforts to flatten the curve, and the number of daily infected cases has risen past the 23,000-per-day mark. The cumulative infections are now over 1.3 million and the casualty toll has passed the grim 13,000 milestone.

An ineffective lockdown has been blamed for the worsening situation, reflecting the government’s failure to strike the right balance between saving lives and saving livelihood. Some economic sectors were allowed to operate, and this resulted in factories and construction sites being responsible for super-spreader clusters. The inconsistent enforcement of movement control orders fuelled perceptions of double standards, undermining public confidence in the government.

Another compounding factor is the slow start to Malaysia’s vaccination rollout. In February 2021, the National Immunization Programme (NIP) secured advance purchase agreements of a portfolio of vaccines for emergency use, of which 30% were to come from China’s manufacturers.[1] The NIP’s ‘three-phase plan’ was to inoculate the country’s entire adult population by February 2022. But right from the start, the campaign was hobbled by erratic vaccine delivery, especially of the highly sought-after Pfizer vaccine. As a result, by June 2021, only 10% of the targeted population was inoculated.

Vaccine shipments have since come through and the vaccination rate has picked up. Most adults in the country are now expected to be fully immunized by October 2021, a target date brought forward in lieu of the worsening infection caseload. The vaccination rollout was also plagued by ‘empty syringe’ allegations, further eroding public confidence in the government. The recent change of government has undoubtedly added another complication to Malaysia’s fight against the deadly virus.

CHINA’S VACCINE DIPLOMACY

At the onset of the pandemic, China adopted ‘face mask diplomacy’, and supplied Malaysia with shipments of pharmaceutical inventories, hospital equipment and medical personnel. Later, as the vaccination campaign got underway, Beijing promised Putrajaya supplies of its vaccines. In February, the first batch of Sinovac was received in a high-profile airport ceremony. The Minister in charge of the NIP, Khairy Jamaluddin became the first recipient of the Sinovac jab in a show of personal confidence in the vaccine. All the tranches of Sinovac were subsequently delivered on schedule.[2] By July 2020, Malaysia had received in total 12 million doses of Sinovac, of which 500,000 shots were donated, and the rest purchased. Earlier in June, two additional China vaccines, CanSino and Sinopharm, were added to the list of vaccines awaiting approval for emergency use in Malaysia.

PROBLEMS: CONCERNS AND COMPETITION

Despite Beijing’s enthusiastic outreach, its vaccine diplomacy is hitting some speed bumps. One issue pertains to the ‘halal’ status of Sinovac. In a related development, Saudi Arabia granted permission to those vaccinated with Sinovac to undertake the Mecca pilgrimage on condition they receive a 3rd booster from an authorized vaccine. Underpinning this qualified approval was the deeper concern and pervasive perception of Sinovac’s relatively low effectiveness.

International bodies expressed worries over the lack of transparency where Sinovac’s clinical trials were concerned. Accurate assessments of China’s vaccine performance in real-life situations were also stymied by shortage of data. Together with anecdotal accounts of subpar performance, these criticisms fanned public apprehensions that eventually led to the removal of Sinovac from the NIP list.[3] Pfizer is now the sole vaccine anchoring the remaining phases of Malaysia’s national immunization campaign.

China’s vaccine diplomacy in Malaysia is not happening in a vacuum; it is taking place in the midst of bilateral tensions, the most serious of which concerns sovereignty claims in the South China Sea. That said, leaders from both countries have thus far been able to compartmentalize these contentions in order to pursue broader common interests such as those within the Belt and Road Initiative.

Another issue that affected China’s standing pertains to controversies over the origins of the Covid-19 virus, albeit that these were mostly confined to social media platforms. The Malaysian government has stayed out of the controversy. [4]

China’s overture to Malaysia is also taking place against the backdrop of increasingly tense big power rivalry. In July, the US and Japan stepped up their vaccine diplomacy, each donating to Malaysia their spare inventory of one million doses of the Pfizer and AZ vaccines respectively. And in August, Malaysia received a contribution of 415,000 doses of AZ from England. Vaccine diplomacy is now the new arena for soft power contestation, as geopolitical rivals compete for dominance and influence in countries like Malaysia.

PROSPECTS: EQUITY AND STRATEGY

Concerns over low efficacy and big power rivalry notwithstanding, China’s vaccines remain a vital component in the global fight against Covid-19. This is largely because they remain as some of the more accessible, relatively affordable, and easier vaccines to administer.

Vaccine Availability and Equity

According to the British life science analytics firm Airfinity, China has administered a third of all Covid vaccines globally, underscoring China’s role as a lead manufacturer and contributor to the world’s supply of vaccines.[5] As China was able to contain the pandemic relatively quickly at home, its vaccine makers were able to export the bulk of their production. However, outbound shipment has since slowed as China seeks to vaccinate its entire population by the middle of 2022. Even so, at the recent International Forum on Covid-19 Vaccine Cooperation in August, President Xi Jinping pledged to continue contributing 2 billion doses to the global stockpile throughout this year. Thus, though not considered the best, China’s vaccine is likely to remain one of the most accessible and widely used in the world.

By comparison, in the West, the devastating virus outbreak early in the pandemic meant that vaccine productions were mostly retained for use at home. Some observers have faulted the wealthy vaccine producing countries for unconscionable export-ban and hoarding, purported four times over what is necessary, with widespread reports of stockpiles being left unused and disposed of once past their expiration date.[6]

WHO’s Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has called out the wealthy countries’ ‘me first policy’ with a blunt chastisement of hoarding as ‘a catastrophic moral failure’.[7] In Malaysia, the government decided at the outset to keep immunization free of charge to ensure that every citizen is guaranteed equal access to the vaccine. Amidst global talk of a third booster shot, WHO has pleaded with richer nations to hold off from offering supplementary jabs to allow low-income countries access to vaccine supplies.

Vaccine Affordability and Equity

Initiated in April 2020, COVAX aimed to pool resources and distribute vaccines equitably to the developing world. Yet the WHO-led programme has struggled to acquire doses, as wealthy countries prioritized their domestic use. India was to be a key supplier but after cases surged in March, the government halted vaccine exports. China had joined COVAX in May 2021, only after WHO greenlighted its vaccines for use.

Vaccine supplies are starting to come through but the COVAX pricing mechanism designed to ensure equitable distribution has floundered. Countries, rich and poor alike, are competing with each other for the limited supplies. And the wealthier ones have scrambled to secure advance purchase agreements, pushing those with lesser means to the back of the queue.[8] Malaysia, for example, has complained of the long waiting time where COVAX is concerned.[9] COVAX’s failure underscores another hindrance to vaccine equity. As pharmaceutical companies scale up production, the cost of vaccines becomes the next restriction on access.

Some countries are approaching the vaccine makers directly, bypassing the COVAX programme altogether. Due to non-disclosure agreements (NDA), specific procurement costs are not made public.[10] Manufacturers however do provide a range of prices, and based on the information available, Moderna is at the top end of the price scale while AZ is at the lower end. Pfizer is mid-range, although its high handling cost offsets this advantage. China’s vaccines are not the cheapest.[11] But as state-owned-enterprises, Chinese manufacturers have shown greater latitude to subsidize and have organized more competitive packages. In Malaysia, for example, the Sinovac deal allows the ‘fill-and-finish’ process to be carried out locally, to facilitate technological transfer and an opportunity for Malaysia ‘to buy at a good price’ according to Minister Khairy Jalamuddin.[12] Despite that, Pfizer is Malaysia’s preferred vaccine and the government is negotiating a new contract that is expected to further strain the country’s finances amidst reports of a price hike in the hugely popular but increasingly pricey vaccine.[13] The ‘gold-standard’ vaccine carries a price-tag that is beyond the reach of lesser economies.

Vaccine Administration and Equity

Another outlay often overlooked in the vaccination rollout are the handling costs. The inoculation process requires supporting facilities for transportation, storage and administration of the shots. In some of the poorest countries, these basic logistical supports are not readily available. A plight highlighted in a recent New York Times report on how some African states struggled to get donated vaccines from the airport tarmac into the arms of the people.[14] This is a difficulty most pertinent where Pfizer and Moderna are concerned, as these mRNA vaccines require ultra-cold refrigeration. All the other vaccines, including China’s Sinovac, need only standard refrigeration, making them easier and less costly to handle. Requiring lighter logistical support, these are more easily dispatched to ‘low-resource’ countries, especially those in the tropics. In Malaysia, for example, the one-shot CanSino vaccine will be deployed to inoculate villagers living in the remote interiors of Sabah and Sarawak.

Commitment and Strategy

The same NYT report alleged that the struggle to get vaccines to end users was aggravated by the Biden’s administration diverting funds initially designated for the vaccination drives to pay for the donated Pfizer doses. The re-directing of funds calls into question the US’s commitment and priorities. The Americans signed on to COVAX only in February 2021,  after the US under the Biden administration rejoined WHO, reversing the Trump administration’s earlier withdrawal from the international body. This turnaround cast doubts over Washington’s reliability.

This brings us to a key feature in China’s vaccine diplomacy, namely its role in the broader Health Silk Road (HSR), an offshoot of the BRI (Belt and Road Initiative). First touted in 2016, Xi Jinping framed HSR as a ‘global public good’ initiative to strengthen regional and global health governance.[15] The aim is to build an integrated network of healthcare and medical aid infrastructure. In the current vaccine drive in Indonesia and UAE, for instance, in addition to harnessing local vaccine production capacities, plans are afoot to also set up R&D facilities for medical training and scientific research. Some observers have ascribed these investments as part of China’s ‘medical diplomacy’ to develop a comprehensive international healthcare eco-system to better prepare the world for future pandemics.[16]

By contrast, aside from its one-off donation of Pfizer doses, it remains unclear what the US’s next course of action is in assisting countries like Malaysia to recover from the pandemic. That said, the recently launched B3W (Build Back Better World) initiative may provide an opening for America to maintain a strategic longer-range engagement with the developing world. The B3W’s stated goal is to generate uplift across a broad spectrum of industries including the medical sector and public healthcare. If actualized, this US-led initiative can play a pivotal role in reviving the pandemic-stricken global economy.

CONCLUSION

In Malaysia, Pfizer is the vaccine of choice, anchoring the national immunization program as China’s boosters are relegated to a supporting role. The downgrading notwithstanding, China’s vaccine diplomacy remains a prime mover in the unfinished worldwide battle against the coronavirus pandemic. And this is because China’s manufacturers still offer some of the more accessible, relatively affordable, and easier to administer vaccines. Thus, though not considered the most efficacious, China’s ‘good enough’ vaccine, and the ‘only one available’ in some lower-income countries, is crucial in curbing the global spread of the lethal virus. But China’s effort alone is not enough. As the world continues to face an acute shortage of vaccines, and with the crisis fast transmuting into a two-track pandemic of the haves and haves not, the richest nations can and should do more in helping the poorest. 

ISEAS Perspective 2021/121, 15 September 2021


ENDNOTES

[1] According to the National Covid-19 Immunisation Programme, the remaining advance acquisitions were apportioned between Pfizer (50%) AZ (20%), and Sputnik (10%).https://www.vaksincovid.gov.my/pdf/National_COVID-19_Immunisation_Programme.pdf

[2] “Malaysia has received 8.59 mil vaccine doses from Pfizer, Sinovac, AstraZeneca so far – MOH”, The Edge Markets, 21 June 2021, www.theedgemarkets.com/article/malaysia-has-received-859-million-vaccine-doses-pfizer-sinovac-astrazeneca-thus-far-%E2%80%94-moh

[3] Social media, online disinformation gave rise to vaccine hesitancy and vaccine choosiness. See https://www.thevibes.com/articles/news/30169/dont-be-choosy-about-brand-khairy-tells-elderly-vaccine-recipients. Not all the scepticism was directed at China vaccines. Some were concerned with the mRNA vaccines and their side-effects. See https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/health-environment/article/3138655/malaysias-covid-19-vaccination-drive-revs-sceptics

[4] The Malaysia government has been careful not to stigmatize any race or religion in relation to the pandemic. All reported data on infection, hospitalization, death, and vaccination rates, were presented without race or religion categorization.

[5] China has administered about 37.4 % of all COVID vaccines globally. Airfinity. 23 June, 2021, https://www.airfinity.com/insights/analysis-1

[6] “Rich countries are hoarding Covid-19 vaccines”, Vox.com, 29 January, 2021, https://www.vox.com/2021/1/29/22253908/rich-countries-hoarding-covid-19-vaccines

“Millions of coronavirus vaccine doses around the world face expiration”, Washington Post, 11 August, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/11/millions-coronavirus-vaccine-doses-around-world-face-expiration/

[7] WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at 148th session of the Executive Board, World Health Organization, 18 January, 2021, https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-148th-session-of-the-executive-board

[8] “Where a Vast Global Vaccination Program Went Wrong”, New York Times, 2 August, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/02/world/europe/covax-covid-vaccine-problems-africa.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

[9] “Khairy stands by belief EU hoarding Covid-19 vaccines, referring to purchase of more than it needs”, The Star, 26 June, 2021, https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2021/06/26/khairy-stands-by-belief-eu-hoarding-covid-19-vaccines-referring-to-purchase-of-more-than-it-needs

[10] The non-disclosure agreement (NDA) makes it difficult to evaluate the commercial values and relative cost competitiveness of different brands of vaccines. The NDA also raised concerns over the lack of transparency and risk of graft. See https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2021/06/04/waive-the-nda-tell-us-cost-of-vaccines-say-anti-graft-groups/

[11] “Covid vaccines: Will drug companies make bumper profits?”, BBC Business, 18 December, 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55170756

[12] “Cheaper Covid-19 vaccine from China via Pharmaniaga”, New Straits Times, 12 January, 2021,

https://www.nst.com.my/business/2021/01/656732/cheaper-covid-19-vaccine-china-pharmaniaga

China and Malaysia also signed an agreement to facilitate expertise and knowledge sharing, as well as cooperation in the fields of science and technology. These are in line with the aspiration to develop the vaccine industry of both nations. See https://www.vaksincovid.gov.my/pdf/National_COVID-19_Immunisation_Programme.pdf

[13] “Opposition willing to help govt source RM1.5b to cover shortfall in Covid-19 vaccines, Guan Eng tells Khairy”, the Malay Mail, 3 August, 2021, https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2021/08/03/Opposition-willing-to-help-govt-source-RM1.5b-to-cover-shortfall-in-Covid-1/1994815

[14] “Where a Vast Global Vaccination Program Went Wrong”, New York Times, 2 August, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/02/world/europe/covax-covid-vaccine-problems-africa.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

[15] “Covid-19 speeds up China’s ‘Health Silk Road’, East Asia Forum, 26 May, 2020, https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2020/05/26/covid-19-speeds-up-chinas-health-silk-road/

[16] “Vaccine diplomacy: nation branding and China’s COVID-19 soft power play,” National Centre for Biotechnology Information, 6 July, 2021, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8259554/

ISEAS Perspective is published electronically by: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute   30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace Singapore 119614 Main Tel: (65) 6778 0955 Main Fax: (65) 6778 1735   Get Involved with ISEAS. Please click here: /supportISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute accepts no responsibility for facts presented and views expressed.   Responsibility rests exclusively with the individual author or authors. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission.  
© Copyright is held by the author or authors of each article.
Editorial Chairman: Choi Shing Kwok  
Editorial Advisor: Tan Chin Tiong  
Managing Editor: Ooi Kee Beng  
Editors: William Choong, Lee Poh Onn, Lee Sue-Ann, and Ng Kah Meng  
Comments are welcome and may be sent to the author(s).

2021/120 “The ASEAN-China Partnership: Balancing Merits and Demerits” by Farah Nadine Seth and Sharon Seah

 

It was Chen Xiaodong, China’s Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs, who proposed establishing an ASEAN-China Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (AC-CSP) in 2021. In this photo, Chen Xiaodong delivering a speech during the Middle East Security Forum at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing on 27 November 2019. Picture: Noel CELIS, AFP.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • An ASEAN-China Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (AC-CSP) may be on the cards, but ASEAN fears that adopting it may be construed as taking sides.
  • While a pragmatic analysis of what an AC-CSP would bring to the table across its three pillars of cooperation is needed, ASEAN should also consider the implications for the bloc’s strategic autonomy, given the political and institutional upgrading of ties involved.
  • While ASEAN may find it difficult to rebuff China’s overtures for an AC-CSP given Beijing’s expanding hegemony and the structurally asymmetrical relationship, the common challenges and aspirations shared by both parties nevertheless encourage functional cooperation. On the flip side, there is also the danger of certain presently relished benefits in the relationship being lost.
  • Thus, ASEAN must be mindful of the method and pace with which AC-CSP negotiations are conducted, and focus on expanding cooperation in mutual ‘bright spots’ in the socio-cultural realm, and allow for an implicit wait-and-see approach.
  • China and Australia’s requests for an upgrade presents an opportune window for ASEAN to calibrate its guiding principles for future upgrading of partnerships.

* Farah Nadine Seth is Research Officer at the ASEAN Studies Centre, ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute. Sharon Seah is ISEAS Senior Fellow and Coordinator of the ASEAN Studies Centre and the Climate Change in Southeast Asia Programme.

Download PDF Version

INTRODUCTION

ASEAN’s relationship with China follows closely the latter’s exponential rise in importance globally in the last 30 years. China’s first official engagement with the bloc was in 1991, and it was accorded full Dialogue Partner (DP) status five years later.[1] Despite joining later than other countries,[2] China accelerated its engagement with ASEAN rapidly thereafter with China-ASEAN ties being upgraded to a strategic partnership in 2003, earlier than for other DPs.[3] Since then, China has embarked on a plethora of collaborations across ASEAN’s three sectoral pillars.

Continuing earlier calls for strengthening of ties,[4] China has been pushing for an ASEAN-China Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (AC-CSP) with the advent of the 30th Anniversary of ASEAN-China dialogue relations this year. It was Chen Xiaodong, China’s Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs, who proposed establishing an AC-CSP in 2021.[5] This was met with a polite muted response from the bloc as seen in the Chairman’s Statement of the 23rd ASEAN-China Summit.[6] China’s desire to upgrade bilateral relations reflects ASEAN’s long-standing economic and strategic importance to Beijing, with top Chinese diplomats repeatedly emphasising that “China will always take ASEAN as a priority in its neighbourhood diplomacy”.[7] At the point of writing, discussions on a potential AC-CSP, along with Australia’s request to upgrade its relations to a CSP,[8] are ongoing.

This Perspective examines ASEAN-China cooperation across ASEAN’s three sectoral pillars before analysing the opportunities and concerns of a potential AC-CSP. We argue that while ASEAN must carefully consider the conditions for an AC-CSP, including concerns of exacerbated structural inequalities in the political-security and economic realms, the bloc might be hard-pressed to ignore China’s overtures given Beijing’s expanding regional influence and the structurally asymmetrical relationship. Nevertheless, the common challenges and aspirations shared by both parties point to potential mutually beneficial areas of functional cooperation. As such, ASEAN must be mindful of the method and pace in which AC-CSP negotiations are conducted, and focus on expanding cooperation in mutual ‘bright spots’ in the socio-cultural realm, and allow for an implicit wait-and-see approach.

MULTIFACETED COOPERATION THROUGH THE YEARS

China’s key pillar of cooperation with ASEAN is arguably economic. China was the first major power to conclude a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with ASEAN,[9] and trade and investment between both parties has grown rapidly as a result. China has been ASEAN’s top trading partner since 2009.[10] In 2020, the bloc surpassed the EU to be China’s top trading partner.[11] Two-way trade in 2020 was valued at US$731.9 billion while foreign direct investment inflows into the region topped US$7.6 billion.[12] From their wide-ranging cooperation – spanning production capacity, communication and science technologies, transport cooperation and smart cities – connectivity has emerged as a key cooperation sector with both parties working to synergise common strategies in the Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity 2025 and China’s Belt and Road Initiative.[13] Through the latter, China has invested significantly in various infrastructure projects region-wide, especially in the mainland ASEAN states.

Recently, collaboration under the socio-cultural pillar has gained traction and earned China more soft power. China and ASEAN have increased cooperation in public health, environmental protection, disaster management, and rural development. Furthermore, China’s COVID-19-related assistance[14] and its extensive vaccine diplomacy in the region,[15] were noteworthy, with the region recognising China as the DP that provided the most help during the pandemic, according to The State of Southeast Asia: 2021 Survey (SSEA2021).[16] Within the environmental realm, there have been growing interactions in environmental protection, climate action and eco-friendly cities.[17] The increased socio-cultural interlinkages are perhaps best encapsulated in the 30th year of ASEAN-China Dialogue Relations’ theme, “Year of Sustainable Development Cooperation”, which focused on non-traditional security and sustainable development issues.[18]

Their political and security cooperation, however, is subject to changing push-and-pull tensions. Beijing’s law enforcement-driven security collaborative efforts centre on drug trafficking, transnational crime and non-traditional security issues. Regarding defence security, China has participated in various fora within ASEAN-led mechanisms such as the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting Plus, ASEAN Regional Forum and the East Asia Summit. However, their political discussions largely focus on the contentious issue of territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea (SCS). Various measures to manage these increasingly tense relations have been initiated including the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) signed in 2002, and the ongoing Code of Conduct (COC) negotiations that have been underway since 2017. Progress on the COC has been slow-moving, and military incursions in the SCS are straining relations and belying the agreements made to mitigate tensions.

An AC-CSP would signal higher priority in foreign affairs and more extensive cooperation across multiple sectors. Referencing Premier Wen Jiabao’s authoritative definition on a CSP, the term ‘Comprehensive’ denotes that the partnership would involve “cooperation in the economic, technological, cultural and political fields” with multi-level diplomatic cooperation at the government and people-to-people level to deal with both bilateral and multilateral issues.[19] Beijing’s Five-Point Proposal on the future of ASEAN-China cooperation serves as a reference point for the possible areas that an AC-CSP would focus on (refer to Table 1).

Table 1: China’s Five-Point Proposal for China-ASEAN Relations

Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China[20]

OPPORTUNITIES AND CONCERNS OF AN AC-CSP

Considering the longstanding cooperation between ASEAN and China, their increasingly inter-connected economies, and the crucial geopolitical space within which the ASEAN bloc resides, it is not surprising that China is pushing for a closer strategic partnership. The changing global geopolitical landscape with a stridently growing counter-China narrative and regional architecture[21] led by an assertive Biden Administration, is also a factor in driving China to strengthen its remaining bright spot in diplomatic relations.[22] China has been engaging in a charm offensive with the region with reciprocal bilateral visits between China and ASEAN countries in the last year, despite pandemic travel restrictions.[23] The series of 30th Anniversary commemorative events[24] have also allowed Beijing to repeatedly highlight enduring China-ASEAN bonds and press for an AC-CSP.

However, regional trust in China is low despite Beijing’s COVID-19 diplomacy. According to SSEA2021, China[25] recorded the lowest trust ratings of 16.5% and the highest distrust ratings of 63.0% amongst regional respondents. The top-cited concern was that China’s economic and military might may be used to threaten ASEAN states’ interest and sovereignty.[26] A potential AC-CSP would enhance fears of ASEAN’s loss of strategic autonomy given closer economic and security ties and likely increased Chinese hegemony.

Moreover, Southeast Asia is shaping into a geopolitical battleground, with the US and its allies re-focusing their attention to the region. In contrast to the previous administration’s disinterest, the Biden Administration views Southeast Asia and ASEAN as being integral to security interests in the Indo-Pacific and in countering Chinese strategic and economic influence in the region.[27] A recent ramp up in American diplomatic visits to Southeast Asia[28] with the most recent being Vice-President Kamala Harris’ visit to Singapore and Vietnam, point to US intention to revitalise their engagement with the region.

Against this backdrop, an AC-CSP may heighten ASEAN’s fears of being forced to take sides in the major power rivalry. Such a CSP would be the first between ASEAN and one of its DPs, sending an implicit signal of ASEAN tilting towards China despite its position thus far of neutrality. The traditional risk-averse ASEAN approach would be to continue hedging and to employ a wait-and-see strategy. This mode was already exhibited in the watered-down version of the final Co-Chair’s Statement on the Special ASEAN-China Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Celebration of the 30th Anniversary of the Dialogue Relations despite China’s initial optimistic projections.[29] It is unclear, though, how long ASEAN can continue to hedge and if prolonged delay would be viewed as a rebuff to the Chinese. However, noting the glacial pace at which consensus-driven ASEAN tends to operate, especially during pandemic times, such a delay – or hedging – would not be unusual and could be a convenient excuse.

ASEAN must embark on a pragmatic analysis of what an AC-CSP would bring to the table. Closer economic ties with China have certainly benefited the region. It is unclear whether closer political-security cooperation would be a boon or bane. In areas of mutual alignment such as combatting drug trafficking and transnational crime, there are opportunities for closer functional cooperation, though mainland states may worry about the expansion of Chinese influence in sub-regional security.[30] In the SCS disputes, some supporters may see an AC-CSP as an opportunity for ASEAN claimant states to seek to resolve contested boundaries. In their Five-Point Proposal, Beijing indicated its willingness to step up resolution-driven dialogue with claimant states and to speed up negotiations on a COC that complies with international law.[31] These would be promising signs of more effective cooperation in an AC-CSP. However, China’s track record of coercive fait accompli building of artificial islands and military outposts to stake its territorial claim as well as its blatant disregard of the 2016 Tribunal ruling not in its favour[32], makes it unlikely that Beijing can be persuaded to depart from its thus far China-first doctrine even within an AC-CSP. Strengthened regional ties through an AC-CSP could put claimant states under greater pressure to resolve SCS disputes bilaterally, an avenue that China has long preferred. Similarly, non-SCS claimant states may be reluctant to include the matter of SCS concessions, those not being of concern to them in an institutional agreement.

The AC-CSP may appear to be a revival of China’s proposed ASEAN-China Treaty of Good Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation, an idea that China put forward in 2013 to frame the strategic partnership. The idea of a treaty was politely and quietly shelved on concerns that it would duplicate and undermine the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation.[33] The promotion of “multilateralism with Asian characteristics” in Beijing’s Proposal suggests a desire to create a China-centred multilateral order but one which is undefined and ill-articulated. The Sino-centric world idea threatens to contradict the global international legal order which can be problematic to both sides’ stated adherence to international law, particularly in the SCS disputes. This raises a greater concern of whether strengthened ties would exacerbate the asymmetrical China-ASEAN relationship and force ASEAN to take a more China-amenable stance on other contested issues such as the Indo-Pacific or the Mekong sub-region. In essence, would an upgrade put ASEAN in danger of becoming a proxy region prone to do China’s bidding?

From an economic standpoint, an AC-CSP could enhance both the advantages and disadvantages stemming from the current relationship. For example, while trade and investment volumes may have room for expansion, existing trade deficits and negative impacts on ASEAN states’ local economies may consequently be exacerbated. Increased Chinese investment in connectivity projects, mostly in the Mekong region, while benefitting infrastructure needs, may heighten fears of increased economic dependence on China and subsequent decreased strategic autonomy.[34] These scenarios are no doubt dependent on the actual terms of the AC-CSP, but were ASEAN to decide not to accede to a CSP, it is likely that a rebuffed China would impose retaliatory punitive measures as it had done with Australia, a situation that most countries would rather avoid.[35]

The socio-cultural pillarmay perhaps be the bright spot in an AC-CSP. This year’s “Sustainable Development Cooperation” theme with its focus on expertise sharing on climate change, biodiversity, marine environment preservation, sustainable cities and clean energy, points to increased future cooperation on pressing environment-related issues. Beijing has indicated its readiness to implement the latest ASEAN-China environmental cooperation strategy.[36] Moreover, their commitment to environmental protection and innovation is underscored in the third thrust of their Five-Point Proposal on developing partnerships based on new growth drivers such as the blue and green economies. The other growth area of public health, as seen in the Proposal’s second thrust, suggests much-needed pandemic-related cooperation, moving forward. This includes joint vaccine production in ASEAN states, initial steps of which are seen in China and Indonesia’s recent cooperation pledge.[37] Functional cooperation holds promises of a “feel-good” factor and an ability to conduct arms-length cooperation without sacrificing strategic autonomy.

From an institutional standpoint, upgrading ties holds both opportunities and risks, given China’s existing bilateral relations with ASEAN states. Following Li & Ye’s categorisation of China’s partnerships into three broad categories – regular partnership, strategic partnership and comprehensive strategic partnership,[38] it is worth noting that most of China’s bilateral relations with ASEAN member states are more comprehensive than those with ASEAN as a whole, with most of them falling under the CSP grouping (Refer to Table 2). In particular, the Mekong countries of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam and Thailand all have a higher level of bilateral partnerships that entered into force earlier than for those China has with their maritime counterparts. 

Table 2: Status of Bilateral Relations of ASEAN Member States with China

Source: Various Sources (Ministries of Foreign Affairs of ASEAN states and China, The Brookings Institute[39], Li &Ye, and various press releases)

These raise important considerations. Is this a critical juncture for ASEAN to upgrade its relationship with China to reflect the strengthened ties which most ASEAN states already have with Beijing? As noted in NIDS China Security Report 2019, the framework between ASEAN and China serves as a “protective wall that prevents the direct exertion of China’s massive influence on the small and medium-sized countries of ASEAN”.[40] Similarly, an upgraded relationship could provide ASEAN greater leverage and a unified voice when dealing with China on contested sub-regional matters – such as the Mekong issues – which individual states may have less authority to act on.  However, critics could argue that the converse is just as important – ASEAN as an institution should resist upgrading relations as a last ballast of regional hedging against expanding Chinese hegemony, maintain “pushback” against being drawn more into China’s orbit and attempt to preserve its strategic autonomy. These possible scenarios depend on the bloc’s objectives in an AC-CSP and critical operationalisation details.

The EU-China Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (EU-China CSP) provides a point of comparison for a potential AC-CSP. Announced in 2003, the EU-China CSP was heralded as the coming together of two “natural partners”[41] to go beyond trade and investment ties and strive towards greater “convergence around long-term economic, political and strategic attitudes and objectives”. The EU’s strategic motivations for entering into this partnership were manifold,[42] one being the desire to counteract the US’ then rapidly spreading hegemony. However, the upgraded partnership eventually amounted to merely strengthening trade and investment relations. Analysts have attributed the lacklustre strategic partnership to fundamental differences in political values, geopolitical spheres of interest as well as conceptions of world order. China’s declining strategic interest in EU, given the former’s meteoric global rise in the last two decades, also played a role.[43]

While the EU-China CSP raises the possibility that an AC-CSP could similarly amount to enhanced economic cooperation, realists would point to vital differences in the ball game between ASEAN and China: the geo-proximity of Southeast Asia, the region’s strategic space for Beijing to extend its influence vis-à-vis major power rivalry, and the greater structural asymmetry in the ASEAN-China relationship. These all suggest not only the longevity of a potential AC-CSP but also the risk of loss of ASEAN centrality in the regional architecture and a backslide in international rule of law if China’s vision of “multilateralism with Asian characteristics” were realised.

MOVING FORWARD

As discussed above, while an AC-CSP affords ASEAN some opportunities, there are areas of concern which the bloc must carefully consider. In assessing and negotiating the terms of a possible AC-CSP, the timing and operationalisation of the details of the multi-sectoral cooperation are crucial. Beijing also needs to provide more clarity on what they want to achieve in a CSP.

From a realist’s perspective, however, ASEAN may find it hard to rebuff China’s overtures for a CSP. Given Beijing’s unspoken determination to increase its economic and strategic influence in the region, as well as its well-known tit-for-tat modus operandi of punishing countries that rebuff it, the bloc may have little choice but to eventually accede. Moreover, the fact that a sizeable number of ASEAN states are dependent on China’s economic purse and political support for development projects and regime legitimation points to potential internal willingness for upgraded ties. In this regard, Cambodia recently voiced its public support for an AC-CSP at the ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference with China.[44] Furthermore, it could be argued that China is perhaps already engaging in a pseudo-CSP with ASEAN given the already broad-based and active collaborations already underway, and an AC-CSP would be but a mere repackaging exercise. 

Nevertheless, a defeatist power-driven perspective presents only a limited analysis of the relationship. Despite Beijing’s oft-cited dismissal of the bloc’s small size[45], ASEAN states and China have a shared future given their overlapping spheres of economic and geographic existence. Common challenges such as public health, climate action, post-pandemic recovery as well as common aspirations such as development-driven connectivity, highlight their semi-symbiotic relationship and point to potential areas of mutually beneficial functional cooperation.

Taking these factors into consideration, ASEAN must therefore be mindful of the method and pace with which negotiations on an AC-CSP are conducted.  The bloc could consider focusing on the expansion of cooperation in mutual ‘bright spots’ in the socio-cultural realm that have room for growth, such as environmental collaboration or pandemic-related assistance. The pace at which negotiations are conducted should also be managed, allowing ASEAN to take an implicit wait-and-see approach to see how external powers react to ongoing negotiations and to potentially extract more concessions from a China eager to finalise the partnership. Australia’s request for ASEAN to consider a CSP could well provide a good cover for ASEAN to delay a decision on the matter, although many will say that the tenor of the two relationships is vastly different. However, the case can nevertheless give ASEAN some space to consider what its guiding principles should be when upgrading partnerships.

At this point of preliminary negotiations, ASEAN should focus on the potential gains and the concerns of upgraded ties, including reconciling the different world views on both sides. It should take this valuable opportunity to calibrate its guiding principles for upgrading partnerships, moving forward, and perhaps most importantly, as the EU’s experience suggests, whether or not both sides share common multilateral values.

ISEAS Perspective 2021/120, 10 September 2021


ENDNOTES

[1] ASEAN Secretariat. (April 2020). Overview of ASEAN-China Dialogue Relations. ASEAN Secretariat Information Paper. https://asean.org/storage/2012/05/Overview-of-ASEAN-China-Relations-22-Apr-2020-00000002.pdf.   

[2] Countries such as Japan, Australia, the US, Canada and the EU had already established dialogue relations with the bloc in the 1970s. Source: ASEAN Secretariat. (2021). Overview of Dialogue Relations of ASEAN with the abovementioned countries. ASEAN Secretariat Information Papers. https://asean.org/asean/external-relations/.

[3] Other DPs which reached a strategic partnership with the bloc years later include the Republic of Korea (2010), Australia (2014), the US (2015), Russia (2018), the EU (2020). Source: ibid.

[4] China had previously proposed the development of an ASEAN-China Treaty of Good Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation as well as a vision of an ASEAN-China Community of Common Destiny in 2013. Source: ASEAN Secretariat (9 October 2013). Chairman’s Statement of the 16th ASEAN-China Summit. Paragraph 10. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/images/archive/23rdASEANSummit/chairmans%20statementfor%20the%2016th%20asean-china%20summit%20-%20final%203.pdf; Hoang, T.H.  (August 2019). Understanding China’s Proposal for an ASEAN-China Community of Common Destiny and ASEAN’s Ambivalent Response. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, Volume 41, Number 2, pp. 223-254.   

[5] National ASEAN 2020 Committee – The Sub-Committee on Communications and Culture. (1 July 2020). ASEAN, Chinese senior officials meet online. ASEAN Vietnam 2020 Online. https://www.asean2020.vn/xem-chi-tiet1/-/asset_publisher/ynfWm23dDfpd/content/asean-chinese-senior-officials-meet-online.

[6] The bloc stated that it “agreed to undertake consultations on the proposed establishment of a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between ASEAN and China”. Source: ASEAN Secretariat. (12 November 2020). Chairman’s Statement of the 23rd ASEAN-China Summit. https://asean.org/storage/47-Final-Chairmans-Statement-of-the-23rd-ASEAN-China-Summit.pdf.

[7] This was mentioned in the Vice Foreign Minister’s speech at the opening ceremony of the 30th Anniversary of China-ASEAN dialogue relations. Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. (9 March 2021). Vice Foreign Minister Luo Zhaohui Talks about China-ASEAN Relations: Brighter Prospects after 30 Years of Thriving Development. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjb_663304/zygy_663314/gyhd_663338/t1859992.shtml. This was also reiterated by Foreign Minister Wang Yi during his speech at the Opening Ceremony of the Conference on Celebrating the 30th Anniversary of ASEAN-China Dialogue Relations. Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of China. (28 July 2021). Wang Yi Attends and Addresses the Opening Ceremony of the Conference on Celebrating the 30th Anniversary of ASEAN-China Dialogue Relations. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1895951.shtml.

[8] ASEAN Secretariat. (March 2021) Co-Chairs’ Summary of the 33rd ASEAN-Australia Forum – Paragraph 38. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/33rd-ASEAN-Australia-Forum-Co-Chairs-Summary-FINAL1.pdf.

[9] The ASEAN-China FTA took full effect in January 2015.

[10] CGTN (11 September 2018). China-ASEAN in numbers: Trade ties. https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d414e3145544d7a457a6333566d54/share_p.html.

[11] The State Council Information Office of The People’s Republic of China. (14 July 2020). ASEAN becomes China’s largest trading partner in H1. http://english.scio.gov.cn/pressroom/2020-07/14/content_76271598.htm.

[12] Global Times. (14 Jan 2021). ASEAN becomes China’s largest trading partner in 2020, with 7% growth.  https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202101/1212785.shtml; Foreign Direct Investment Statistics (2020). ASEANStatsDataPortal. https://data.aseanstats.org/.   

[13] ASEAN Secretariat. (April 2020). Overview of ASEAN-China Dialogue Relations. ASEAN Secretariat Information Paper. https://asean.org/storage/2012/05/Overview-of-ASEAN-China-Relations-22-Apr-2020-00000002.pdf.   

[14] These include information and best practice sharing on epidemiological data and guidelines for epidemic control, as well as capacity building on emergency response.

[15] Zaini, K. (24 June 2021). China’s Vaccine Diplomacy in Southeast Asia – A Mixed Record. ISEAS Perspective. /wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ISEAS_Perspective_2021_86.pdf.

[16] Seah, S., et al. (2021). The State of Southeast Asia: 2021. (Singapore: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute, 2021).

[17] Regarding climate change, China currently provides technical capacity-building to key ASEAN personnel on climate-related topics. It has also bilateral agreements with Myanmar, Vietnam and The Philippines on climate adaption. Source: Seah, S. (9 June 2021). ASEAN’s Climate Cooperation with China and the US: Challenges and Prospects. ISEAS Perspective. /articles-commentaries/iseas-perspective/2021-77-aseans-climate-cooperation-with-china-and-the-us-challenges-and-prospects-by-sharon-seah/.

[18] Focus areas include climate change impact mitigation, biodiversity preservation, tackling marine plastic debris, sustainable cities and clean energy promotion. ASEAN Secretariat. (5 March 2021). ASEAN, China reaffirm commitment to strong partnership. https://asean.org/asean-china-reaffirm-commitment-strong-partnership/.

[19] Premier Wen Jiabao’s speech at the EU’s Brussels office in 2004 is seen by analysts as the most authoritative definition of what a Comprehensive Strategic partnership entails. In addition to his elucidation of the term “Comprehensive”, he further explained that the term “Strategic” connotes the importance of the cooperation to both parties and that it is “stable and long-term, overcoming the differences in ideology and political systems”. Lastly, the word “Partnership” implied that both parties strove towards a “win-win relationship” based on “mutual respect, mutual trust and equality”. Source: Li, Q. and Ye, M. (2019). China’s emerging partnership network: what, who, where, when and why. International Trade, Politics and Development, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 66-81. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITPD-05-2019-0004.

[20] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. (28 July 2021). Wang Yi Attends and Addresses the Opening Ceremony of the Conference on Celebrating the 30th Anniversary of ASEAN-China Dialogue Relations. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1895951.shtml

[21] These include Western-led alliances, such as the G7 and the resurrected Quadrilateral Dialogue, which through their joint statements, sanctions and alternative infrastructure programmes (such as the Build Back Better World) have sought to counteract and chastise Chinese-led infrastructure projects as well as their incursions and abuses in various territories.

[22] Hoang, T. H. (11 June 2021). A New Height of ASEAN-China Relations? Not Quite, Not Yet. ISEAS Fulcrum. https://fulcrum.sg/a-new-height-of-asean-china-relations-not-quite-not-yet/.

[23] Foreign Minister Wang Yi paid official visits to most ASEAN states in October 2020 and January 2021, which some countries reciprocated in April 2021 with bilateral meetings in Fujian. Sources: Chen, J. (February 2021). Resources for China–ASEAN Relations: October 2020 to December 2020. China: An International Journal, Volume 19, Number 1, pp. 204-210; Chen, J. (May 2021). China–ASEAN Relations January 2021 to March 2021: Chronology of Events. China: An International Journal, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 178-182.

[24] These include the opening ceremony in celebration of the 30th Anniversary of China-ASEAN Dialogue Relations in March 2021, the Special ASEAN-China Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Celebration of the 30th Anniversary of the Dialogue Relations held in Chongqing in June 2021, as well as the recent Opening Ceremony of the Conference on Celebrating the 30th Anniversary of ASEAN-China Dialogue Relations held on 28 July 2021.

[25] Perceptions of trust towards China, the US, EU, Japan and India were measured in this survey.

[26] Seah, S., et al. (2021). The State of Southeast Asia: 2021. (Singapore: ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, 2021).

[27] Moriyasu, K. (7 July 2021). US does not support Taiwan independence: Kurt Campbell. Nikkei Asia. https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Biden-s-Asia-policy/US-does-not-support-Taiwan-independence-Kurt-Campbell.

[28] Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman’s visit to Indonesia, Cambodia and Thailand in May 2021; Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s visit to Singapore, Vietnam and The Philippines in July 2021, as well as the behind-doors introductory meeting between Secretary of State Antony Blinken and ASEAN Foreign Ministers in July 2021 as well.

[29] Despite Beijing’s call to explore elevating ties to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, the final Co-Chair’s Statement was formulated more obliquely as “Advance ASEAN-China Strategic Partnership to new heights by forging closer cooperation”. Source: Zhou, L. (12 June 2021). Why Asean is wary about stronger ties with China. South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3137025/why-asean-wary-about-stronger-ties-china. Also see: ASEAN Secretariat. (n.d.) Co-Chairs’ Statement on the Special ASEAN-China Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Celebration of the 30th Anniversary of the Dialogue Relations. https://asean.org/storage/Co-Chairs-Statement-on-the-Special-ASEAN-China-Foreign-Ministers-Meetin….pdf

[30] China, Thailand, Laos and Myanmar have been engaging in joint patrols of parts of the Mekong River, following the 2011 attack on Chinese sailors by drug dealers in the Thai section of the river. However, Thailand has so far resisted Beijing’s pressure to allow Chinese patrol boats to go past the Thai northern border of the Mekong River, due to concerns of encroaching Chinese strategic reach into mainland Southeast Asia. Source: Hiebert, M. (22 March 2021). Upstream Dams Threaten the Economy and the Security of the Mekong Region. ISEAS Perspective. /articles-commentaries/iseas-perspective/2021-34-upstream-dams-threaten-the-economy-and-the-security-of-the-mekong-region-by-murray-hiebert/.

[31] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. (28 July 2021). Wang Yi Attends and Addresses the Opening Ceremony of the Conference on Celebrating the 30th Anniversary of ASEAN-China Dialogue Relations. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1895951.shtml

[32] Zheng, S., & Zhang, R. (25 July 2021). South China Sea: calls to honour Hague ruling 5 years on, but Beijing digs in. South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3142456/south-china-sea-calls-honour-hague-ruling-5-years-beijing-digs.

[33] Hoang, T. H. (December 2018). ASEAN’s Ambivalence towards a “Common Destiny” with China. ASEAN Focus, Issue 6/2018. /images/pdf/ASEANFocus_December2018_Final.pdf.

[34] Das, S. B. (21 June 2018). Do the Economic Ties between ASEAN and China Affect Their Strategic Partnership? ISEAS Perspective. /images/pdf/ISEAS_Perspective_2018_32%4050.pdf.

[35] China engaged in economic and trade reprisals against Australia following policies that were perceived to target Beijing. Source: Meijer, E. (25 May 2021). Australia pressed to dispense ‘bitter pill’ Xinjiang sanctions. Nikkei Asia. https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Asia-Insight/Australia-pressed-to-dispense-bitter-pill-Xinjiang-sanctions.

[36] ASEAN-China Centre (28 May 2021). ACC Representatives Attended the Inauguration of 2021 ASEAN-China Year of Sustainable Development Cooperation. http://www.asean-china-center.org/english/2021-05/7942.html.

[37] Zheng, S. (7 June 2021). China pledges joint Covid-19 vaccine production plan with Indonesia. South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3136315/china-pledges-joint-covid-19-vaccine-production-plan-indonesia.

[38] Li, Q. and Ye, M. (2019). China’s emerging partnership network: what, who, where, when and why. International Trade, Politics and Development, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 66-81. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITPD-05-2019-0004.

[39] Ford, L. W. (September 2020). Network Power: China’s Effort to Reshape Asia’s Regional Security Architecture. The Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/FP_20200914_china_network_power_ford.pdf.

[40] The National Institute for Defence Studies. (2019). NIDS China Security Report 2019: China’s Strategy For Reshaping the Asian Order and its Ramifications.

[41] Solana, J. (17 September 2013). Europe’s Smart Asian Pivot. Project Syndicate. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-eu-s-startegic-advantages-in-asia-by-javier-solana  

[42] The other key motivations included instigating social and political change in China, as well as for the EU to show its geopolitical global leadership in corralling together rising powers.

[43] Maher, R. (2016). The Elusive EU-China Strategic Partnership. International Affairs. 92. 10.1111/1468-2346.12659.

[44] Khmer Times. (5 August 2021). Cambodia supports elevation of ASEAN-China ties to Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. Khmer Times. https://www.khmertimeskh.com/50908932/cambodia-supports-elevation-of-asean-china-ties-to-comprehensive-strategic-partnership/

[45] Then-Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi infamously stated at the 2010 ASEAN Regional Forum that “China is a big country and other countries are small countries, and that’s just a fact.” Source: Chang, F. K. (17 June 2021). ASEAN’s Search for a Third Way: Southeast Asia’s Relations with China and the United States. Foreign Policy Research Institute. https://www.fpri.org/article/2021/06/aseans-search-for-a-third-way-southeast-asias-relations-with-china-and-the-united-states/.

ISEAS Perspective is published electronically by: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute   30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace Singapore 119614 Main Tel: (65) 6778 0955 Main Fax: (65) 6778 1735   Get Involved with ISEAS. Please click here: /supportISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute accepts no responsibility for facts presented and views expressed.   Responsibility rests exclusively with the individual author or authors. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission.  
© Copyright is held by the author or authors of each article.
Editorial Chairman: Choi Shing Kwok  
Editorial Advisor: Tan Chin Tiong  
Managing Editor: Ooi Kee Beng  
Editors: William Choong, Lee Poh Onn, Lee Sue-Ann, and Ng Kah Meng  
Comments are welcome and may be sent to the author(s).

“How Do Natural Disasters Change Consumption Behaviour? Estimates and Policy Responses from Thailand and the Philippines” by Kensuke Tanaka, Prasiwi Ibrahim, and Oudom Hean

 

2021/119 “Buttressing the Anti-NLD Project: Data on the Civilian Members of Myanmar’s State Administration Council Junta” by Htet Myet Min Tun, Moe Thuzar and Michael Montesano

 

Min Aung Hlaing chairing a coordination meeting of the State Administration Council (SAC). Source: Mizzima – News in Burmese in FaceBook, https://www.facebook.com/MizzimaDaily/photos/4698353733532828, 24 August 2021.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • In a break with precedents set following military coups in the country in 1962 and 1988, Myanmar’s State Administration Council (SAC) junta has had civilians among its members since the time of its inception. Ten of the 19 members of the SAC are civilians, and among them, only two or three are ethnic Bamars.
  • Civilians’ unprecedented incorporation into the junta underlines both the nature of the SAC regime as an anti-National League for Democracy (NLD) project and the determination of Myanmar’s armed forces, or Tatmadaw, to make a success of that project.
  • The party affiliations and electoral histories of most civilian members of the SAC, both Bamar and ethnic-nationality, reflect both political rivalry with — and defeat at the hands of — the NLD. Their personal backgrounds suggest in many cases a range of cordial relationships with Myanmar’s armed forces or their electoral vehicle, the Union Solidarity and Development Party.
  • Civilians on the SAC include members from each of Myanmar’s eight officially designated major “national races”. Their inclusion appears to reflect a strategy of “ethnic balancing”, and the junta’s apparent approach towards collaboration with elements of Myanmar’s ethnic-nationality populations.
  • Its viability unclear, this strategy for buttressing the SAC’s anti-NLD project presents considerable risks both for the Tatmadaw and for Myanmar itself.

*Htet Myet Min Tun is an intern in, Moe Thuzar Co-Coordinator of, and Michael Montesano Coordinator of the Myanmar Studies Programme, ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute.

Download PDF Version

INTRODUCTION

As it seized power on 1 February 2021, Myanmar’s military, or Tatmadaw, arrested National League for Democracy (NLD) party leader and State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi, her hand-picked incumbent Union President Win Myint, and senior members of her party and of the government that it led.[1] The following day saw the constitution of a junta, christened the State Administration Council (SAC), to rule the country under the chairmanship of coup leader and Commander-in-Chief of Defence Services Senior General Min Aung Hlaing.[2]

At the time of its formation on 2 February, the SAC comprised 11 members – eight officers from the Tatmadaw’s top echelons and three civilians.  The appointment of eight additional members, seven civilians and one military officer, followed. By the end of March, the SAC’s membership totaled 19; it remains at that strength at the time of writing. That the membership of Myanmar’s new junta has included civilians from the time of its formation and that civilians now comprise more than half of its members represent sharp breaks with the precedents set by the country’s earlier military regimes.[3] 

The present article offers preliminary data on the civilian membership of the SAC. Intended to stimulate further study of Myanmar’s new military regime, the article complements an earlier article on the SAC’s military members.[4] It also offers tentative analysis of the logic underlying the noteworthy and precedent-breaking inclusion of such a numerous contingent of civilians on the junta that would now govern Myanmar.[5] That analysis suggests that it is impossible to account for the inclusion of civilians on the SAC or for decisions taken on which civilians to include, without understanding Min Aung Hlaing’s and the Tatmadaw’s determination to buttress the anti-NLD project that is the SAC’s raison d’être.[6]

Table 1. Civilian Members of the SAC.

Allegations of impropriety in the conduct of Myanmar’s November 2020 elections and the NLD government’s unwillingness to entertain those allegations served as the pretexts for the Tatmadaw’s seizure of power three months later,[19]  But that stand-off — and the possibility that the SAC regime might dissolve the NLD[20] — came in a longer historical context.[21]

Since the time of the party’s establishment during the nationwide pro-democracy protests of 1988, the NLD has presented a fundamental challenge to the Tatmadaw, calling into question the armed forces’ domination of the polity, vision of their supremacy among national actors, and privileges.[22] It was against this backdrop that Min Aung Hlaing and his generals regarded the campaign for Myanmar’s most recent elections and confronted the results of those polls, with their implications for the use to which the NLD might put a renewed popular mandate. November’s polls saw the party equal or best the 2015 electoral performance that propelled the party and its leader Aung San Suu Kyi into power in Myanmar.[23] Sources in Yangon suggest that, months before those polls took place, Min Aung Hlaing had already received advice on the political dimension of seizing state power at some moment in the future. That advice included incorporating into any post-coup regime a number of the civilians now on the SAC.[24]  

CIVILIANS OF NON-BAMAR ETHNIC NATIONALITY ON THE SAC

Of the ten current civilian members of the SAC, seven or eight are of non-Bamar ethnic nationality.  The junta includes members of each of the eight major “national races” specified in Myanmar’s military-drafted 2008 Constitution.[25] In this regard, its membership is an exercise in apparent inclusion.

The Tatmadaw’s proxy party, the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), was not alone in its disappointment over defeat at the hands of the NLD last November.  In the months preceding the elections of that month, observers raised the possibility that consolidated ethnic-nationality parties in several of Myanmar’s states would prove formidable challengers to the NLD.[26] But the latter party defied those predictions in a number of ethnic-nationality states. In 2020, as in 2015, the NLD often swept up pluralities and even majorities of state- and Union-level legislative seats, defeating or unseating ethnic-nationality politicians.  The results at the Union level made real the likelihood that the party would again appoint either its own members or figures with close affiliations to it as chief ministers in each ethnic-nationality state.[27] In tandem, these factors combined to deny a critical mass of Myanmar’s ethnic-nationality politicians a seat at the table at which political decisions would be made over the next five years.

Understanding the ethnic-nationality civilian membership of the SAC benefits from a focus on the leading ethnic-nationality political parties in Rakhine, Shan, Mon, and Kayah States, and on their 2020 electoral performance relative to the NLD juggernaut.

Table 2. The Performance of the NLD, the USDP, and the Strongest Ethnic-Nationality Party in Elections for the Rakhine, Shan, Mon, and Kayah State Parliaments in the 2020 Elections.[28]

In November 2020, the Arakan National Party (ANP) captured more seats than the NLD in the Rakhine State hluttaw or assembly, as it had done five years earlier.[29] However, the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy (SNLD), the Mon Unity Party (MUP), and the Kayah State Democratic Party (KySDP) enjoyed no such success in Shan, Mon and Kayah States. The civilian members of the SAC include leading figures from the ANP and from two of those other three parties: Aye Nu Sein, vice chairman of the ANP; Banyar Aung Moe, a member of the central executive committee of the MUP; and Saw Daniel, vice chair of the KySDP. The SNLD declined the Tatmadaw’s offer to include one of its members on the junta.[30] The military then invited the Shan Sai Lone Hsaing — a member of its own electoral vehicle, the USDP — to join the SAC.[31]

Table 3. The Performance of the NLD, the USDP, and the Strongest Ethnic-Nationality Party in Elections for the Pyithu Hluttaw (Lower House of the Union Parliament) in Rakhine, Shan, Mon, and Kayah State Constituencies in the 2020 Elections.[32]

Table 4. The Performance of the NLD, the USDP, and the Strongest Ethnic-Nationality Party in Elections for the Amyotha Hluttaw (Upper House of the Union Parliament) in Rakhine, Shan, Mon, and Kayah State Constituencies in the 2020 Elections.[33]

The results of elections for seats at the Union level in Rakhine, Shan, Mon and Kayah States followed a pattern similar to the state-level polls. Among major ethnic-nationality-party challengers to the NLD, only the ANP managed to best Aung San Suu Kyi’s party.

Established ethnic-nationality-party rivals to the NLD do not figure in the electoral politics of Kachin or Chin States. Nevertheless, the Tatmadaw reportedly invited members of the Kachin State People’s Party[34] and the Kachin National Congress Party, as well as the Chin National Party and the Chin National League for Democracy, to join the junta — only to meet with refusal in all cases.[35]  Jeng Phang Naw Taung, a Kachin,[36] and Moung Har, a Chin, do count among the civilian members of the junta, but neither has a party-political affiliation.[37]

While no ethnic-nationality party has proven a strong rival to the NLD in Kayin State, the Tatmadaw nevertheless included Mahn Nyein Maung on its new junta. A well-known Kayin revolutionist and veteran Karen National Union (KNU) leader who joined the Union Peace Dialogue Joint Committee (UPDJC) after the KNU signed the 2015 Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) forged under President Thein Sein,[38] Mahn Nyein Maung entered electoral politics in November 2020. Running on the ticket of the Kayin People’s Party (KPP), a party allied with the Tatmadaw’s USDP,[39] he contested a seat in the Pyithu Hluttaw or Lower House of the Union Parliament representing Pantanaw in Ayeyarwady Region. Mahn Nyein Maung lost to the NLD candidate in that Kayin-majority constituency.[40]

The most recent civilian appointee to the SAC, Shwe Kyein, is apparently a member not of a major national race but rather of a smaller group called the Ta’ang or Palaung.[41]  While very limited data on Shwe Kyein are available, he is believed to have chaired a USDP committee — perhaps at the township level — in the Palaung Self-Administered Zone of Shan State until 2020.[42]

BAMAR CIVILIANS ON THE SAC

The membership of the SAC has included two prominent Bamar civilians from the time of its formation. Each leads a political party that originated from a break with the NLD prior to Myanmar’s SPDC-organized 2010 elections. Both the New National Democracy Party (NNDP), of which junta member Thein Nyunt serves as chairman, and the National Democratic Force (NDF), in which SAC member Khin Maung Swe holds the same post,[43] participated in those elections, while the NLD boycotted them. These men’s and their parties’ break with Aung San Suu Kyi’s party were extremely acrimonious.[44] While suffering diminished political stature since the NLD’s rise to power in 2015,[45] Thein Nyunt and Khin Maung Swe helm parties enjoying sympathetic relations with the both the USDP and the Tatmadaw.[46] The former is even reported to have argued for a coup before the November 2020 had taken place.[47]

PARTY CONSIDERATIONS, PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS

The two prominent Bamar civilians on the SAC lead parties whose explicit mission is to challenge NLD electoral supremacy. Neither of those parties has proved successful. But one cannot say the same of the parties in which three out of the ten ethnic-nationality members of the junta have played roles. These parties have proven strong, if not uniformly victorious, electoral rivals to the NLD in the states in which they are active. A further two civilian, ethnic-nationality members of the SAC have no political party affiliations, while one more has run for a seat representing a constituency outside Kayin State under the banner of a Kayin party whose leader is now an SAC-appointed minister.[48] Two other ethnic-nationality SAC members — if one includes Shwe Kyein — have run under that of the Bamar-dominated USDP for seats in Shan State.[49] 


Table 5. The Participation of Civilian Members of the SAC in Myanmar’s 1990, 2010, 2015, and 2020 Elections.

Several civilian members of the SAC have suffered electoral defeat at the hands of NLD candidates. Having resigned from the KNU to contest the 2020 elections as a KPP candidate Mahn Nyein Maung lost to his NLD opponent in his home-town constituency of Pantanaw. The case of Saw Daniel, a man whose participation in the peace process left the Tatmadaw confident in his willingness to cooperate,[69] is similar. Running first on the KNDP ticket and then on that of the KySDP, the Kayah politician lost two elections to NLD candidates — one for a seat in the Amyotha Hluttaw or Upper House of the Union parliament and one for a Kayah State hluttaw seat. Thein Nyunt tasted victory on the NLD’s ticket in 1990 before breaking with the party two decades later when it boycotted Myanmar’s 2010 elections. He won a seat in the Pyithu Hluttaw in those elections, only to meet with electoral defeat at the hands of candidates representing his former party in both 2015 and 2020.  Similarly, while he himself did not run in 2015 or 2020, the NDF of Khin Maung Swe, who also won election as an NLD candidate in 1990, did not win a single seat in either of those years of tremendous electoral success for Aung San Suu Kyi’s party. 

Sai Lone Hsaing won the election to the Shan State hluttaw in both 2010 and 2015, running each time under the banner of the USDP. In the 2016-2020 period, that body included more members from both the USDP and the SNLD than from the NLD, and Sai Lone Hsaing served as its speaker.[70] In a reversal, Aung San Suu Kyi’s party outpolled both the USDP and SNLD in races for the Shan State hluttaw in the 2020 elections, which Sai Lone Hsaing did not contest.[71]

Aye Nu Sein and Banyar Aung Moe received the endorsement of, respectively, the ANP and MUP for their appointments to the SAC. Even beyond historic Rakhine unease with Bamar dominance, pronounced antagonism has marked the ANP’s posture toward the NLD since 2015-2016, when the government led by the latter party imposed a chief minister on Rakhine State despite the former party’s plurality in the Rakhine State hluttaw.  The decision of the Union Election Commission to cancel voting in large parts of Rakhine state in advance of the November 2020 elections only exacerbated this antagonism.[72] Widely recognized tensions have also defined relations between the MUP and the NLD.[73]

Both partisan and personal considerations thus provide useful background to the willingness of civilians — both Bamars and non-Bamars — to join the SAC. The NLD’s electoral triumph on 8 November 2020, with all that it signaled about the party’s enduring hegemony, was just one feature of that background. Nevertheless, as of 31 January 2021, that hegemony represented for the foreseeable future a challenge not only to the Tatmadaw but also to other Bamar-dominated and ethnic-nationality parties and to figures associated with them.

The willingness of members of those parties to sign on to the anti-NLD project that is the SAC regime is not without risk, as that regime’s unpopularity and ongoing struggle to impose its authority on Myanmar make clear. But bearing that risk is the price of enjoying relevance that the NLD’s electoral prowess has long denied those parties and their leaders. It is also perhaps the price of leverage to achieve ends important to those parties, to politicians associated with them, and to their supporters.[74] Having paid these prices, civilian members of the junta, and to some degree the parties with which they are associated, now have a stake in the survival of the SAC regime. In return, that regime must hope that these civilians can help rally support for it. How good either of these bets is will become clearer with time.

A “FEDERAL” MODEL?

The recruitment onto the SAC of obscure figures like the Kachin Jeng Phang Naw Taung and the Chin Moung Thar suggests both the Tatmadaw’s determination to see notional representatives of each of Myanmar’s major “national races” on the junta and its rather pro forma attachment to time-worn understandings of the nature of the Union of Myanmar. The implications of this inclusiveness merits consideration.

Almost immediately after last November’s elections, the Tatmadaw established a Peace Talks Committee, effectively creating a process for treating with Myanmar’s numerous ethnic armed organizations separate from the process centred on the 2015 NCA.[75] Facing the prospect of the NLD’s return to power, the armed forces opened the door to participation in talks to organizations that were signatories to the NCA as well as those who were not.[76]

After its coup, the SAC expanded the membership of its Peace Talks Committee and established several new structures for negotiations.[77] Whether these structures are to serve as fora for further talks or as vehicles for the realization of a vision for Naypyitaw’s relations with Myanmar’s ethnic nationalities is the question. That question lies outside the scope of the present article. Yet the composition of the civilian membership of the SAC is not irrelevant to its answer. At least some of the Tatmadaw’s ethnic-nationality collaborators clearly prioritize their own narrow objectives over the cause of Myanmar democracy.[78] Their stances may point to a rough and rather perversely “federal” model.[79] In enlisting ethnic-nationality partners, is the Tatmadaw endeavoring to draw on shared enmity toward the NLD as a resource for managing and even channeling ethnic nationalism?

CONCLUSION

The data on the civilian members of Myanmar’s SAC presented in this article point to three broad conclusions. First, the inclusion of civilians on the country’s latest junta is impossible to understand without a clear appreciation that that this junta is above all an anti-NLD project. Second, the Tatmadaw’s decision to shatter precedent through the incorporation of civilians onto the junta from the time of its establishment, along with the number and composition of civilians incorporated, underlines both how daunting an enemy it considers the electorally formidable NLD and how determined it is to extirpate it. Third, in acting on that determination, Min Aung Hlaing and his generals have opted for a strategy of what one may term as “ethnic balancing”.

Practical considerations may have determined the adoption of that strategy. Seeking acceptance for its dictatorship from at least a segment of Myanmar’s population and aware of the difficulty of finding that acceptance in the central regions of the country in which the NLD enjoyed strong support, the Tatmadaw turned to ethnic-nationality states in which political opposition to that party’s rule was most significant. It also turned to parties, and to individuals affiliated with them, that had a record of getting along with the USDP. While figures in the USDP itself may have recommended some of these men to the Tatmadaw,[80] in fact such recommendations were hardly needed. As a general matter, the civilian members of the SAC — Bamar and non-Bamar alike — appear, in the words of one close observer, to be “a group of people who have always been on the same page”.[81] Further, in considering the composition of that group, one must not discount the possibility that, the enduring electoral supremacy of the NLD notwithstanding, many of the civilians who joined the SAC simply believed that it could govern the country more capably than Aung San Suu Kyi and her party.[82]

In forming its junta, The Tatmadaw offered elements in ethnic-nationality states a bargain: in exchange for their collaboration they would gain seats at the table that the NLD’s electoral prowess had long denied them. With those seats might come a chance to pursue their goals and interests, and perhaps access to resources or even economic opportunities. The long history of civil war between the highly Burmanized Tatmadaw and ethnic armed organizations fighting on behalf of non-Bamar ethnic-nationality populations would seem to make the armed forces’ quest for acceptance from those populations and their leaders a long shot.

It is not clear that shared opposition to the NLD can be the basis for trust between the soldiers and civilians on the SAC or that those civilians will bring a critical mass of the people whom they purport to represent with them to support the junta. Equally uncertain is whether the military members of that body will in fact prove willing to offer their civilian counterparts a say in decision-making or accede to those counterparts’ demands in exchange for their cooperation. The data presented here suggest that, in a country already scarred by decades of ethnic warfare, the SAC’s adoption of strategy of ethnic balancing to buttress its overarching anti-NLD project is a high-risk undertaking, not only for the civilian members of the SAC but also for the Tatmadaw and for Myanmar itself. Observers have in fact suggested that it is uncertain how many of the civilians who signed on to the junta in the days following Min Aung Hlaing’s coup would have done so a month or two later, after the high degree of popular resistance to the return of military rule had become clear.[83] As of late August, however, civilian members of the junta apparently remained committed to the SAC regime and its cause, or at least eager to demonstrate to their military peers that they were.[84]

ISEAS Perspective 2021/119, 8 September 2021


ENDNOTES

[1] Jonathan Head, “Myanmar coup: Aung San Suu Kyi detained as military seizes control”, BBC, 1 February 2021(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55882489, downloaded 5 August 2021).

[2] “Republic of the Union of Myanmar: Office of the Commander-in-Chief of Defence Services – Order No (9/2021)”, The Global New Light of Myanmar, 3 February 2021 (https://www.burmalibrary.org/sites/burmalibrary.org/files/obl/GNLM2021-02-03-red.pdf, downloaded 30 June 2021).

[3] On the record of military rule in the country, see David I. Steinberg, “The Military in Burma/Myanmar: On the Longevity of Tatmadaw Rule and Influence”, Trends in Southeast Asia, issue 6 (2021) (/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/TRS6_21.pdf, downloaded 11 July 2021). The 17-member Revolutionary Council installed by Commander-in-Chief General Ne Win at the time of his seizure of power in 1962 had an all-military membership; Nakanishi Yoshihiro, Strong Soldiers, Failed Revolution: The State and Military in Burma, 1962‒88 (Singapore: NUS Press, 2013), p. 102. The 33 Revolutionary Council members and cabinet ministers appointed between 1962 and 1971 included only three civilians. Each of the remaining individuals was an active-duty military officer; ibid. p. 103. The State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC)/State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) junta that ruled Myanmar from 1988 to 2011 did not have a civilian member during the entirety of its existence; “Members of State Peace and Development Council (SPDC)”, The Irrawaddy, 1 November 2003, updated 12 August 2011 (https://web.archive.org/web/20110812140611/http://www.irrawaddy.org/research_show.php?art_id=454, downloaded 30 June 2021). The SLORC was rechristened the SPDC in 1997.

[4] See Htet Myet Min Tun, Moe Thuzar and Michael Montesano, “Min Aung Hlaing and His Generals: Data on the Military Members of Myanmar’s State Administration Council Junta”, ISEAS Perspective 2021/97, 23 July 2021 (https:// www.iseas.edu.sg/articles-commentaries/iseas-perspective/2021-97-min-aung-hlaing-and-his-generals-data-on-the-military-members-of-myanmars-state-administration-council-junta-by-htet-myet-min-tun-moe-thuzar-and-michael-montesano/, downloaded 27 July 2021). A third article will present data on the ministers serving the SAC regime.

[5] The authors thank four reviewers, who must at present remain anonymous, for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.

[6] In appointing the military members of the SAC, Min Aung Hlaing respected the Tatmadaw’s hierarchy. Leaving aside the junta’s two secretaries, the senior general and five of the officers serving with him as founding members of the junta held the six top posts in Myanmar’s armed forces on the day of the coup. In contrast, both the decision to name civilians to the junta itself and the profiles of the civilians in fact chosen were wholly discretionary matters. At the time of writing, the most recently appointed military member of the SAC is Minister for Home Affairs Lieutenant General Soe Htut, who joined the junta on 30 March 2021 — nearly two months after the 1 February coup. The authors’ forthcoming ISEAS Perspective article, “An Attempt to Lead Myanmar Back to the Future? Data on the State Administration Council Regime’s Ministerial Line-up”, treats Soe Htut and his appointment to the junta in more detail.

[7] “Republic of the Union of Myanmar: Office of the Commander-in-Chief of Defence Services – Order No (9/2021)”, Global New Light of Myanmar, 3 February 2021 (https://www.burmalibrary.org/sites/burmalibrary.org/files/obl/GNLM2021-02-03-red.pdf, downloaded 14 June 2021).

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] “Republic of the Union of Myanmar: State Administration Council Order No (14/2021)”, Global New Light of Myanmar, 4 February 2021 (https://www.burmalibrary.org/sites/burmalibrary.org/files/obl/GNLM2021-02-04-red.pdf, downloaded 7 August 2021).

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Some sources render this name “Sai Long Hseng”.

[14] “Republic of the Union of Myanmar: State Administration Council Order No (14/2021)”.

[15] Ibid.

[16] “Appointment of State Administration Council Member – Order No (104/2021)”, Global New Light of Myanmar, 18 March 2021 (https://www.burmalibrary.org/sites/burmalibrary.org/files/obl/GNLM2021-03-18-red.pdf, downloaded 7 August 2021). The MUP reportedly decided that Banyar Aung Moe would join the SAC as early as five days after the coup; Bo Bo Myint, “Elected MP from Mon Unity Party to join State Administration Council”, Eleven, 8 February 2021 (https://elevenmyanmar.com/news/elected-mp-from-mon-unity-party-to-join-state-administration-council, downloaded 24 August 2021). The reason for the delay in his formal appointment to the junta is not clear.

[17] While data on Shwe Kyein’s ethnic nationality are elusive, he appears to enjoy prominence among and strong connections to Ta’ang. He has a record of participation in Ta’ang cultural events and was the patron of the Ta’ang Literature and Culture Committee in Namhsan Township, in the Palaung Self-Administered Zone of Shan State; “Ta’ang National New Year celebrated in Namsan Tsp”, Myanmar Digital News, 3 December 2019 (http://www.myanmardigitalnewspaper.com/en/taang-national-new-year-celebrated-namsan-tsp, downloaded 7 August 2021).

[18] “Appointment of members of the State Administration Council – Order No (106/2021)”, Global New Light of Myanmar, 31 March 2021 (https://www.burmalibrary.org/sites/burmalibrary.org/files/obl/GNLM2021-03-31-red.pdf, downloaded 7 August 2021).

[19] After its defeat in the 2020 elections, the USDP accused the NLD of massive voting fraud. The Tatmadaw soon joined its proxy party in levelling this accusation, and it launched its own review of the election process. While the incumbent Union Election Commission (UEC) rejected allegations of NLD electoral fraud in November 2020, the Tatmadaw nevertheless invoked them as its justification for seizing power on 1 February 2021. In July 2021, a new, military-appointed UEC nullified the results of the 2020 elections, claiming that it had discovered voting fraud. See San Yamin Aung, “Updated Timeline: Tracing Military’s Interference in Myanmar Election”, The Irrawaddy, 20 January 2021 (https://www.irrawaddy.com/specials/timeline-tracing-militarys-interference-in-myanmar-ele.html, downloaded 6 August 2021), Pyae Sone Win, “Myanmar election commission rejects military’s fraud claims”, Associated Press, 29 January 2021 (https://apnews.com/article/aung-san-suu-kyi-elections-myanmar-cc1b225b806c27dda748d3ab51d0e47f, downloaded 6 August 2021), and Joshua Lipes, “Myanmar’s Junta Annuls 2020 Election Results, Citing Voter Fraud”, Radio Free Asia, 26 July 2021 (https://www.rfa.org/english/news/myanmar/annulled-07262021204753.html, downloaded 6 August 2021).

[20] “Myanmar junta’s electoral body to dissolve Suu Kyi party -media”, Reuters, 21 May 2021 (https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/myanmar-electoral-body-dissolve-suu-kyi-party-myanmar-now-tweet-2021-05-21/). The article cites a threat from the chairman of the SAC-appointed UEC to disband the NLD. To date, this threat remains unfulfilled, perhaps in part because of pressure from Beijing; see “China Doesn’t Want Myanmar’s NLD Dissolved: Informed Sources”, The Irrawaddy, 27 August 2021 (www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/china-doesnt-want-myanmars-nld-dissolved-informed-sources.html, downloaded 2 September 2021).

[21] See Andrew Selth, “Why Myanmar’s military is not planning a coup”, Nikkei Asia, 8 May 2017 (https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Why-Myanmar-s-military-is-not-planning-a-coup, downloaded 6 August 2021).

[22] The NLD scored a landslide win in the 1990 elections organized by SLORC. It outperformed 92 other political parties, while securing more than 80 per cent of constituencies. However, the junta declined to hand power to the party and nullified the election results; Khin Kyaw Han, “1990 Multi-party Democracy General Elections”, Democratic Voice of Burma (https://www.burmalibrary.org/docs4/1990_multi-party_elections.pdf?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=pmd_08dc481b3b1ff46894e8fad869e20734827494f6-1628185263-0-gqNtZGzNAfijcnBszQb6q, downloaded 6 August 2021), and Moe Aye, “Uphill Battle of the NLD”, The Irrawaddy, May 1998 (https://www2.irrawaddy.com/article.php?art_id=7558, downloaded 6 August 2021). The SPDC declared the NLD illegal after its refusal to contest the 2010 elections, held under the military-drafted 2008 Constitution. In 2011, however, President Thein Sein made possible the party’s re-entry into politics. Under Aung San Suu Kyi’s leadership. The NLD won 43 out of 44 seats contested in by-elections held the following year, and Aung San Suu Kyi herself took a seat in the Pyithu Hluttaw; Kocha Olarn, “Myanmar confirms sweeping election victory for Suu Kyis party”, CNN, 4 April 2012 (https://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/04/world/asia/myanmar-elections/, downloaded 6 August 2021). Following the NLD’s victory in the 2015 elections, the party installed Aung San Suu Kyi as de facto head of government with the newly created and extra-constitutional title “state counsellor”; Euan McKirdy, “New government role created for Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi”, CNN, 7 April 2016 (https://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/06/asia/aung-san-suu-kyi-state-counsellor-role-created/index.html, downloaded 6 August 2021). It then set about working — without success — to amend the constitution and thus reduce the power and standing of the Tatmadaw.

[23] The NLD took 82 per cent of contested seats at the Union, region and state levels in the 2020 elections, 61 more seats than five years earlier. In contrast, the leading opposition party and Tatmadaw proxy, the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), won but 6.4 per cent of contested seats; “Official Results Show Another Election Landslide for Myanmar’s Ruling NLD”, The Irrawaddy, 16 November 2020 (https://www.irrawaddy.com/elections/official-results-show-another-election-landslide-myanmars-ruling-nld.html, downloaded 6 August 2021).

[24] Veteran specialist on the Myanmar peace process (b), personal communication, 19 August 2021.

[25] Myanmar’s eight major “national races” are the Kachin, Kayah, Kayin, Chin, Bamar, Mon, Rakhine, and Shan. Among the country’s seven states and seven regions, each major national race except the Bamar has a state bearing its name while Bamar people live principally in the seven regions. See “Chapter II: State Structure”, Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar (2008) (https://www.myanmar-law-library.org/IMG/pdf/constitution_de_2008.pdf, downloaded 6 August 2021). Under the umbrella of the eight major national races, the state officially recognizes 135 ethnic groups, in a listing used in taking the national census since 1983; Gamanii, “135: Counting Races in Burma”, Shan Herald, 25 September 2012 (https://web.archive.org/web/20140105075611/http://www.shanland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4965:135-counting-races-in-burma&catid=115:opinions&Itemid=308, downloaded 11 July 2021), and Jane Ferguson, “Who’s Counting? Ethnicity, Belonging, and the National Census in Burma/Myanmar”, Bijdragen Tot De Taal-, Land- En Volkenkunde 171, 1 (2015): 1-28 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/43819166, downloaded 6 August 2021).

[26] Su Mon Thant, “Party Mergers in Myanmar: A New Development”, Trends in Southeast Asia 8/2020 (June 2020) (/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/TRS8_20.pdf, downloaded 6 August 2021).

[27] The application of this policy led to particular outrage in Rakhine State, where the NLD did not enjoy a majority in the state assembly following the 2015 elections. The ANP, the leading ethnic-nationality party in Rakhine State, insisted that the chief minister of the state should be an ANP member, as it held a decisive plurality of 23 of the 47 seats in the Rakhine State hluttaw. However, the NLD rejected this demand and appointed an NLD member as chief minister instead. The party invoked Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution, which stipulated that the Union President directly appointed chief ministers of states and regions and granted no role in those appointments to state or region hluttaw. See Moe Myint, “ANP Stages Walkout Over NLD Chief Minister for Arakan State”, The Irrawaddy, 28 March 2016 (https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/anp-stages-walkout-nld-chief-minister-arakan-state.html, downloaded 1 July 2021), and Ei Ei Toe Lwin and Wa Lone, “NLD control over chief ministers riles ethnic parties”, Myanmar Times, 29 March 2016 (https://www.mmtimes.com/national-news/19694-nld-control-over-chief-ministers-riles-ethnic-parties.html, downloaded 6 August 2021).

[28] Htin Aung Ling and Richard Batcheler, “2020 General Elections: State and Region Hluttaws”, The Asia Foundation, 18 November 2020 (https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Myanmar_2020-General-Election-State-and-Region-Hluttaws.pdf, downloaded 30 June 2021).

[29] In the November 2020 elections, the ANP won more seats in Rakhine State than the NLD. This outcome came despite the fact that the Union Elections Commission (UEC) decided to cancel elections in 11 out of 17 townships in the state, most of which the ANP had carried in 2015. The UEC’s stated reason for this decision was high security risks due to ongoing clashes between Myanmar’s military and the Arakan Army (AA). The decision led to controversy over whether the UEC was skewing electoral arrangements in the NLD’s favour in Rakhine State and was a source of great resentment on the part of the ANP. See Moe Thuzar, “Will the Real Union Election Commission Please Stand up?”, ISEAS Commentary, 20 October 2020 (/media/commentaries/will-the-real-union-election-commission-please-stand-up/, downloaded 17 August 2021), and Sebastian Strangio, “Myanmar Calls Off Polling in Rakhine, Shan Conflict Zones”, The Diplomat, 19 October 2020 (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lWaAnBIf8pcJ:https://thediplomat.com/2020/10/myanmar-calls-off-polling-in-rakhine-shan-conflict-zones/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=sg, downloaded 17 August 2021). Also see note 27, on the already sour relationship between the NLD and the ANP since 2015.

[30] “SNLD, DPNS reject offer to participate in new government”, Eleven, 6 February 2021 (https://elevenmyanmar.com/news/snld-dpns-reject-offer-to-participate-in-new-government, downloaded 30 June 2021). The NLD also seems to have better relations with the SNLD than with ethnic-nationality parties like the MUP and the ANP. When the NLD reached out to ethnic-nationality parties on building a federal union after the 2020 elections, the meeting between the NLD and the SNLD was reportedly successful. Meanwhile, the NLD and the MUP failed to meet, because of a dispute over the venue. See Thet Zin Soe, “NLD claims success in talks with Shan ethnic parties”, Myanmar Times, 17 January 2021 (https://www.mmtimes.com/news/nld-claims-success-talks-shan-ethnic-parties.html, 1 July 2021).

[31] As a USPD member, Sai Lone Hsaing served as the speaker of the Shan State hluttaw for two consecutive terms from 2011 until 2021. He won a seat in Shan State hluttaw in both 2010 and 2015 elections in Kengtung Constituency – 1. However, in 2020, he decided not to run for election. See “ရှမ်းပြည်နယ်လွှတ်တော်ဥက္ကဌဟောင်း အာဏာသိမ်းစစ်ကောင်စီ အဖွဲ့ဝင်ဦးစိုင်းလုံးဆိုင်ကို အမေရိကန်က ထပ်တိုးဒဏ်ခတ်ပိတ်ဆို့အရေးယူမှုတွင် ထည့်သွင်းထား” [Former Chair of Shan State Hluttaw U Sai Lone Hsaing Sanctioned by the US], Tachileik News Agency, 19 May 2021 (https://www.tachileik.net/mm/news/26676, downloaded 11 July 2021). A second USDP member, Shwe Kyein, joined the junta at the end of March; he is apparently an ethnic Ta’ang. Following its disastrous performance in November 2020, the USDP took the lead in decrying alleged electoral impropriety — the same charge to which Min Aung Hlaing would resort in justifying his coup; “Crisis in Myanmar after army alleges election fraud”, Reuters, 1 February 2021 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-politics-explainer-idUSKBN2A113H, downloaded 11 July 2021). In embracing complaints raised by a party understood to serve as its de facto electoral vehicle to justify its seizure of power, the military appears to undermine both its claim to standing above party politics as the defender of the nation, as well as its contention that its coup was intended to resolve disputes among political parties over electoral fraud in the November elections and to restore the integrity of the political system. Several members of the USDP do serve the SAC regime as ministers; see Htet Myet Min Tun, Moe Thuzar and Michael Montesano, “An Attempt to Lead Myanmar Back to the Future? Data on the Members of State Administration Council Regime’s Ministerial Line-up”, ISEAS Perspective, forthcoming.

[32] “ပြည်သူ့လွှတ်တော်ကိုယ်စားလှယ်လောင်းတစ်ဦးချင်းစီ၏ မဲဆန္ဒရရှိမှုအခြေအနေ (၂၀၂၀ ပြည့်နှစ် အထွေထွေ ရွေးကောက်ပွဲ)” [Election Results of Each Candidate for Pyithu Hluttaw (2020 General Elections)], Union Election Commission (https://uecdata.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/2020%20Election%20Result%20%28%20Percentage%20%29/1.%20Pyithu%20Result%20%28%20Percentage%20%29/Pyithu%20Each%20Candidate%20Result.pdf, downloaded 30 June 2021). In the 2020 elections, the NLD won 258 out of 330 seats in the Pyithu Hluttaw or Lower House of the Union Parliament, while the USDP won only 26 seats; “Pyithu Hluttaw Election Results (2020)”, Myanmar Information Management Unit, 24 November 2020 (https://themimu.info/sites/themimu.info/files/documents/Map_Pyithu_Hluttaw_Election_Results_2020_IFES_MIMU1707v02_24Nov2020_A3.pdf, downloaded 11 July 2021).

[33] “အမျိုးသားလွှတ်တော်ကိုယ်စားလှယ်လောင်းတစ်ဦးချင်းစီ၏ မဲဆန္ဒရရှိမှုအခြေအနေ (၂၀၂၀ ပြည့်နှစ် အထွေထွေ ရွေးကောက်ပွဲ)” [Election Results of Each Candidate for Amyotha Hluttaw (2020 General Elections0], Union Election Commission (https://uecdata.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/2020%20Election%20Result%20%28%20Percentage%20%29/2.%20Amyotha%20Result%20%28%20Percentage%20%29/Amyotha%20Each%20Candidate%20Result.pdf, downloaded 11 July 2021).In the 2020 elections, the NLD won 138 out of 168 seats in the Amyotha Hluttaw or Upper House of the Union Parliament, while the USDP won only 7 seats; “Amyotha Hluttaw Election Results (2020)”, Myanmar Information Management Unit, 24 November 2020 (https://themimu.info/sites/themimu.info/files/documents/Map_Amyotha_Hluttaw_Election_Results_2020_IFES_MIMU1707v02_24Nov2020_A3.pdf, downloaded 11 July 2021).

[34] The Tatmadaw’s first choice for a Kachin civilian member of the junta was apparently Dr Manam Tu Ja, the chairman of the Kachin State People’s Party (KSPP); veteran specialist on the Myanmar peace process (b), personal communication, 19 August 2021. A former vice chairman of the powerful Kachin Independence Organization, Manam Tu Ja won a seat in the Kachin State hluttaw in the November 2020 elections on the ticket of the KSPP — a party founded in 2018 through the merger of three Kachin political parties. See Ei Ei Toe Lwin, “Dr Tu Ja tests political waters”, 9 September 2013 (https://www.mmtimes.com/national-news/8117-dr-tu-ja-tests-political-waters.html, downloaded 24 August 2021); Htet Nain Zaw, “Kachin Leaders Demand Charter Reform to Establish Peace”, The Irrawaddy, 7 February 2020 (https://www.irrawaddy.com/opinion/analysis/kachin-leaders-demand-charter-reform-establish-peace.html, downloaded 24 August 2021); “Kachin party leader wins state parliament seat”, Myanmar Times, 9 November 2021 (https://www.mmtimes.com/news/kachin-party-leader-wins-state-parliament-seat.html, downloaded 24 August 2021); and Su Mon Thant, “Party Mergers in Myanmar: A New Development”.

[35] Helen Kyed, “Hopes for a New Democracy in Myanmar: Multiethnic Unity against Military Power”, Tea Circle, 19 March 2021 (https://teacircleoxford.com/2021/03/19/hopes-for-a-new-democracy-in-myanmar-multiethnic-unity-against-military-power/, downloaded 24 August 2021), and also Roseanne Gerin, “Myanmar Junta Bid to Draw in Ethnic Parties Met with Chilly Response”, Radio Free Asia, 8 February 2021 (https://www.rfa.org/english/news/myanmar/ethnic-parties-02082021172229.html, downloaded 30 June 2021).

[36] Veteran specialist on the Myanmar peace process (b), personal communication, 19 August 2021.

[37] Jeng Phang Naw Taung apparently once served as a police officer in Kachin State; veteran specialist on the Myanmar peace process (a), personal communication, 18 August 2021. It is also known that Moung Har’s father was a Chin nationalist figure. Otherwise, there are very limited available data — whether personal or political — on these two individuals. The only publicly available information concerning Moung Har is that he worked as a manager in the Myanmar Economics Bank, from which he retired in 2012. Although he does not seem to have been politically active prior to joining the SAC, his father U Wamma Thu Maung was a renowned Chin revolutionary leader during the colonial era who became the first minister for Chin affairs in the Chin Hills Special Division after independence in 1948. See Salai Benezer, “အာဏာသိမ်းတပ်ကဖွဲ့စည်းလိုက်သည့်နိုင်ငံတော်စီမံအုပ်ချုပ်ရေးကောင်စီတွင်ချင်းတော်လှန်ရေးခေါင်းဆောင်ဦးဝမ္မသူမောင်း၏သားဦးမောင်းဟာပါဝင်” [U Moung Har, the son of Chin revolutionary leader U Wamma Thu Maung, included in the State Administration Council formed by the military], Myanmar Peace Monitor, 4 February 2021 (https://www.bnionline.net/mm/news-78503, downloaded 30 June 2021).

[38] “UPDJC ကော်မတီဝင်များ” [Committee members of UPDJC], Institute for Strategy and Policy – Myanmar, 28 June 2016 (https://ispmyanmarpeacedesk.com/function/updjc-%E1%80%80%E1%80%B1%E1%80%AC%E1%80%BA%E1%80%99%E1%80%90%E1%80%AE%E1%80%9D%E1%80%84%E1%80%BA%E1%80%99%E1%80%BB%E1%80%AC%E1%80%B8/, downloaded 17 August 2021). Mahn Nyein Maung is a life-long Kayin revolutionist. He joined the KNU, a Kayin ethnic armed organization, in the early 1970s, and later rose to the senior ranks of the organization. He was arrested in Kunming, China, in 2011 and imprisoned in Myanmar, but, in response to demands from the KNU during peace dialogue, President Thein Sein pardoned him in 2012. Mahn Nyein Maung was later actively involved in peace dialogue with the Naypyitaw government as a member of the KNU central executive member, which signed the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) with the government in 2015. Observers of the peace process regarded him as a “Tatmadaw-friendly” representative of the KNU. One source suggests that Mahn Nyein Maung may also have a record of association with Buddhist chauvinist elements; veteran specialist on the Myanmar peace process (a), personal communication, 18 August 2021. At the same time, in the period soon after the formation of the SAC, rumours suggested that he may have joined the junta under pressure; veteran specialist on the Myanmar peace process (a), personal communication, 18 August 2021. In 2020, Mahn Nyein Maung resigned from the KNU to contest that year’s elections. See Chit Min Thu, “Pado Mahn Nyein Maung will contest in the Myanmar general elections”, Mizzima, 25 July 2020 (https://www.mizzima.com/article/pado-mahn-nyein-maung-will-contest-myanmar-general-elections, downloaded 11 July 2021).

[39] Observer of ethnic-nationality parties, personal communication, 18 August 2021.

[40] “ပြည်သူ့လွှတ်တော်ကိုယ်စားလှယ်လောင်းတစ်ဦးချင်းစီ၏ မဲဆန္ဒရရှိမှုအခြေအနေ (၂၀၂၀ ပြည့်နှစ် အထွေထွေ ရွေးကောက်ပွဲ)”, p. 81, and “KNU heavyweight prepares for election battle”, Frontier Myanmar, 12 August 2020 (https://www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/i-would-not-fight-in-a-war-unless-i-was-sure-of-victory-knu-heavyweight-prepares-for-election-battle/ , downloaded 1 July 2021). Pantanaw was the birthplace of U Thant.

[41] The Ta’ang or Palaung are a Myanmar ethnic group living largely in Shan State. That state’s Palaung Self-Administered Zone is one of six self-administered territories in Myanmar identified with ethnic groups smaller than the major “national races”. Five of these territories lie within the sprawling Shan State, while the sixth is located within the boundaries of Sagaing Region.

[42] Datum provided by veteran specialist on the Myanmar peace process (a), personal communication, 6 August 2021.

[43] Both Thein Nyunt and Khin Maung Swe were former central executive members of the NLD. In 2010, when the NLD decided to boycott the elections, they disagreed with the party’s decision and left the party. With Dr Than Nyein, they then founded the National Democratic Force (NDF) party. Thein Nyunt soon broke off from the NDF and founded the New National Democracy Party (NNDP). See Saw Pho Khwar, “မန်းငြိမ်းမောင်၊ ဦးသိန်းညွန့်နဲ့ ဦးခင်မောင်ဆွေတို့ကို တပ်မတော်နေရာပေး” [Tatmadaw gives appointments to Mahn Nyein Maung, U Thein Nyunt and U Khin Maung Swe], Radio Free Asia, 2 February 2021 (https://www.rfa.org/burmese/news/military-coup-myanmar-new-government-02022021114403.html, downloaded 30 June 2021), and “Myanmar Junta Member’s House Bombed in Yangon”, The Irrawaddy, 22 April 2021 (https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/myanmar-junta-members-house-bombed-yangon.html, downloaded 30 June 2021).

[44] “Bitter divide in Burma’s opposition”, BBC, 7 October 2010 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11405125, downloaded 7 August 2021), and “The underdogs of the National Democratic Force”, Frontier Myanmar, 25 August 2015 (https://www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/the-underdogs-of-the-national-democratic-force/, downloaded 7 August 2015).

[45] The NDF won eight seats in the Pyithu Hluttaw and the Amyotha Hluttaw in the 2010 elections, but failed to win a single seat in either 2015 or 2020. Likewise, the NNDP did not win a single seat in either of Myanmar’s most recent elections; “Election aftermath: The big losers”, Frontier Myanmar, 12 November 2015 (https://www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/election-aftermath-the-big-losers/, downloaded 7 August 2021).

[46] On the NNDP’s and NDF’s alignment with the USDP in its nationalist, anti-NLD stance, veteran specialist on the Myanmar peace process (a), personal communication, 18 August 2021. Thein Nyunt and Khin Maung Swe also numbered among the 35 leaders from 34 political parties who met with Senior General Min Aung Hlaing in August 2020, some three months before the elections, in a session devoted rather ominously to discussing the security and fairness of the approaching polls; Nyein Nyein, “Dozens of Myanmar Political Parties Seek Assurances from Military Chief over Election Concerns”, The Irrawaddy, 15 August 2020 (https://www.irrawaddy.com/elections/dozens-myanmar-political-parties-seek-assurances-military-chief-election-concerns.html, downloaded 30 June 2021). People’s Pioneer Party chair (and current Tatmadaw-appointed minister of social welfare, relief, and resettlement) Thet Thet Khine was also present at the meeting, as were the chairpersons of the USDP and the KySDP. Thein Nyunt’s NNDP formed an electoral alliance with the Tatmadaw’s USDP proxy party in 2020 and is even reported to have encouraged Min Aung Hlaing to seize power after that party and its allies suffered a resounding defeat in the November polls; Phyo Thiha Cho, “Son of pro-military politician tries to have father’s party evicted from its headquarters”, Myanmar Now, 22 September 2020 (https://www.myanmar-now.org/en/news/son-of-pro-military-politician-tries-to-have-fathers-party-evicted-from-its-headquarters, downloaded 7 August 2021), and “Myanmar Junta Member’s House Bombed in Yangon”. The sympathetic relationships between the Tatmadaw on the one side and the NDF, the NNDP and their leaders on the other are thus inextricably bound up with the two parties’ aspirations to rival the NLD for electoral support, and even with their frustrations in realizing those aspirations. In opting to name Thein Nyunt and Khin Maung Swe to the junta, the Tatmadaw in essence passed over a number of more significant or prominent figures on Myanmar’s political scene, as well as leading members of the USDP. Two examples of the former are Ko Ko Gyi of the People’s Party and Thet Thet Khine of the People’s Pioneer Party, whose decisions to contest against the NLD made them controversial figures in the campaign for the November 2020 elections. Ko Ko Gyi’s interactions with the SAC’s newly appointed UEC in the aftermath of the coup have cost him several members of his party’s central executive committee, but he has himself assumed no position in the regime; “People’s Party sees mass resignations over decision to attend UEC meeting “, Myanmar Now, 21 May 2021, (https://www.myanmar-now.org/en/news/peoples-party-sees-mass-resignations-over-decision-to-attend-uec-meeting?page=89, downloaded 6 July 2021). Ko Ko Gyi first rose to prominence as a student leader during the 1988 uprisings in Burma. He was later arrested, and when released in 2012, had spent a total of 17 years in prison. After his release, he worked with the NLD and sought to contest Myanmar’s 2015 elections as an NLD candidate, only to find himself spurned by the party. Having founded the People’s Party in 2018, he has been a critic of the NLD government in recent years. He contested for a seat in the Pyithu Hluttaw in the 2020 elections but lost to the NLD candidate for the seat. Prior to the elections, Ko Ko Gyi said that he agreed that the role of the military in Myanmar’s politics should be reduced “gradually”, but that the government “should work with the military”; Kyaw Soe Htet, John Liu, and Thompson Chau, “Ko Ko Gyi sees risk of post-election unrest if economy worsens”, The Myanmar Times, 29 October 2020 (https://www.mmtimes.com/news/ko-ko-gyi-sees-risk-post-election-unrest-if-economy-worsens.html, downloaded 30 June 2021). As noted above, Thet Thet Khine accepted the ministerial portfolio for social welfare from the SAC; the authors’ forthcoming “An Attempt to Lead Myanmar Back to the Future? Data on the Members of State Administration Council Regime’s Ministerial Line-up” treats her background and the circumstances and implications of her appointment.

[47] Veteran specialist on the Myanmar peace process (b), personal communication, 19 August 2021. Thein Nyunt and Khin Maung Swe also have records of public association with Buddhist chauvinism and virulent anti-Rohingya sentiments; Moe Aung Lin Naing, “ပြည်သူ့ လွှတ်တော် ကိုယ်စားလှယ်‌ဟောင်း ဦးသိန်းညွန့်နှင့် တွေ့ဆုံခြင်း” [Interview with former MP Thein Nyunt on Myanmar politics], Maha Wira Magazine, 16 October 2016 (http://wirathumyanmar.blogspot.com/2016/09/blog-post_33.html, downloaded 25 August 2021); Thant Zin Oo, Thinn Thiri and Khin Khin Ei, “Myanmar Political Parties Oppose Easing Travel Restrictions on Rohingya”, Radio Free Asia, 24 April 2018 (https://www.rfa.org/english/news/myanmar/myanmar-political-parties-oppose-easing-travel-restrictions-on-rohingya-04242018165939.html, downloaded 25 August 2021); “တိုင်းမ်မဂ္ဂဇင်းပါ ဘာသာရေး အကြမ်းဖက်မှုဆောင်းပါး အစိုးရ ကန့်ကွက်” [Government condemns Time Magazine article on religious terrorism], Radio Free Asia, 24 June 2013 (https://www.rfa.org/burmese/news/myanmar-gov-slams-time-magazine-cover-06242013103721.html, downloaded 25 August 2021). Note that Mahar Wira Magazine was a publication of the notorious, now disbanded, Buddhist chauvinist organization “Ma Ba Tha”.

[48] See Htet Myet Min Tun, Moe Thuzar and Michael Montesano, “An Attempt to Lead Myanmar Back to the Future? Data on the Members of State Administration Council Regime’s Ministerial Line-up”, ISEAS Perspective, forthcoming.

[49] Notwithstanding the apparent significance of most of these men’s party affiliations in aiding understanding of their recruitment as collaborators in the SAC’s anti-NLD project, it is not clear whether the Tatmadaw offered seats on the junta to individuals or to parties. The former possibility seems in at least some cases likely, in light of the responses of some junta members’ parties to their appointments. The KySP expelled Saw Daniel soon after his appointment to the junta, while the KNU also distanced itself from Mahn Nyein Maung following the appearance of his name in the SAC line-up; Nyein Nyein, “Anti-NLD Ethnic Politicians Picked by Military Regime for Governing Council”, The Irrawaddy, 5 February 2021 (https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/anti-nld-ethnic-politicians-picked-military-regime-governing-council.html, downloaded 30 June 2021), and Min Naing Soe, “Phado Mahn Nyein Maung not part of KNU”, Eleven Media, 5 February 2021 (https://elevenmyanmar.com/news/phado-mahn-nyein-maung-not-part-of-knu, downloaded 7 July 2021). In contrast, the ANP and the MUP signaled explicit approval of their members’ appointments; Lawi Weng, “Junta scrambles to form ethnic alliances amid nationwide dissent”, Frontier Myanmar, 23 February 2021 (https://www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/junta-scrambles-to-form-ethnic-alliances-amid-nationwide-dissent/, downloaded 30 June 2021). As time passed, however, the MUP’s decision to cooperate with the SAC led to a number of resignations from the party in protest against the party’s decision — including those of members of its central executive committee; see “More and more Mon Party (MUP) resign in protest over cooperation with military regime’s SAC”, Hintha Media, 29 March 2021 (https://www.bnionline.net/en/news/more-and-more-mon-party-mup-resign-protest-over-cooperation-military-regimes-sac, downloaded 17 August 2021).

This pattern of variation — and of evident divisions within some parties over their posture toward the SAC regime — recommends scrutiny of the degree to which narrowly personal as well as more broadly party-political factors may account for the willingness of these civilians to throw their lot in with the Tatmadaw, and thus to buttress its anti-NLD project.

[50] The NLD won a landslide victory in the 1990 elections. However, the junta nullified the results and, first as the SLORC and then as the SPDC, ruled the country until 2011, having held elections in 2010. See Lun Min Maung, “Nullified 1990 election to be commemorated”, The Myanmar Times, 26 May 2015 (https://www.mmtimes.com/national-news/14665-nullified-1990-election-to-be-commemorated.html, downloaded 11 July 2021).

[51] The NLD boycotted the 2010 elections, claiming that the party did not have confidence in the elections held under the military-drafted 2008 constitution. The USDP – the military’s proxy party – won the elections. See Thomas Fuller, “Main Opposition to Boycott Myanmar Election”, New York Times, 29 March 2010 (https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/world/asia/30myanmar.html, downloaded 11 July 2021).

[52] In the election for the seat in the Pyithu Hluttaw that Mahn Nyein Maung contested in Pantanaw Township, Ayeyarwady Region, as a KPP candidate, he secured 8.83 per cent of the vote, while the victorious NLD candidate took 58.01 per cent; “ပြည်သူ့လွှတ်တော်ကိုယ်စားလှယ်လောင်းတစ်ဦးချင်းစီ၏ မဲဆန္ဒရရှိမှုအခြေအနေ (၂၀၂၀ ပြည့်နှစ် အထွေထွေ ရွေးကောက်ပွဲ)”.

[53] Thein Nyunt won a seat in the Pyithu Hluttaw as an NLD candidate in Thingangyun Township, Yangon, but election results were nullified by the military; Nyan Lynn Htun, “အမျိုးသားဒီမိုကရေစီပါတီသစ်ပါတီဥက္ကဋ္ဌ ဦးသိန်းညွန့် သင်္ဃန်းကျွန်းမြို့နယ် ပြည်သူ့လွှတ်တော်မဲဆန္ဒနယ်၌ အထွေထွေရွေးကောက်ပွဲ ယှဉ်ပြိုင်မည်” [Chair of New National Democracy Party U Thein Nyunt contested for a seat in the Pyithu Hluttaw from Thingangyun Township], Eleven, 31 July 2020 (https://news-eleven.com/article/185205, downloaded 11 July 2021).

[54] Thein Nyunt first filed for the 2010 elections as an NDF candidate but later ran as an independent after resigning from the NDF. He won a seat in the Pyithu Hluttaw for Thingangyun Township, Yangon; Saw Pho Khwar, “မန်းငြိမ်းမောင်၊ ဦးသိန်းညွန့်နဲ့ ဦးခင်မောင်ဆွေတို့ကို တပ်မတော်နေရာပေး”.

[55] Thein Nyunt contested for a seat in the Pyithu Hluttaw in Thingangyun Township, Yangon Region, representing the New National Democracy Party (NNDP) but lost to an NLD candidate; Nyan Lynn Htun, “အမျိုးသားဒီမိုကရေစီပါတီသစ်ပါတီဥက္ကဋ္ဌ ဦးသိန်းညွန့် သင်္ဃန်းကျွန်းမြို့နယ် ပြည်သူ့လွှတ်တော်မဲဆန္ဒနယ်၌ အထွေထွေရွေးကောက်ပွဲ ယှဉ်ပြိုင်မည်”.

[56] Thein Nyunt contested for a seat in the Pyithu Hluttaw in Thingangyun Township, Yangon Region, representing the New National Democracy Party (NNDP), but again lost to an NLD candidate. He secured 4.57 per cent of total votes while the NLD candidate won 88.99 per cent; “ပြည်သူ့လွှတ်တော်ကိုယ်စားလှယ်လောင်းတစ်ဦးချင်းစီ၏ မဲဆန္ဒရရှိမှုအခြေအနေ (၂၀၂၀ ပြည့်နှစ် အထွေထွေ ရွေးကောက်ပွဲ)”.

[57] Khin Maung Swe won a seat in the Pyithu Hluttaw as an NLD candidate in Sanchaung Township, Yangon, but the election results were nullified by the military; Saw Yan Naing, “NLD Reorganizes Information Committee”, The Irrawaddy, 15 July 2009 (https://www2.irrawaddy.com/article.php?art_id=16331, downloaded 11 July 2021).

[58] From 2012, Aye Nu Sein served as a member of the central executive committee of the Rakhine Nationalities Development Party (RNDP) and as the party’s spokesperson. The RNDP and the Arakan League for Democracy (ALD) merged to form the Arakan National Party (ANP) in preparation for the 2015 elections. However, in 2016, the ALD left the ANP, claiming that former RNDP members largely dominated the ANP; Hanna Hindstorm, “Burma: Arakanese Party Warned Over Inflammatory Pictures”, Democratic Voice of Burma, 26 December 2012 (https://www.eurasiareview.com/26122012-burma-arakanese-party-warned-over-inflammatory-pictures/, downloaded 7 August 2021), Nyein Nyein, “Arakanese Political Parties Merge to Form ANP”, The Irrawaddy, 14 January 2014 (https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/arakanese-political-parties-merge-form-anp.html, downloaded 7 August 2021), and Nyan Lynn Aung, “Arakan National Party prepares to split”, Myanmar Times, 13 September 2016 (https://www.mmtimes.com/national-news/22482-arakan-national-party-prepares-to-split.html, downloaded 7 August 2021).

[59] Sai Lone Hsaing won a seat in the Shan State hluttaw for the first time as a USDP candidate in Kengtung Constituency – 1, Shan State; “တိုင်းဒေသကြီး သို့မဟုတ် ပြည်နယ်လွှတ်တော်ကိုယ်စားလှယ်လောင်းတစ်ဦးချင်းစီ၏ မဲဆန္ဒရရှိမှုအခြေအနေ (၇-၁၁-၂၀၁၀)” [Election Results of Each Candidate for State and Region Hluttaw (7.11.2010)], Union Election Commission, p. 104

(https://www.uec.gov.mm/show_data_content.php?name=142.pdf&type=law&code=x&sno=5415&token=80e461933dc70bc9b66bf4788314a3ff9bfeb7c51d593c03f1c196037a213ed2bcbb538e30ab037b5432e7cbd3e4f3f16485d1399bd5fa045e1fe8b45e33f141, downloaded 11 July 2021).

[60] Sai Lone Hsaing won a seat in the Shan State hluttaw for the second time as a USDP candidate in Kengtung Constituency – 1, Shan State; “တိုင်းဒေသကြီး သိုမဟုတ် ပြည်နယ်လွှတ်တော်ကိုယ်စားလှယ်လောင်းတစ်ဦးချင်းစီ၏ မဲဆန္ဒရရှိမှုအခြေအနေ (၂၀၁၅ ခုနှစ် အထွေထွေ ရွေးကောက်ပွဲ)” [Election Results of Each Candidate for State and Region Hluttaw (2015 General Elections)], Union Election Commission, p. 133 (https://www.uec.gov.mm/show_data_content.php?name=03S_D.pdf&type=page_multiple_photo&code=17&sno=5789&token=2a840d7fdcf49becf13ac7636e5a61b04ae3a7e87747ed76b8a4fd5c8a03777981c19159c7dfb39e409533df0604dd7e692b4b7221b4e6eeb98475b8e623d134, downloaded 11 July 2021).

[61] That is, the Kayah Nationalities Democracy Party.

[62] Saw Daniel contested for a seat in the Amyotha Hluttaw in Kayah State’s Constituency 4, representing the KNDP, but lost to an NLD candidate; “အမျိုးသားလွှတ်တော်ကိုယ်စားလှယ်လောင်းတစ်ဦးချင်းစီ၏ မဲဆန္ဒရရှိမှုအခြေအနေ (၂၀၁၅ ခုနှစ် အထွေထွေ ရွေးကောက်ပွဲ)” [Election Results of Each Candidate for the Amyotha Hluttaw (2015 General Elections)], Union Election Commission, p. 5

(https://www.uec.gov.mm/show_data_content.php?name=02AmyotharHluttaw.pdf&type=page_multiple_photo&code=17&sno=9583&token=fd383d60132223462ab1397e79d03be04d694929d77d8f3f9eeb64b4bf5359e1f447b641c72e24a18d2b4e100896c87e384f28654c657876eab0a64cfdf3fdc9, downloaded 11 July 2021).

[63] Saw Daniel contested for the Hpasawng Township – 2 seat in the Kayah State hluttaw, representing the Kayah State Democratic Party (KySDP), but again lost to an NLD candidate. He secured only 17.43 per cent of total votes, while the NLD candidate won 60.09 per cent; “တိုင်းဒေသကြီး သိုမဟုတ် ပြည်နယ်လွှတ်တော်ကိုယ်စားလှယ်လောင်းတစ်ဦးချင်းစီ၏ မဲဆန္ဒရရှိမှုအ ခြေအ နေ (၂၀၂၀ ပြည့်နှစ် အထွေထွေ ရွေးကောက်ပွဲ)” [Election Results of Each Candidate for State and Region Hluttaw (2020 General Elections)], Union Election Commission, p. 12 (https://uecdata.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/2020%20Election%20Result%20%28%20Percentage%20%29/3.%20S%20%26%20R%20Result%20%28%20Percentage%20%29/S%26R%20Each%20Candidate%20Result.pdf, downloaded 11 July 2021).

[64] That is, the All Region Mon Democracy Party.

[65] Banyar Aung Moe won a seat in the Amyotha Hluttaw as a candidate for the ARMDP in Mon State’s Constituency 7; “အမျိုးသားလွှတ်တော်ကိုယ်စားလှယ်လောင်းတစ်ဦးချင်းစီ၏ မဲဆန္ဒရရှိမှုအခြေအနေ (၇-၁၁-၂၀၁၀)” [Election Results of Each Candidate for the Amyotha Hluttaw (7.11.2010)], Union Election Commission, p. 21 (https://www.uec.gov.mm/show_data_content.php?name=141.pdf&type=law&code=x&sno=954&token=28fc445711eb47f5c258bcbbcedbaa6c80d31f353db551ff9db671ff614527f0d9a357bd0d7e2871b166c2f51f19565d7fbbf892c26a5b62a3fddcf2be2887f6, downloaded 11 July 2021).

[66] Banyar Aung Moe again won a seat in the Pyithu Hluttaw, representing the MUP, in Yay Township, Mon State. He won 51.55 per cent of total votes, while the losing NLD took 39.64 per cent; “ပြည်သူ့လွှတ်တော်ကိုယ်စားလှယ်လောင်းတစ်ဦးချင်းစီ၏ မဲဆန္ဒရရှိမှုအခြေအနေ (၂၀၂၀ ပြည့်နှစ် အထွေထွေ ရွေးကောက်ပွဲ)”.

[67] In 2015, Shwe Kyein contested the Namhsan Township – 2 seat in the Shan State hluttaw as a USDP candidate. He lost to a Ta-Arng (Palaung) National Party (TNP) candidate; “တိုင်းဒေသကြီး သိုမဟုတ် ပြည်နယ်လွှတ်တော်ကိုယ်စားလှယ်လောင်းတစ်ဦးချင်းစီ၏ မဲဆန္ဒရရှိမှုအခြေအနေ (၂၀၁၅ ခုနှစ် အထွေထွေ ရွေးကောက်ပွဲ)”, p. 130. Namhsan is the administrative center of the Palaung Self-Administered Zone.

[68] In 2020, Shwe Kyein contested the Namhsan Township – 1 seat in the Shan State hluttaw, again as a USDP candidate, and he once again lost to a TNP candidate. He secured 17.28 per cent of the vote, while the TNP candidate took 49.78 per cent and the NLD candidate 27.35 per cent; “တိုင်းဒေသကြီး သိုမဟုတ် ပြည်နယ်လွှတ်တော်ကိုယ်စားလှယ်လောင်းတစ်ဦးချင်းစီ၏ မဲဆန္ဒရရှိမှုအ ခြေအ နေ (၂၀၂၀ ပြည့်နှစ် အထွေထွေ ရွေးကောက်ပွဲ)”, p. 127.

[69] Veteran specialist on the Myanmar peace process (b), personal communication, 19 August 2021. Saw Daniel is also reported to have had ties to the infamous “Nasaka” border guard force, abolished during the Thein Sein administration in 2013; veteran specialist on the Myanmar peace process (a), personal communication, 18 August 2021.

[70] The SAC’s Shan member has a clear history of his own in resisting NLD dominance. As speaker of the Shan State hluttaw, he presided over the decisive 2019 rejection of NLD-appointed President Win Myint’s proposal to establish state- and region-level ministries of immigration and population. During 2016-2020, the military directly held 36 seats in the Shan State hluttaw, the USDP 31, the SNLD 28, the NLD 24, and other parties 22; both the USDP and the SNLD opposed the proposal. See “Shan rejects formation of new ministry”, Myanmar Times, 9 July 2019 (https://www.mmtimes.com/news/shan-rejects-formation-new-ministry.html, downloaded 29 July 2021).

[71] The paucity of data on the SAC’s Kachin and Chin members Jeng Phang Naw Taung and Moung Har, along with their lack of party affiliation, means that the background to their decisions to join the junta is less clear. In fact, Moung Har even remarked that, when the Tatmadaw offered him a position on the SAC junta, he was not sure whether the offer concerned a state-level or Union-level role; Salai Benezer, “အာဏာသိမ်းတပ်ကဖွဲ့စည်းလိုက်သည့်နိုင်ငံတော်စီမံအုပ်ချုပ်ရေးကောင်စီတွင်ချင်းတော်လှန်ရေးခေါင်းဆောင်ဦးဝမ္မသူမောင်း၏သားဦးမောင်းဟာပါဝင်”. 

[72] On ANP-NLD tensions related to the factors noted in this paragraph, see notes 27 and 29 above. A further factor in the ANP’s antagonistic relations with the NLD are the former party’s close links to the Rakhine nationalist Arakan Army (AA). The ANP is believed to be supportive of the AA, which aspires to establish Rakhine State as a confederate state with self-determination. The speaker of the Rakhine State Htuttaw during 2016-2021 and ANP member U San Kyaw Hla is in fact the father-in-law of Tun Myat Naing, the chief of the AA; Sithu Aung Myint, “Rakhine nationalism and the rise of the Arakan Army”, Frontier Myanmar, 7 February 2019 (https://www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/rakhine-nationalism-and-the-rise-of-the-arakan-army/, downloaded 1 July 2021), and “Arakan Army chief’s father-in-law appointed Rakhine parliament speaker”, Frontier Myanmar, 8 February 2016 (https://www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/arakan-army-chiefs-father-in-law-appointed-rakhine-parliament-speaker/, downloaded 1 July 2021).

[73] Veteran specialist on the Myanmar peace process (b), personal communication, 19 August 2021. In January 2021, just a few weeks before the coup, representatives of the two parties failed to meet to discuss issues concerning federalism because of disagreements over proposed venues for the talks. The NLD had reached out to 48 ethnic-nationality parties to discuss issues over building a democratic federal union and joining its “national unity government” just a few days after winning the 2020 elections; Nyein Nyein, “NLD Reaches Out to Myanmar’s Ethnic Parties Seeking Federal Union and an End to Civil War”, The Irrawaddy, 13 November 2021 (https://www.irrawaddy.com/elections/nld-reaches-myanmars-ethnic-parties-seeking-federal-union-end-civil-war.html, downloaded 1 July 2021), and Thet Zin Soe and Myat Thura, “NLD, Mon parties talk aborted over venue dispute”, Myanmar Times, 5 January 2021 (https://www.mmtimes.com/news/nld-mon-parties-talk-aborted-over-venue-dispute.html, downloaded 30 June 2021).

[74] In the months following the coup, the SAC announced measures that perhaps reflected concessions to its ANP and MUP collaborators. These measures included lifting the Internet ban in Rakhine State immediately after the coup, releasing of the influential ANP leader Dr Aye Maung and other Rakhine political detainees, and removing the AA from Naypyitaw’s list of terrorist organizations. The founder and former chairman of the ANP, Aye Maung had been sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment for high treason in 2019 for speaking in support of armed struggle to reestablish Rakhine sovereignty. The Tatmadaw released him some two weeks after the coup, in a move likely to have been in response to a demand from the ANP; Thaw Zin Myo, “Imprisoned Rakhine politician Aye Maung stripped of lawmaker status”, Myanmar Now, 20 May 2020 (https://www.myanmar-now.org/en/news/imprisoned-rakhine-politician-aye-maung-stripped-of-lawmaker-status, downloaded 1 July 2021), and “High-Profile Ethnic Rakhine Political Prisoners Among Those Freed to Mark Myanmar Union Day”, The Irrawaddy, 12 February (https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/high-profile-ethnic-rakhine-political-prisoners-among-freed-mark-myanmar-union-day.html, downloaded 1 July 2021). After its attacks on police posts and military units, the AA was listed as a terrorist organization in 2020. However, the SAC removed that designation a month after the 1 February coup; “Myanmar Military Regime Removes Arakan Army from List of Terrorist Groups”, The Irrawaddy, 11 March 2021 (https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/myanmar-military-regime-removes-arakan-army-list-terrorist-groups.html, downloaded 1 July 2021). In Mon State, the SAC regime renamed a bridge whose christening as the Bogyoke Aung San Bridge under the NLD government had created much controversy and in fact cost the NLD votes in Mon State in by-elections held in 2017. It will now be called by the restored name of Thanlwin Bridge (Chaungzon). The NLD’s decision to name the span after the national independence leader General Aung San despite protests by local residents that the bridge’s name should be one related to “Mon history and culture” fed the belief that the party was not listening to those residents’ voices; Lun Min Maung, “Thousands protest over bridge name in Mon State”, The Myanmar Times, 20 March 2017 (https://www.mmtimes.com/national-news/25383-thousands-protest-over-bridge-name-in-mon-state.html, downloaded 1 July 2021). Min Aung Hlaing himself was present at the renaming ceremony; “Myanmar Coup Leader Renames Controversial Mon State Bridge”, The Irrawaddy, 1 June 2021 (https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/myanmar-coup-leader-renames-controversial-mon-state-bridge.html, downloaded 7 August 2021). None of this is to say that the Tatmadaw has an unlimited willingness to meet every demand made by ethnic-nationality parties in order to win support from non-Bamar populations. It did not accede to the ANP’s insistence that the top position in the Rakhine State Administration Council be assumed by a member of the party; “After Working With Myanmar’s Regime, Rakhine’s Major Party Remains Divided”, The Irrawaddy, 7 May 2021 (https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/after-working-with-myanmars-regime-rakhines-major-party-remains-divided.html, 30 June 2021).

[75] The NLD government’s pursuit of that latter process had occasioned growing tensions with Min Aung Hlaing; Cape Diamond, “Myanmar’s latest peace talks expose Suu Kyi rift with military”, Nikkei Asia, 21 August 2020 (https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Myanmar-s-latest-peace-talks-expose-Suu-Kyi-rift-with-military, downloaded 3 August 2021).

[76] Nyein Nyein, “Military Sets up New Committee for Peace Talks”, The Irrawaddy, 10 November 2020 (https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/myanmar-military-sets-new-committee-peace-talks.html, downloaded 3 August 2021).

[77] Joe Kumbun, “Do the Myanmar Junta’s New ‘Peace-Making Committees’ Stand Any Chance of Success?”, The Diplomat, 4 March 2021(https://thediplomat.com/2021/03/do-the-myanmar-juntas-new-peace-making-committees-stand-any-chance-of-success/, downloaded 9 August 2021), and Htet Myet Min Tun, Moe Thuzar and Michael Montesano “Min Aung Hlaing and His Generals: Data on the Military Members of Myanmar’s State Administration Council Junta”. Min Aung Hlaing himself chairs the National Solidarity and Peace-making Central Committee (NSPCC), on which junta Vice Chairman Soe Win also sits. Among other military members of the SAC, General Mya Htun Oo, Admiral Tin Aung San, General Maung Maung Kyaw, Lieutenant General Moe Myint Tun, and Lieutenant General Aung Lin Dwe are members of the committee, as are civilian SAC members Mahn Nyein Maung, Aye Nu Sein, Jeng Phang Naw Taung, Sai Lone Hsaing, Saw Daniel, and Banyar Aung Moe. The NSPCC’s roster does not include Bamar civilian SAC members Thein Nyunt and Khin Maung Swe or the Chin civilian member Moung Har. Soe Win also chairs the National Solidarity and Peace-making Working Committee. Further, a lower-level National Unity and Peace Restoration Coordination Committee operates under the chairmanship of Lieutenant General Yar Pyae, who chaired the Union Peace Conference’s Joint Ceasefire Monitoring Committee and led a military negotiating team set up in 2018. This third new committee thus represents the only suggestion of continuity with the peace process of the past five years. Veteran specialist on the Myanmar peace process (a), who must remain unnamed, shared these data on the membership of the new committees with the authors through personal communication, 6 August 2021.

[78] February saw the ANP state that it “would cooperate with the military regime as necessary ‘for Rakhine’s national interest’”; Nyein Nyein, “Anti-NLD Ethnic Politicians Picked by Military Regime for Governing Council”. Three months later, the ANP appeared to be reconsidering its position; “ANP chair says party may end its association with junta”, Myanmar Now, 5 May 2021 (https://www.myanmar-now.org/en/news/anp-chair-says-party-may-end-its-association-with-junta, downloaded 30 June 2021). Sources in Yangon now suggest that the ANP is “lying low”, rather than closely identifying itself with the post-coup regime. Its leadership is, that is, convinced that Rakhine State can remain a place apart, relatively unaffected by the patterns of conflict that have engulfed the rest of Myanmar in the wake of the coup; veteran specialist on the Myanmar peace process (b), personal communication, 19 August 2021. This posture reflects, of course, a long-held perspective among Rakhine nationalists. The MUP also affirmed that it had decided to cooperate with the military because such collaboration “offers a way to get [Mon people’s] rights”; Umair Jamal, “Myanmar military reaches out to ethnic minorities with little success”, ASEAN Today, 20 March 2021 (https://www.aseantoday.com/2021/03/myanmar-military-reaches-out-to-ethnic-minorities-with-little-success/, downloaded 30 June 2021). It should be noted that the MUP’s decision to cooperate with the SAC led to a number of resignations from the party in protest against the party’s decision — including those of members of its central executive committee; see “More and more Mon Party (MUP) resign in protest over cooperation with military regime’s SAC”, Hintha Media, 29 March 2021 (https://www.bnionline.net/en/news/more-and-more-mon-party-mup-resign-protest-over-cooperation-military-regimes-sac, downloaded 17 August 2021). The ANP and the MUP parties appeared to believe that the Tatmadaw would fulfill their demands for more ethnic-nationality roles in decision-making in their states, which they failed to secure from the NLD in the past five years.

[79] On a related point, sources report that Min Aung Hlaing has increasingly and deliberately sought to associate the Tatmadaw with the idea of a multi-ethnic Myanmar and thus to suggest that the armed forces are part of any vision for federalism; veteran specialist on the Myanmar peace process (a), personal communication, 18 August 2021.

[80] We are grateful for these observations concerning the USDP to veteran specialist on the Myanmar peace process (b), personal communication, 19 August 2021.

[81] Veteran specialist on the Myanmar peace process (a), personal communication, 18 August 2021.

[82] Veteran specialist on the Myanmar peace process (b), personal communication, 19 August 2021.

[83] Ibid.

[84] A summary of the meeting of the SAC held on 23 August indicates that the junta’s civilian members raised taking action against supporters of the CRPH and NUG, including ethnic armed organisations providing arms and training to “terrorist organisations”, as well as recommendations on rewarding “those giving information” and “civil servants performing their duties conscientiously”. See Office of the Commander-in-Chief of Defence Services, Myanmar, “Chairman of State Administration Council Prime Minister of Provisional Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar Senior General Min Aung Hlaing delivers address at meeting 14/2021 of State Administration Council”, 23 August 2021 (https://cincds.gov.mm/node/14155?d=1, downloaded 3 September 2021).

ISEAS Perspective is published electronically by: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute   30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace Singapore 119614 Main Tel: (65) 6778 0955 Main Fax: (65) 6778 1735   Get Involved with ISEAS. Please click here: /supportISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute accepts no responsibility for facts presented and views expressed.   Responsibility rests exclusively with the individual author or authors. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission.  
© Copyright is held by the author or authors of each article.
Editorial Chairman: Choi Shing Kwok  
Editorial Advisor: Tan Chin Tiong  
Managing Editor: Ooi Kee Beng  
Editors: William Choong, Lee Poh Onn, Lee Sue-Ann, and Ng Kah Meng  
Comments are welcome and may be sent to the author(s).

2021/118 “Malaysia’s Democratic Action Party (DAP): Background and Inner Workings” by Francis E. Hutchinson and Kevin Zhang

 

Long regarded as the opposition grouping par excellence, the Democratic Action Party (DAP) is now an important player in the forming of governments in Malaysia. In this picture, Malaysia’s former finance minister Lim Guan Eng (R) poses with his father and veteran opposition leader Lim Kit Siang as they meet the media in Penang on 10 August 2020. Picture: GOH Chai Hin, AFP.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • Long regarded as the opposition grouping par excellence, the Democratic Action Party (DAP) is now an important player in the forming of governments in Malaysia. Its members have helmed state administrations and held key cabinet positions, and the DAP currently has 42 Members of Parliament – more than any other party.
  • Despite its long trajectory, relatively little is known about the inner workings of the DAP. A combination of tradition and conscious choices have led to a unique governing structure, where power is located in positions and levels different from other parties.
  • In contrast to UMNO, DAP leadership positions at the parliamentary (or division) level are not crucial. A Party committee retains control over the choice of parliamentary candidates, and this minimises heated competition for these posts.
  • The DAP has traditionally been a small and centralized party. However, as the Party expands in reach and membership, its state-level chapters are growing in power and influence.
  • The DAP also does not have direct elections for national leadership positions. Instead, party branches vote for delegates to represent them at national congresses, where they, in turn, vote for members of the Party’s apex body, the Central Executive Committee (CEC).
  • Candidates for the CEC do not campaign for specific leadership posts. Instead, the party members elected to the Committee allocate the different positions among themselves. While the Secretary-General and the Chairman are the Party’s most senior leaders, the National Organizing Secretary is a particularly influential position.

* Francis E. Hutchinson is Senior Fellow and Coordinator and Kevin Zhang is Research Officer of the Malaysia Studies Programme at ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute.

Download PDF Version

INTRODUCTION

From its beginnings in 1965, the Democratic Action Party (DAP) has had its share of ups and downs. Following an initial burst of popularity in the late 1960s and 1970s, the Party seemed consigned to representing a limited number of non-Malay urban constituencies. Furthermore, the 1990s were challenging for the DAP, as Malaysia’s booming economy and more inclusive messaging from the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition dented its electoral fortunes.

However, following the Asian Financial Crisis and Malaysia’s Reformasi Movement, and particularly the 2008 elections, the DAP has successfully established its place in the country’s political landscape. Under the 2018-2020 Pakatan Harapan (PH) administration, its MPs headed key ministries such as: Finance; Transport; Primary Industries; Communication and Multimedia; Human Resources; and Energy, Science, Technology, Environment and Climate Change.  The party has also been involved in state administrations in Selangor, Perak, Johor, Kedah, Melaka, Negri Sembilan, Sabah, and especially Penang.[1]

At present, the DAP is one of the pillars of the opposition PH coalition and has more sitting MPs than any other party – including the erstwhile dominant party, the United Malays National Organization (UMNO). It is now a fixture in urban and ethnically mixed constituencies on the Peninsula’s West Coast and in East Malaysia. The DAP’s 42 MPs and 108 state assembly representatives come from constituencies in every state in the country, save for the three northern states of Perlis, Kelantan, and Terengganu.[2]

Notwithstanding this, the DAP’s image is still one inextricably linked to oppositional politics. Beyond the names of its national figureheads, relatively little is known about how the DAP is organized and governed internally. It has important procedural and structural differences from other established parties which mean that power and influence within the party coalesce in ways quite different from other parties.

This Perspective provides a background of the DAP’s development, before setting out its structure and electoral processes. A follow-up Perspective will delve into the candidates for the party’s Central Executive Committee as well as the strategic challenges facing the Party going forward.

BACKGROUND

As with some aspects of Malaysia’s history, such as the founding of the Malay-language newspaper Utusan Melayu, the DAP’s roots are in Singapore. When the city-state left the Malaysian Federation in 1965, members of the People’s Action Party living in Malaysia remained politically active. The leaders’ initial application to the Registrar of Societies (RoS) to officially record the grouping was rejected, as the proposed name – PAP Malaya – was too close to that of an existing party. A second application with the proposed name of the Democratic Action Party was approved in 1966.[3]

The Party’s first policy document, the ‘Setapak Declaration’, was adopted in July 1967. It stated an ‘irrevocable commitment’ to a free, democratic and socialist Malaysia with an emphasis on racial equality and multiracialism.[4] One of the Party’s key principles was to contest a ‘“Bumiputera” versus “non-Bumiputera” dichotomy’, and instead mobilize  Malaysia’s population to ‘focus on the gaps between the “haves” and “have-nots”’.[5] In the decades since, the DAP has championed social democracy, religious and racial equality, inclusive politics, parliamentary democracy, and also the rights of East Malaysia within the Malaysian Federation as stated in the Constitution.[6]

As with all opposition parties in Malaysia, the DAP has had to contend with the logistical, financial and operational challenges of competing against the dominant Barisan Nasional (BN). One of BN’s key strengths was its ability to pool candidates from its member parties and match them to the largest ethnic group in each seat.[7] In contrast, as a small party operating by itself, the DAP had to find and mobilize candidates single-handedly.

Despite defining itself as a multi-racial party, the DAP has been perceived as a largely Chinese party, with a smattering of Indian leaders and members. Due to its strength in urban and ethnically mixed constituencies, it has traditionally competed against non-Bumiputera BN members such as the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) and Parti Gerakan Rakyat.[8]

The United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), BN’s dominant member, has used a variety of narratives to attack the DAP. One prominent strand often used is that the DAP, due to the composition of its membership, is inimical to Malay interests.[9] Another is that the DAP has sought to stoke dissatisfaction and racial unrest in Malaysia.[10] Other frequent depictions of the party accentuate its non-Malay nature and charge that the DAP uniquely pursues the interests of the Chinese community.[11] While these charges are debatable, they have been successful at limiting the DAP’s ability to break significant ground among Malay voters, particularly in rural constituencies.

Furthermore, the ideological competition between the DAP and UMNO has not been without cost to the former’s leaders, some who have been detained for extended periods on several occasions, mostly notably following the May 1969 riots and during Operasi Lalang in 1987.[12]

Yet, the party’s longevity and consistent electoral performance indicate that it fills a niche in Malaysia’s political ecosystem. From the mid-1970s until 1990, the Party secured nearly 20 percent of the national vote share. However, as with smaller parties in First-Past-the-Post parliamentary systems, this support did not translate into a commensurate proportion of seats (Table 1). Thus, despite obtaining 18 percent of all votes cast nationally in 1974, the party only secured 5.8 percent of seats in parliament.

Table 1 – The DAP’s Electoral Performance over Time

Sources: http://archive.ipu.org/parline-e/reports/2197_arc.htm; Saravanamuttu, Johan (2016), Power Sharing in a Divided Nation (Singapore: ISEAS); Democratic Action Party (1991) 25 Years of Struggle: milestones in DAP History (Petaling Jaya: Democratic Action Party), pp. 98; NSTP Research and Information Service (1999), Elections in Malaysia: A handbook of facts and figures on the elections 1955-1995, Kuala Lumpur: the New Straits Times Bhd; http://web.usm.my/km/32(Supp.2)2014/KM%2032%20Supp.%202_2014-Art.%202%20(25-53).pdf; https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/lin20021219.pdf

The 1990s were particularly challenging for the DAP. First, the country’s rapid economic growth delivered concrete gains for many segments of the population, not least urban, middle-class voters.[13] In addition, Barisan Nasional’s more inclusive messaging during that decade also increased its attractiveness to non-Malay voters. Then-Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad sought to elevate Vision 2020 as the nation’s new narrative of transforming Malaysia into a progressive and developed nation with equal rights for all races.[14] The promise to discontinue the New Economic Policy (NEP) was seen as a positive step by many non-Malays.

Aware of the limitations of competing individually in elections, from 1990 onwards, the DAP joined several political coalitions, including: Gagasan Rakyat (1990-1995); Barisan Alternatif (1999-2001; Pakatan Rakyat (2008-2015); and then Pakatan Harapan (2015-present). While this did not yield much at first, these partnerships were vital steps towards forging a multi-party coalition with enough support and resources to effectively take on Barisan Nasional. As part of these groupings, the DAP was able to unite the protest vote, pool resources with its partners, and match candidate profiles to the constituencies where they were fielded.

The benefit of joining forces with other parties was first observed in the 1990 General Election under Gagasan Rakyat. Due to agreements on seat sharing prior to the election, DAP and PAS avoided three-cornered fights, and the coalition performed markedly better than in preceding elections.[15]

This strategy also paid substantial dividends in the 2008 general election. Riding on mounting dissatisfaction with the Abdullah Badawi administration and deepening cooperation between the DAP and Anwar Ibrahim’s Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), the opposition managed to deny BN a two-thirds majority in parliament. These two parties had agreed on seat allocations with PAS before the elections, and the three came together to form the Pakatan Rakyat coalition immediately after their success.[16] That year, the DAP secured 28 MPs, up from the 12 it obtained in 2004. In the 2013 general elections, again as part of the Pakatan Rakyat coalition, the DAP was able to increase its ranks to 38 MPs.

In 2018, the DAP contested the general elections as part of the Pakatan Harapan coalition, made up of PKR, as well as the newly-created parties, Parti Amanah Negara and Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia. The DAP performed solidly, contesting in 47 seats and winning 42.

Figure 1 – Current DAP MPs by State

Source: https://www.parlimen.gov.my/ahli-dewan.html?ahli_name=&parti=PH+-+DAP&p=All&Filter=&uweb=dr

With the exception of the four northern-most and Malay-majority states, there are now DAP MPs in every state in the country, in addition to the Kuala Lumpur Federal Territory (Figure 1). In 2018, 83 percent of the seats it won were either urban or semi-urban constituencies. Likewise, of its present 42 seats, more than three quarters are in non-Malay majority seats and most of the rest are mixed constituencies (Table 2). Only one parliamentary seat held by the DAP – Raub – has a Malay majority electorate.  

Table Two. DAP-Held Constituencies by Urban Status and Ethnic Composition (2018-Present)

Sources: Urban Status as defined by Politweet (2013); https://election.thestar.com.my/

PARTY MEMBERSHIP, STRUCTURE, AND ELECTIONS

Membership

In tandem with its successes at the national level, the DAP’s membership base has expanded significantly. Despite its long trajectory and history of campaigning, in 2008, the party had fewer than 80,000 registered and active members. That year, Pakatan Rakyat’s solid electoral performance and victories at the state level in Penang, Selangor, Perak, and Kedah substantially increased the party’s appeal among the public.[17] Membership subsequently surged to 133,000 in 2010 and 150,000 in 2012 (Figure 2). 

Despite considerable electoral fervour in the run-up to the 2013 general election and Pakatan Rakyat winning the popular vote, the coalition did not secure a parliamentary majority. This affected membership, with numbers plateauing over the next few years. However, numbers then increased with the advent of the Pakatan Harapan administration in 2018. As of 2019, the party had 173,000 members, with the applications for a further 40,000 still being processed by the party’s Standing Sub-Committee on Membership. While certainly a consistent trend upwards, these are still relatively small numbers for a party of the DAP’s vintage and historical role. They are mitigated somewhat by volunteers that help out with party activities, but do not formally join.

Figure 2 DAP Party Membership Over Time (2008-2019)

Sources: Speeches given by the Secretary General at DAP Party Congresses and Conventions, various years[18]

As with most political parties, becoming a member of the DAP is not difficult. Membership is open to all Malaysians 17 years and older who are not already affiliated with a political party. Dues are RM 10 per year, and lifetime membership is RM 200.[19] Membership requests are evaluated at the branch level, and then a sampling of the applications are scrutinised at a deeper level by the Standing Sub-Committee on Members at Party Headquarters.

However, the DAP has exacting requirements of its elective representatives. Local councillors, state assemblypersons, and MPs commit to contributing a specific percentage of their income to the party, and may also be requested to donate a percentage of their pension accruing from these positions once they retire.[20] In the case of MPs, Parliament actually remits their payment to the Party which, in turn, pays its MPs after deduction of contributions.[21]

Party Structure

As with other parties, the DAP has structures at the branch, parliamentary, state and national level. Be that as it may, these different levels play distinct roles in the party and are influential to varying degrees. As the Party grew in size and complexity, it also introduced a number of procedural changes.

Beginning at the micro level, branches are the basic building blocks of the DAP. As with other parties, it is at this level that members and volunteers organize events, raise funds and, crucially for MPs and state-assembly members, gather local-level information on needs and issues that residents have.

These party branches are also key for DAP elections, as they select delegates to vote at state and national party elections and can also nominate candidates for leadership positions at the state and central levels. New branches can be set up with a minimum of 50 party members, and the number of delegates that a branch can send to national events is roughly proportionate to its membership size.[22]

Each branch must hold an Annual General Meeting once a year and submit the requisite paperwork to the Registrar of Societies (ROS) by year-end to maintain their active status.[23] When branches hold their AGMs, they also choose their delegates to attend the national congress or conference that year, as well as the state equivalent – termed a convention.[24] Branches hold elections for their own leaders every other year.

As with its membership, the number of DAP branches has grown significantly since 2008. That year, there were more than 300 branches, which increased to 700 by 2010. The number jumped to 1,128 in 2012, before the ROS argued that the party had failed to fulfil the requirements for holding a party election.[25] Consequently, the ROS issued a moratorium on the establishment of new branches. The moratorium was rescinded in 2019 under the Pakatan Harapan administration. That year, there were 1,110 registered branches, with a further 667 awaiting approval.[26] The bulk of these applications has since been processed, and there are currently about 2,000 operating branches.[27]

A Parliamentary Liaison Committee (PLC) can be set up in a constituency with at least two party branches, and brings together the MP, state assembly members, the Chairmen of the Youth and Wanita divisions for the seat, and the Chairmen of the branches.[28] However, in contrast to UMNO, which has very powerful party positions at this level, this layer of the DAP party structure is not particularly influential.[29] The Chairmen of PLCs are not elected, and the Committees focus on coordinating activities across the constituency. In addition, PLCs can be dissolved if the CEC so decides.

This structure is by design and was done to avoid creating expectations that leaders at this level would be the de facto choice for the party to field in the parliamentary or state assembly elections for that seat. Instead, candidate selection is carried out by the five-member Candidature Selection Committee at headquarters.[30] This has enabled the Party to select and field promising candidates, and has also enabled a training period of sorts, with some members first being fielded in state seats before being sent to the federal level. Conversely, it has also given rise to criticisms of candidates being ‘parachuted’ into new constituencies, rather than emerging organically.[31] 

And, in contrast to UMNO, which has very limited machinery at the state level, State Committees in the DAP are quite influential.[32] This concentration in power is, in part, an accident of history. Given its small size, the DAP could not afford to disperse power and resources at the parliamentary level. Instead, states afforded a more streamlined and effective structure for coordination.[33]

Leadership at the state level is elective. State-level Conventions are held every year, and elections for leadership positions on the State Committee occur every three years. The most important position in the 15-person Committee is typically the State Chairman followed by the State Secretary.[34] In states where the DAP is part of the local administration, party leaders decide who joins the state cabinet and can appoint local councillors and senior managers of state government-owned GLCs. In addition, they provide input into the allocation of Constituency Development Funds that DAP MPs and state assemblypersons receive. Due to their local- or state-level nature, many of these decisions cannot be supervised by the national CEC.

While the voting decisions of each delegate sent to national conventions are not rigorously monitored, state-level party leaders do make their preferences known to members from their states. Those state leaders from bigger states and/or with large followings are thus able to influence national-level party decisions.[35] And, it is at this level rather than at the central level that different debates on strategy and preferences manifest themselves.[36] At present, the four states with the most members, branches, and delegates are, in descending order of importance: Penang, Perak, Johor, and Selangor.

According to its Constitution, Party Congresses must be held once every 36 months and members for the CEC are elected. Party Conferences are held in between and must be held no later than 18 months after a Congress.[37] In the past, national Party Congresses were held after the states had completed their own elections.

In total, about 4,000 delegates will attend the next Party Congress to elect members of the Central Executive Committee. Delegates are allowed to vote for the 30 members they would like to see joining the Committee. The 30 elected members to the CEC will then appoint, or co-opt, 10 further members to the CEC. It was a recent constitutional restructuring that had increased the number of elective positions in the CEC from 20 to 30, and there is now a 30 percent quota for female members.

Unusually, aspiring members to the CEC do not compete outright for positions. Instead, the positions are allocated among the members themselves, taking into account preferences, seniority in the party, as well as nominations or suggestions by top leaders.

The top positions in the CEC are: the Secretary-General, the Chairman, and the National Organising Secretary (NOS). The Secretary-General position provides overall strategic direction for the party. During the party’s early days, the position was held for long periods of time. Indeed, Secretary-Generalship was held by party stalwart Lim Kit Siang from 1969-1999, while former Penang Chief Minister and Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng has held the position since 2004. However, internal reforms have placed a maximum three-term limit on the position, meaning that Lim must relinquish the position at the end of this term.

While less operational in nature, the Chairman is also a senior strategic position, coming in second in the Party’s hierarchy and protocol. S/he chairs the CEC meetings, provides input on key decision-making processes, and is an important party figurehead. The Chairmanship has been held by senior party figures such as Chen Man Hin and Karpal Singh.

While the first two positions are strategic in nature, the National Organizing Secretary is a particularly influential position due to its oversight of operational matters. From laying the groundwork for national conventions and congresses, the NOS also liaises with other Pakatan Harapan members in the coalition’s Majlis Setiausaha, which deals with operational issues for the coalition. The incumbent is Anthony Loke, who is one of the leading candidates to become the DAP’s next Secretary-General.[38]

OUTLOOK

Once on the margins of Malaysia’s political context, the DAP has come of age. It now has a network of branches spanning the country, and its members have served in key national and state positions. The Party now has 42 MPs, and will likely perform solidly in urban, mixed constituencies in the future.

As the DAP has grown in size and sophistication, it has introduced reforms to formalize leadership positions. These decisions have had concrete ramifications for where power within the party is located. In contrast to UMNO, where parliamentary levels of the party machinery are particularly influential, in the DAP these tasks are split between the branches and the state committees. 

As with all parties in Malaysia, the DAP needs to conduct elections at determined intervals. Initially scheduled for mid-2021, the national party polls have been suspended due to the COVID pandemic. However, when they are held, there will be a changing of the guard, with key positions passing to the DAP’s third generation of leaders. In addition, the party will need to take important strategic decisions – some stemming from its recent successes.

ISEAS Perspective 2021/118, 7 September 2021


ENDNOTES

[1] While perhaps less known than in the other cases, DAP State Assembly members in Sabah also held Executive Council positions in the Warisan-led state government under Chief Minister Shafie Apdal, and a DAP assemblyman in Kedah served as Exco during the Mukhriz Pakatan Harapan government from May 2018 till May 2020.

[2] https://dapmalaysia.org/en/building-a-new-malaysia-for-all/. This source cites 109 state assembly persons but predates the Sabah 2020 state election. In that election, the DAP retained its 6 elected state assembly members, but lost one nominated state-assembly person.

[3] Chew, Huat Hock. (1980) The Democratic Action Party in Post-1969 Malaysian Politics: The Strategy of a Determined Opposition, MA Thesis, Australian National University, pp. 1-2.

[4] Democratic Action Party. (1981) DAP: 15th Anniversary. Petaling Jaya, p. 129.

[5] Liew Chin Tong (2021). Lim Kit Siang: Patriot-Leader-Fighter, (Kuala Lumpur: REFSA) p. 27.

[6] Democratic Action Party: Constitution, November 2019 version, pp. 5-6.

[7] Hutchinson, Francis (2018). GE-14 in Johor: the Fall of the Fortress?, Trends in Southeast Asia (2018-3), pp. 5-6.

[8] For example, over the 1986-99 period in Johor, the DAP ran against these two parties in at least 80 percent of all parliamentary and state contests.

[9] Following the collapse of Pakatan Harapan, in September 2020, Dr Mahathir stressed in an interview ‘the role that the minority in any constituency can play. So if we split the Malays, whether you like it or not, DAP or MCA will determine who is going to win. Not us.’ https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/542347

[10] As recorded in his 2011 memoir ‘The PAP mantle was now draped over the DAP, a party formed by the Malaysian Chinese members of the PAP. By persisting with the Malaysian Malaysia campaign, the DAP incited Chinese chauvinism and so helped stroke the fires of Malay racialism’. Mahathir Mohamad, A Doctor in The House, (Petaling Jaya: MPH Publishing), p. 199.

[11] On the eve of the 2018 General Election, then-Prime Minister Najib Razak commented in a live interview that the Pakatan Harapan ‘opposition ceramah are in towns and those present are not Malays and Indians. Most of them are DAP supporters.’ Source: https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/423595. When prominent Chinese educationalists joined DAP prior to the 1990 General Election, then Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Ghafar Baba was quoted in Nanyang Siang Po stating that DAP was playing with sectarianism and solely pursuing Chinese interests at the expense of national unity and the interests of all Malaysians. Nanyang Siang Po. (1990, August 20) ‘Abdul Ghafar Baba: DAP allies with Chinese educationalists to gain votes and create social division (嘉化: 行动党招揽华团人士捞取选票制造分裂).’

[12] Crouch, Harold (1996). Government and Society in Malaysia, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press), pp. 97, 109.

[13] Chin, James (1996) ‘The 1995 Malaysian General Election: Mahathir’s Last Triumph?’ Asian Survey 36, no. 4 (1996): 393-409. Accessed August 4, 2021. doi:10.2307/2645406.

[14] Liew Chin Tong (2021), Lim Kit Siang: Patriot-Leader-Fighter, p. 106.

[15] This was made possible since PAS was a member of Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah, which itself was a component member of GR. However, the question whether the DAP should cooperate with PAS was also a source of dissent, with Chinese educationalists resigning in the aftermath of the 1995 General Election due to disagreement with the top leadership’s decision to abandon unofficial political cooperation with PAS. Tan, Yao Sua. (2012) Political participation and the Chinese Education movement in Malaysia: The role of Lim Fong Seng, Working Paper series 144/12, University Science Malaysia Centre for Policy Research and International Studies: 18-19.

[16] Pepinsky, Thomas (2009). “The 2008 Malaysian Elections: An End to Ethnic Politics”, Journal of East Asian Studies 9 (2009), 87-120.

[17] Interview with Liew Chin Tong, DAP CEC member, 6 July 2021.

[18] https://dapmalaysia.org/en/archive/dap-national-congressconference/a-responsible-partner-in-power-2008/; https://dapmalaysia.org/en/archive/dap-national-congressconference/dap-central-executive-committee-report-2010/; https://dapmalaysia.org/en/statements/2012/12/15/20865/; https://dapmalaysia.org/en/central-executive-committee-report-2019/

[19] Democratic Action Party: Constitution, November 2019 version. Members must also be of sound mind and cannot have legal convictions offences involving dishonesty or ‘moral turpitude’. DAP Constitution, p. 8.

[20] Democratic Action Party: Constitution, November 2019 version, pp. 8-9.

[21] Interview with Liew Chin Tong, DAP CEC member, 6 July 2021.

[22] Branches with 25-50 members can send two delegates to vote, those with 51-100 can send three, and each additional 100 members will allow a branch to send one more delegate. Democratic Action Party: Constitution, November 2019 version, p. 13.

[23] Interview with Wong Shu Qi, DAP member and MP for Kluang, 9 July 2021.

[24] Prospective members can join a branch any time but must have joined by the end of January to be able to vote in that year’s AGM, which is usually held in April or May. In order to send delegates to vote at the state and national levels, branches must have at least 25 qualified, active members (ie. those who are life members or are up to date with their yearly dues). Interview with Wong Shu Qi, DAP member and MP for Kluang, 9 July 2021.

[25] https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2017/07/07/ros-says-dap-legit-party-but-must-fresh-leadership-polls/1415923

[26] https://dapmalaysia.org/en/central-executive-committee-report-2019/

[27] To prevent existing branches splitting to gain more delegates, at least 80 percent of the members of a proposed new branch must also be new to the party.

[28] Democratic Action Party: Constitution, November 2019 version, p. 30.

[29] Indeed, it is the divisional level in UMNO that sends delegates to vote in party elections, and division heads are usually fielded as the candidates for MP.

[30] Interview with Liew Chin Tong, DAP CEC member, 6 July 2021.

[31] See for example https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/437396.

[32] Two series of reforms, first by Tunku Abdul Rahman and then by Mahathir Mohamad in the 1980s, broke the power and influence of state party heads in UMNO. For more details, please consult Azeem Fazwan, A. F. (2011). ‘Culture and politics: an analysis of United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) 1946–1999’, Sudostasien Working Papers No. 46. Berlin: Institut fur Asien- und Afrikawissenschaften, Humboldt University.

[33] Liew Chin Tong (2021), Comment – ‘Why DAP’s leadership structure is better than that of UMNO’s?’, Malaysiakini, 3 January 2021.

[34] State chairmen that are not elected to the Central Executive can be invited to join, but do not have voting rights. The DAP Constitution, p. 17.

[35] For example, Perak, as one of the states with the most party members, fields some 800 national delegates for CEC elections out of a total of 4,000.

[36] This can be seen in the more contested elections for state leaders. For instance, the state election in Johor was divided between candidates aligned to the incumbent state chairman Liew Chin Tong and former state executive councillor Tan Hong Pin. The state election in Perak saw the faction led by Nga Kor Ming and Ngeh Koo Ham competing against Thomas Su and M. Kulasegaran.

[37] The DAP national election was originally scheduled to be held on 20 Dec 2020, but was delayed for six months due to the start of Phase 3 of the pandemic. Anthony Loke announced recently that according to ROS regulations, all party elections will be suspended until the end of MCO 3.0. https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2021/06/16/loke-dap-national-congress-slated-for-june-20-postponed-indefinitely-new-da/1982577

[38] See for example – https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/574187

ISEAS Perspective is published electronically by: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute   30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace Singapore 119614 Main Tel: (65) 6778 0955 Main Fax: (65) 6778 1735   Get Involved with ISEAS. Please click here: /supportISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute accepts no responsibility for facts presented and views expressed.   Responsibility rests exclusively with the individual author or authors. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission.  
© Copyright is held by the author or authors of each article.
Editorial Chairman: Choi Shing Kwok  
Editorial Advisor: Tan Chin Tiong  
Managing Editor: Ooi Kee Beng  
Editors: William Choong, Lee Poh Onn, Lee Sue-Ann, and Ng Kah Meng  
Comments are welcome and may be sent to the author(s).

2021/117 “The Russia-China Strategic Partnership and Southeast Asia: Alignments and Divergences” by Ian Storey

 

China’s President Xi Jinping (L) and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin (R) pose for a group photo before a cultural event at the Osaka Geihinkan in Osaka Castle Park during the G20 Summit in Osaka on 28 June 2019. Picture: Brendan Smialowski, AFP.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • Russia-China relations are at an historic high due to mutual concerns over US primacy, economic synergies and strong interpersonal ties between their national leaders.
  • Despite deepening military cooperation and closer diplomatic coordination, a formal alliance between Russia and China is not in prospect as this would constrain their strategic autonomy and undercut key foreign policy narratives.
  • On Southeast Asia, Moscow and Beijing’s perceptions of regional security are broadly in alignment though their interests do not always converge.
  • Russia is the largest supplier of arms to the region and is likely to maintain its lead in key areas despite growing competition from China.
  • Since the military coup in Myanmar, Russia and China have recognised the junta, advocated a policy of non-interference and opposed an arms embargo. Moscow’s moves to strengthen relations with Myanmar are unlikely to conflict with Beijing’s interests.
  • The South China Sea dispute is the most complex issue and a potential fault line in Russia-China relations in Southeast Asia. While Moscow has been broadly supportive of China’s position, Beijing’s jurisdictional claims threaten Russia’s lucrative energy interests in Southeast Asia.

*Ian Storey is Senior Fellow and co-editor of Contemporary Southeast Asia at ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute.

Download PDF Version

INTRODUCTION

Sino-Russian relations have strengthened considerably over the past decade, anchored in shared threat perceptions and growing mutual interests. Moscow and Beijing view US primacy as contrary to their national interests and a threat to regime survival. They are convinced that the US is pursuing a dual containment strategy (against Russia through the expansion of NATO, and against China through the Free and Open Indo-Pacific) that seeks to deny both countries their Great Power status and prevent them from recovering ‘lost’ territories or dominating historical spheres of influence (the post-Soviet space for Russia, East Asia for China). The Russian and Chinese leaderships also believe the US is determined to overthrow their authoritarian political systems by orchestrating ‘colour revolutions’. Economic synergies – China wants Russia’s energy resources, Russia seeks Chinese investment – is another important driver in the relationship. Closer bilateral ties have also been facilitated by good personal chemistry between President Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping. Increased levels of trust between Russia and China is demonstrated by the scope, frequency and sophistication of their combined military exercises, and growing cooperation in sensitive areas such as defence technology, satellite navigation, anti-missile systems and space exploration.

Officially, Russia and China refer to their relationship as a ‘comprehensive strategic partnership of cooperation’. While some observers have described Sino-Russian relations as an alliance, or a de facto alliance, Moscow and Beijing scrupulously avoid that term. Their joint statement on 28 June 2021, marking the twentieth anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Good Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation, stressed that Russia-China relations do not constitute a Cold War-style “military and political alliance”.[1] A formal alliance – especially one with a mutual defence clause – is regarded by both countries as unnecessary and undesirable: neither side wants to be drawn into a conflict over the other country’s interests;[2] an alliance would undercut their narratives that US military alliances in Europe and the Asia-Pacific are obsolete remnants of the Cold War; and alliances tend to be hierarchical and Russia does not wish to be perceived as the junior partner.

Russian foreign policy expert Dmitri Trenin has characterised Sino-Russian ties as an entente – not an alliance but more than a strategic partnership, a relationship based on “a basic agreement about the fundamentals of world order supported by a strong body of common interest”.[3] The essence of that relationship, according to Trenin, is that “Russia and China will never be against each other, but they will not necessarily always be with each other.”[4]

Russia’s and China’s interests are not completely convergent, and the relationship is not without its problems. As China’s economic and military power has grown, the relationship has become increasingly asymmetrical. Since the Kremlin’s annexation of the Crimea in 2014 and the steep fall in energy prices, Russia’s economy has become more dependent on China and some Russian analysts have voiced concerns that Beijing could use this as leverage to obtain political concessions.[5] Moscow is wary of China encroaching on its interests in areas over which it has sovereignty – the Arctic and the Russian Far East – and in areas it considers to be within its sphere of influence – the post-Soviet space, especially Central Asia which is a key node in Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative. However, as President Putin recently stated, Moscow does not view China as a threat,[6] and Russia’s rivalry with America outweighs any long-term concerns regarding Beijing’s strategic intentions in Eurasia.

In Southeast Asia, the two countries’ perceptions of regional security are broadly in alignment. Russia and China oppose US primacy and the alliance system that underpins it. However, on some issues their interests do not overlap. This article examines where Sino-Russian interests in Southeast Asia align and where they diverge in three areas: arms sales, the political crisis in Myanmar and the South China Sea dispute.

ARMS SALES

Arms sales is Russia’s single most important interest in Southeast Asia and is also the one area where Russia considerably outperforms China in the region.[7] Since 2000, Russia has become the region’s biggest arms supplier with sales valued at US$10.66 billion (the United States is second at US$7.86 billion).[8] However, the value of Moscow’s arms sales to Southeast Asia is declining for several reasons. First, Vietnam – Russia’s most important defence customer in Southeast Asia accounting for 61% of its regional sales – has slowed its military modernisation programme due to budget constraints, an anti-corruption drive and competing priorities within the armed forces.[9] Second, the threat of US sanctions against countries that purchase Russian military equipment has made some regional states think twice about buying Russian arms.[10] Third, Russia faces increased competition from arms manufacturers in other countries, including China. Russian defence companies have long complained that some of the equipment that China sells overseas has been reverse engineered from weapons systems purchased from Russia.[11]

However, although China is increasing its market share of defence sales in Southeast Asia, it remains far behind Russia. Between 2000 and 2020, China’s defence sales to Southeast Asia were valued at only US$2.78 billion.[12] In the regional arms market, Russia has two distinct advantages over China. First, Russian defence companies have a better reputation than their Chinese counterparts for the quality and reliability of their weapons systems, as well as after sales services such as technical support, maintenance and the supply of spare parts. Second, regional states with maritime territorial and jurisdictional disputes with Beijing in the South China Sea – Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia and especially Vietnam – have avoided procuring arms from China.

Russian and Chinese arms manufacturers are in direct competition for certain kinds of military equipment in Southeast Asia, especially tanks, armoured and other military vehicles, surface warships (frigates, corvettes and offshore patrol boats) and submarines. China has been particularly successful in Thailand where it has undercut Russia on price for tanks and submarines.[13]

However, China cannot compete with Russia in one crucially important area: aircraft, specifically fighter jets and military helicopters.[14] Since 2000, Russia has sold 11 SU-27 and 35 SU-30 fighters to Vietnam, 18 SU-30s to Malaysia, 30 MiG-29s and 6 SU-30s to Myanmar, and 5 SU-27s and 11 SU-30s to Indonesia. Russia has also sold Mi-17 heavy lift helicopters to Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam, and Mi-35 attack helicopters to Indonesia, Myanmar and Vietnam.

Although China manufactures fourth-generation fighter jets, it has conspicuously failed to break into the lucrative global market for combat aircraft. Myanmar is the only Southeast Asian country that has purchased fast jets from China. In 2015, it ordered 16 JF-17 Thunder jets (jointly manufactured by China and Pakistan) of which only six have been delivered. Although China has offered for export its Chengdu J-10 and the more advanced FC-31 Gyrfalcon stealth fighter, it has not secured a single order anywhere in the world.[15] In July 2021, Russia unveiled a direct rival to China’s FC-31 (and America’s F-35 Lightning II), the SU-75 Checkmate, a relatively cheap (US$20-30 million per aircraft) single-engine stealth fighter aimed at developing countries. Potential customers include Vietnam and Myanmar.[16] China has also been unsuccessful at developing heavy lift military helicopters and has instead pursued joint production with Russia.

THE MYANMAR CRISIS

China’s and Russia’s interests in Myanmar are almost identical and differ only in scale. China’s stakes in Myanmar, and therefore Myanmar’s strategic importance to Beijing, far exceed those of Russia. As Myanmar’s largest cumulative investor, largest trading partner and biggest arms supplier, China has shielded both military and civilian governments from criticism of their human rights records at the UN. Russia’s economic interests in Myanmar are much smaller but its arms trade with the country is second only to China’s. Moscow has also joined Beijing in providing diplomatic cover at the UN for successive Myanmar governments. The Kremlin views the 1 February 2021 military takeover as an opportunity to expand its interests in Myanmar and Southeast Asia as a whole.

Following the coup in Myanmar, Russia and China coordinated their positions at the UN Security Council, using their narratives of respecting state sovereignty, non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, and the nonexistence of universal norms and values. They have succeeded in toning down statements critical of the Myanmar armed forces (Tatmadaw) and its use of violence against unarmed protesters.[17] Given their extensive military sales to Myanmar, the two countries abstained on a vote at the UN General Assembly calling for an arms embargo.[18] Russia and China have also supported ASEAN’s Five-Point Consensus on the Myanmar crisis.[19]

Despite Beijing’s long-standing political ties to Naypyidaw, Moscow was much quicker to recognise the ruling junta, the State Administration Council (SAC). China refrained from immediately backing the SAC in an effort to contain the growth of anti-China sentiment in Myanmar which manifested itself in protests outside the Chinese Embassy, boycotts of Chinese-manufactured goods and attacks on Chinese-owned factories.[20] China needs stability in Myanmar to protect its extensive economic interests and energy pipeline infrastructure, and prevent conflict between the Tatmadaw and ethnic armed organisations along the China-Myanmar border. 

Because Russia does not have a land border with Myanmar, and is a minor player in the country’s economy, it does not share China’s concerns. Moscow does not seem to care whether its actions in support of the junta damage its reputation in Myanmar or in the West. Accordingly, the Kremlin has moved swiftly to consolidate relations with the SAC. Russia has utilised its military-industrial complex as its primary interface with the regime in Yangon. Deputy Defence Minister Colonel General Alexander Fomin – who has cultivated a close relationship with coup leader Senior General Min Aung Hlaing since he became commander-in-chief of Myanmar’s armed forces in 2012 – was the highest ranking foreign dignitary to attend Armed Forces Day in Naypyidaw on 27 March 2021. He declared that Russia wanted to strengthen ties with Myanmar which he described as its “reliable ally and strategic partner” in Asia. Fomin was presented with a medal and ceremonial sword by Min Aung Hlaing.[21]

Russia is eager to bolster relations with the SAC for four reasons. First, it can help bolster Russia’s arms sales to Myanmar which totaled US$1.591 billion between 2000 and 2020, not far behind China’s US$1.699 billion.[22] Moscow is keen to sell a range of big-ticket items to the SAC, including additional SU-30s or SU-35 fighter aircraft (and possibly SU-75s in the mid-2020s), military transport and attack helicopters, drones, air defence systems, surface warships and submarines. The Kremlin’s goal is to become Myanmar’s primary arms vendor. Second, closer military-to-military ties will provide Russia with opportunities to expand its defence diplomacy activities in the region including training exercises and naval port calls. Third, Russia wants to become a player in Myanmar’s energy sector by participating in offshore oil and gas development projects and the sale of nuclear power stations. Fourth, Moscow wishes to expand trade ties between the two countries which stood at a paltry US$60 million in 2020.[23] To achieve that goal, it could push for a free trade deal between Myanmar and the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

Min Aung Hlaing is keen to avoid repeating the mistake of becoming over-dependent on China. He has therefore reciprocated Moscow’s friendly overtures. Since seizing power in February, he has made only two overseas trips: to an ASEAN leaders’ meeting in Jakarta in April and to Russia in June. During the latter, arms procurement was at the top of his agenda. In Irkutsk, he visited the United Aircraft Corporation which manufactures Sukhoi combat aircraft, and in Moscow the headquarters of Rosoboronexport, the state-run agency responsible for the export of Russian arms.[24] Although he did not meet with Putin, Min Aung Hlaing met with Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and the secretary of Russia’s Security Council Nikolai Patrushev.[25] In Moscow, he was awarded an honorary professorship by a military university. Tellingly, in a media interview, the SAC Chairman described Russia as a “forever friend” while calling China and India “close friends”.[26]

Attempts by Russia to advance its interests in Myanmar will not be opposed by China. Economic strife in Myanmar caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and popular resistance to the coup will cement China’s position as the country’s most important partner for trade, aid and investment, a position Russia will never be able to usurp. Moreover, increased Russian arms sales to Myanmar will help the junta consolidate power – thereby ensuring China’s economic interests are protected – and divert negative publicity away from China’s own defence sales.

THE SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTE

The South China Sea dispute is the most complex issue and a potential fault line in Russia-China relations in Southeast Asia. While Moscow has been generally supportive of Beijing, China’s jurisdictional claims and its position on a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea (CoC) threaten Russian interests in Southeast Asia. Meanwhile, the Kremlin’s arms sales to Vietnam have complicated China’s maritime strategy.

Russia’s official stance on the South China Sea is one of neutrality.[27] Moscow does not take a position on the competing territorial claims and has called for the dispute to be settled peacefully in accordance with international law. By taking a neutral position, Russia avoids offending its two strategic partners – China and Vietnam – as well as other claimant and non-claimant Southeast Asian states. Overall, Russia has an interest in peace and stability in the South China Sea, the free flow of maritime trade and unimpeded access for its warships. Nevertheless, a degree of tension in the South China Sea creates demand for Russian arms and distracts Washington from Moscow’s activities in the post-Soviet space.

Russia and China have agreed to support – or at least not oppose – each other on issues concerning their respective core interests. Accordingly, Moscow is generally empathetic towards Beijing’s position on the South China Sea. The Kremlin agrees with China that the dispute should not be “internationalised” and that non-regional powers, specifically the United States, should not “intervene” in the dispute.[28] Russia sympathised with China’s decision not to participate in the legal case brought by the Philippines in 2013 which challenged Beijing’s jurisdictional claims in the South China Sea. The Kremlin’s view is that small countries should defer to the interests of Great Powers, and agreed with Beijing that the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal was pro-Western and therefore biased against China.[29] Beijing was pleased when President Putin came out in support of its rejection of the Tribunal’s award in July 2016, one of the very few world leaders to do so.[30] Sino-Russian combined naval exercises in the South China Sea in September 2016 and in the Baltic Sea in 2017 were interpreted as Russia and China supporting each other in sensitive regions.[31] Over the decades, Russia’s arms sales to China have given the Chinese armed forces a qualitative edge over the other claimants, most recently the sale of SU-35 fighter jets and the S-400 surface-to-air missile batteries.

However, China’s jurisdictional claims in the South China Sea – represented by the nine-dash line which encompasses 80% of the sea – threatens one of Russia’s main interests in Southeast Asia: the development of offshore energy fields. The nine-dash line overlaps with Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) where three Russian state-owned energy companies – Zarubezhneft, Gazprom and Rosneft – have operations.

Zarubezhneft is relatively small in Russia but a major player in Vietnam, where its 40-year-old joint venture with PetroVietnam, Vietsovpetro, operates five offshore oil and gas fields and contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to the state budget each year.

In 2013, as a result of its takeover of TNK-BP, Rosneft – Russia’s largest oil company – acquired a 35% stake in Blocks 06-01 and the adjacent Block 05.3/11 in the Nam Con Son basin off the southern coast of Vietnam. By 2018, Block 06-01 was providing 30% of Vietnam’s gas needs.[32]

Gazprom – Russia’s largest gas company – operates another joint venture with PetroVietnam, VietGazprom, which is active in several offshore areas. In 2017, Blocks 05-2 and 05-3, off the southern coast, accounted for 21% of Vietnam’s overall gas production.[33] VietGazprom also has exploration contracts for Blocks 129–132 off the southeastern coast (located within the nine-dash line) as well as for Blocks 111/04, 112 and 113 in the southwestern part of the Gulf of Tonkin.

In recent years, Vietnam and other claimants have come under sustained pressure from China to end joint development projects with foreign energy companies operating inside the nine-dash line. In 2017 and 2018, Vietnam ordered the Spanish energy firm Repsol to cancel drilling activities in Blocks 136-03 (close to VietGazprom’s Blocks 129-132) and 07-03 after being threatened with military action by China.[34] Beijing has increasingly used China Coast Guard (CCG) vessels to harass survey ships and oil rigs operating in the EEZs of the coastal states, presumably to pressure Southeast Asian governments into negotiating joint development deals with Chinese energy companies.

Despite closer Sino-Russian relations, Russian energy companies have not been spared. At Vanguard Bank, between June and October 2019, CCG vessels harassed Hakuryu-5, a drilling platform operated by Rosneft in Block 06-01 since May 2018. The tense four-month stand-off, involving dozens of Chinese and Vietnamese ships, only ended when the Hakuryu-5 returned to port.[35] In July 2020, a CCG vessel repeatedly harassed the Lan Tay drilling rig, also operated by Rosneft in Block 06-01.[36] Soon afterwards, Rosneft was forced to cancel a contract with Noble Clyde Boudreaux to deploy an oil rig to Block 06-01, reportedly due to pressure from China.[37] As Rosneft is Russia’s largest single trade partner with China, and increasingly dependent on the Chinese market due to Western-imposed economic sanctions, it cannot afford to offend Beijing. As a result, in May 2021, Rosneft agreed to sell its stakes in Block 06-01 and 05.3/11 to Zarubezhneft.[38] Zarubezhneft has partnered with Indonesian energy giant Pertamina to develop energy resources in the Tuna Block north of the Natuna Islands and close to its new assets in Block 06-01.[39] However, the area falls within the line-dash line and in July 2021 CCG vessels were reported to have tried to interfere with drilling operations.[40]

China’s negotiating position on the CoC is also at odds with Russia’s commercial and strategic interests in Southeast Asia. In 2018, China inserted two provisions into the draft text aimed at giving it a veto over foreign activities in the South China Sea, namely: (i) only energy companies from China and Southeast Asia should undertake joint offshore energy development projects; and (ii) none of the 11 parties to the CoC should undertake military exercises with a foreign navy in the South China Sea without the prior consent of all parties.[41] These two provisions would exclude Russian energy companies from participating in oil and gas projects in the EEZs of Southeast Asian countries and limit Russian naval activities in the South China Sea. However, it is highly unlikely that the ASEAN member states will agree to either of these provisions.

While China’s nine-dash line is at odds with Russia’s interests in the South China Sea, Moscow’s arms sales to Vietnam represent a challenge to Beijing’s maritime ambitions. Russian manufactured fighter aircraft, surface warships and submarines have enabled Hanoi to pursue an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategy aimed at deterring China from occupying Vietnamese-controlled atolls in the South China Sea. Vietnam’s A2/AD strategy will be strengthened if Hanoi moves forward with the procurement of SU-35, SU-57 or SU-75 combat aircraft and S-400 missile systems from Russia. However, while Beijing is unhappy with Russian weapons sales to Vietnam, it views them as preferable to military sales from the United States as Beijing could conceivably apply pressure on Moscow to withhold critical defence supplies from Hanoi during a crisis in the South China Sea. Even though Vietnam is aware of this strategic vulnerability, it still considers Russia to be a reliable defence partner.

CONCLUSION

As US-Russia and US-China strategic rivalry grows, the Sino-Russian nexus will strengthen. While the two countries will refrain from becoming formal treaty allies, military cooperation and diplomatic coordination will increase. In Southeast Asia, Russia and China will continue to oppose US hegemony and work to undermine America’s alliances and partnerships. There will be an element of competition in their arms sales, but Russia will retain its lead over China. In Myanmar, Chinese and Russian interests will be largely complimentary as Beijing retains its role as the country’s most important economic partner even as Moscow becomes the junta’s principal arms supplier. The South China Sea remains a potential seam in the relationship as Beijing continues to push its claims. Moscow will either have to quietly push back against Beijing’s threats to its commercial interests or ultimately defer to China’s claims in order to preserve the overall strategic partnership. 

ISEAS Perspective 2021/117, 6 September 2021


ENDNOTES

[1] Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on the Twentieth Anniversary of the Treaty of Good Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, 28 June 2021, http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/en/Bo3RF3JzGDvMAPjHBQAuSemVPWTEvb3c.pdf.

[2] Alexander Gabuev, “Is Putin Really Considering a Military Alliance with China?”, Moscow Times, 2 December 2020, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/12/02/is-putin-really-considering-a-military-alliance-with-china-a72207.

[3] Dmitri Trenin, “Entente Is What Drives Sino-Russian Ties”, China Daily, 11 September 2018, http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201809/11/WS5b973833a31033b4f4655613.html.

[4] Dmitri Trenin, “Russia, China are Key and Close Partners”, China Daily, 5 June 2019, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201906/05/WS5cf6f85da3105191427010c6.html.

[5] Alexander Gabuev and Temur Umarov, “Will the Pandemic Increase Russia’s Economic Dependence on China?”, Carnegie Moscow Center, 8 July 2020, https://carnegie.ru/2020/07/08/will-pandemic-increase-russia-s-economic-dependence-on-china-pub-81893.

[6] “Full transcript of exclusive Putin interview with NBC News’ Keir Simmons”, NBC News, 11 June 2021, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/transcript-nbc-news-exclusive-interview-russia-s-vladimir-putin-n1270649.

[7]  Ian Storey, “Russia’s Defence Diplomacy in Southeast Asia: A Tenuous Lead in Arms Sales but Lagging in Other Areas”, Perspective, No.33/2021, ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute (18 March 2021), /wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ISEAS_Perspective_2021_33.pdf.

[8] The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), https://www.sipri.org/databases/armstransfers.

[9] Nguyen The Phuong, “Why is Vietnam’s Military Modernisation Slowing?”, Perspective, No. 96/2021, ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute (22 July 2021), /wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ISEAS_Perspective_2021_96.pdf.

[10] Storey, “Russia’s Defence Diplomacy in Southeast Asia”.

[11] Dimitri Simes, “Russia up in arms over Chinese theft of military technology”, Nikkei Asia, 20 December 2019, https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Russia-up-in-arms-over-Chinese-theft-of-military-technology.

[12] The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), https://www.sipri.org/databases/armstransfers.

[13] Ian Storey, “Thailand’s Military Relations with China: From Strength to Strength”, Perspective, No. 43/2019, ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute (27 May 2019), /images/pdf/ISEAS_Perspective_2019_43.pdf.

[14] Storey, “Russia’s Defence Diplomacy in Southeast Asia”.

[15] Richard Aboulafia, “The World Doesn’t Want Beijing’s Fighter Jets”, Foreign Policy, 30 June 2021, https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/06/30/china-fighter-jets-aircraft-exports/.

[16] “Russia unveils stealth fighter jet to compete with US F-35s”, Straits Times, 21 July 2021, https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/russia-unveils-stealth-fighter-jet-to-compete-with-us-f-35s; Vladimir Karnozov, “Russia targets low cost, high performance with SU-75 Checkmate fighter”, Flight Global, 21 July 2021, https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/russia-targets-low-cost-high-performance-with-su-75-checkmate-fighter/144693.article.

[17] “UN Security Council calls for release of Aung San Suu Kyi, Biden tells generals to go”, Straits Times, 5 February 2021, https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/un-security-council-calls-for-release-of-aung-san-suu-kyi-voices-concern-for-myanmar; “UN Security Council ‘strongly’ condemns Myanmar violence, civilian deaths”, Straits Times, 2 April 2021, https://www.straitstimes.com/world/un-security-council-strongly-condemns-myanmar-violence-civilian-deaths.

[18] “United Nations calls for halt of weapons to Myanmar”, Straits Times, 19 June 2021, https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/united-nations-calls-for-halt-of-weapons-to-myanmar.

[19] “Wang Yi Talks about the Situation in Myanmar”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs People’s Republic of China, 8 June 2021, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1882086.shtml; “Russia backs ASEAN plan on tackling Myanmar crisis”, Reuters, 6 July 2021, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/russia-backs-asean-position-myanmar-crisis-foreign-minister-2021-07-06.

[20] Min Ye Kyaw, “Why are Myanmar’s anti-coup protesters angry at China?”, South China Morning Post, 16 March 2021, https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3125583/why-are-myanmars-anti-coup-protesters-angry-china.

[21] “Russia says it is seeking to strengthen military ties with Myanmar”, Reuters, 26 March 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/myanmar-politics-russia-idINKBN2BI21D.

[22] The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), https://www.sipri.org/databases/armstransfers.

[23] “Myanmar Exports to Russia” Trading Economics, https://tradingeconomics.com/myanmar/exports/russia; “Myanmar’s Imports from Russia”, Trading Economics, https://tradingeconomics.com/myanmar/imports/russia.

[24] “Myanmar Coup Maker Visits Russian Military Aviation Hub”, The Irrawaddy, 26 June 2021, https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/myanmar-coup-maker-visits-russian-military-aviation-hub.html.

[25] “Russia and Myanmar junta leader commit to boosting ties at Moscow meeting”, Straits Times, 22 June 2021, https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/russia-and-myanmar-junta-leader-commit-to-boosting-ties-at-moscow-meeting.

[26] “Myanmar Junta Chief Extols Russia Ties, Says US Relations ‘Not Intimate’”, The Irrawaddy, 26 June 2021, https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/myanmar-junta-chief-extols-russia-ties-says-us-relations-not-intimate.html.

[27] “Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, July 14, 2016”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, 14 July 2016, https://www.mid.ru/en/brifingi/-/asset_publisher/MCZ7HQuMdqBY/content/id/2354135#13.

[28] “Russian Ambassador to China Andrey Densiov’s interview with the Interfax news agency, June 15, 2016”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, 17 June 2016, https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2322781; “Russia supports China’s stance on South China Sea”, Sputnik, 5 September 2016, https://sputniknews.com/world/201609051044988523-russia-china-putin/.

[29] Author’s discussions with a group of Russian foreign policy experts, Moscow, September 2017.

[30] “Russia supports China’s stance on South China Sea”.

[31] “China, Russia naval drill in South China Sea to begin Monday”, Reuters, 11 September 2016, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-china-russia-idUSKCN11H051.

[32] James Pearson, “Exclusive: As Rosneft’s Vietnam unit drills in disputed area of South China Sea, Beijing issues warning”, Reuters, 17 May 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rosneft-vietnam-southchinasea-exclusv-idUSKCN1II09H.

[33] “Around 21 per cent of Vietnamese gas produced within Bien Dong joint project of Russia and Vietnam”, Gazprom Press Release, 7 September 2018, https://www.gazprom.com/press/news/2018/september/article459410/.

[34] Bill Hayton, “South China Sea: Vietnam halts drilling after ‘China threats’”, BBC, 24 July 2017, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40701121; Bill Hayton, “South China Sea: Vietnam ‘scraps new oil project’”, BBC, 23 March 2018, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43507448.

[35] “Update: China Risks Flare-up Over Malaysian, Vietnamese Gas Resources”, Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, 13 December 2019, https://amti.csis.org/china-risks-flare-up-over-malaysian-vietnamese-gas-resources/.DATE: CHINA RISKS FLARE-UP OVER

[36] South China Sea News (Twitter), 5 July 2020, https://twitter.com/SCS_news/status/1279670994429284352.

[37] Drake Long, “Oil Company Pulls Out of Vietnamese Oil Field as China Puts the Squeeze on Vietnam”, Radio Free Asia, 13 July 2020, https://www.rfa.org/english/news/vietnam/oil-china-07132020173206.html.

[38] Vladimir Afanasiev, “Zarubezhneft to pick up Rosneft’s offshore assets in Vietnam”, Upstream Online, 11 May 2021, https://www.upstreamonline.com/production/zarubezhneft-to-pick-up-rosnefts-offshore-assets-in-vietnam/2-1-1007528.

[39] Damon Evans, “Zarubezhneft to create new ‘gas cluster’ in Southeast Asia after asset deals”, Energy Voice, 23 June 2021, https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/asia/331924/zarubezhneft-to-create-new-gas-cluster-in-southeast-asia-after-asset-deals/#.

[40] Damon Evans, “Pertamina courts ExxonMobil at East Natuna for oil development”, Energy Voice, 17 August 2021, https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/asia/343126/pertamina-courts-exxonmobil-at-east-natuna-for-oil-development/.

[41] Single Draft Code of Conduct in the South China Sea Negotiating Text (26 July 2018).

ISEAS Perspective is published electronically by: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute   30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace Singapore 119614 Main Tel: (65) 6778 0955 Main Fax: (65) 6778 1735   Get Involved with ISEAS. Please click here: /supportISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute accepts no responsibility for facts presented and views expressed.   Responsibility rests exclusively with the individual author or authors. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission.  
© Copyright is held by the author or authors of each article.
Editorial Chairman: Choi Shing Kwok  
Editorial Advisor: Tan Chin Tiong  
Managing Editor: Ooi Kee Beng  
Editors: William Choong, Lee Poh Onn, Lee Sue-Ann, and Ng Kah Meng  
Comments are welcome and may be sent to the author(s).

2021/116 “The COVID-19 Recession: Rough Times for Young Malaysians” by Lee Hwok Aun and Kevin Zhang

 

Pedestrians cross a road in front of Malaysia’s landmark Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur on 12 January 2021, as Malaysian authorities were set to impose tighter restrictions to try to halt the spread of the Covid-19 coronavirus. Photo: Mohd RASFAN, AFP.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • The COVID-19 recession has exacerbated the already challenging labour market conditions for Malaysia’s youth (aged 15-24).
  • Unemployment rose across all age groups in 2020. However, Malaysian youths have continually registered higher levels of unemployment, and also withdrew from the labour force at a rate substantially higher than for other age groups.
  • Job losses also rose in 2020 compared to 2019, especially in the middle- and low-skilled jobs. In this same period, the number of youth employees contracted, with many compelled to undertake self-employment or start businesses. However, this pivot was limited to a few sectors, particularly retail trade. Employee salaries have also declined across the board, but again, more steeply among young workers.
  • Malaysia’s stimulus packages have prioritized the more experienced workers, understandably given the massive need to protect existing jobs and assist those who have households to sustain. 
  • A few measures have specifically targeted young workers and fresh graduates, whose vulnerability has become increasingly evident.  The freshly appointed government will face severe pressure to address the plight of the unemployed youths and young workers. 

* Lee Hwok Aun is Senior Fellow and Co-coordinator of the Malaysia Studies Programme at the ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute. Kevin Zhang is Research Officer of the Malaysia Studies Programme at ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute. The authors thank Cassey Lee and Francis Hutchinson for their helpful feedback on an earlier draft. The usual disclaimer applies.

Download PDF Version

INTRODUCTION

Like most of the world, Malaysia grapples with the challenges of educating and employing its youth. Following convention, this study classifies youth or young workers as 15-24 years old. In Malaysia, this age category numbered 2.6 million, or 16.7% of the labour force, in 2020.

The COVID-19 recession of 2020 and the continuing travails of 2021 have compounded the already difficult conditions for young workers and fresh graduates. Prior to 2020, the unemployment rate of Malaysia’s youth in Malaysia was under the global average of 13%, but exceeded the unemployment rate of the adult working population (aged 25-64) by a relatively high factor of six (compared to the global average of three). The ratio of youth unemployment to the national average has been rising over the past decade, and graduate unemployment has persisted as a national concern, including problems of disparity in access and quality of higher education perpetuating class stratification (Lee 2020a, 2020b).[1]

Young workers bore the brunt of the 2020 recession caused by a shocking and unprecedented economic shutdown. Youth unemployment reached 12.5% in 2020, up from 10.5% in 2019 and 10.7-10.9% in 2015-2018. Beyond this headline figure, however, other data shed important light on the tribulations of Malaysia’s youth. Employment declined most markedly for young workers and disproportionately affected those in lower income situations. Evidence points to larger contractions of youth employment in middle- and low-skilled occupations. Young workers holding tertiary-level qualifications have not been spared, with the number of unemployed graduates in Malaysia rising by 22.5% in one year to over 200,000 in 2020.[2] They have also withdrawn more significantly from labour participation, and have been more steeply compelled into self-employment – which has no doubt been a policy objective in line with structural changes in the economy and labour market, but has now transpired through an abrupt, crisis-induced shift. Available evidence also points to disproportionately larger salary declines among young workers.

Malaysia’s policy responses, launched under the various COVID-19 stimulus packages, have prioritized the retention of the existing workforce, with some attention to job creation, which benefits new labour market entrants, and a few programmes specifically targeted at fresh graduates and young workers, most of which have fallen short of the targeted number of beneficiaries. It is fair to say that the efforts have mitigated labour market woes, although the effects are difficult to quantify. What is clear is that Malaysia’s youth have become restive, and more vocal about their pandemic-deepened plight. The incoming government will need to respond decisively and effectively on this matter.

LABOUR MARKET IMPACTS

Unemployment and withdrawal from the labour force

The unemployment rate remains the macro yardstick of the labour market impacts of an economic recession. Quarterly figures trace out the job displacing effects of economic closures enforced to contain the pandemic. Malaysia’s extensive lockdown – the first Movement Control Order of March-June 2020 – resulted in a staggering 17.1% GDP contraction in Q2 2020. Correspondingly, overall unemployment rose from 3.2% in 2019-Q4 to 5.1% in 2020-Q2. Unemployment for 15-24 year-olds increased from 9.9% in 2019-Q4 to 12.5% in 2020-Q2, from 2.9% to 5.2% for the next age bracket (25-34 years), and rose relatively steeply as well for older workers (Figure 1).[3] Based on these data, unemployment levelled off by end 2020, and even moderated in 2021 for youth.

There may be some undercounting of job loss, caused by certain factors.[4] First, the number of foreign worker permits plummeted by about half a million in 2020, and the vast majority have not been replaced by Malaysian workers.[5] Official unemployment rose from 3.5% in 2019 to 4.6% in 2020 for Malaysians, and more markedly for non-citizens, from 1.7% to 4.2%, but in terms of number of workers, there was a net decrease of only 146,000 non-Malaysian workers.[6] Second, in announcing the Pemulih stimulus package on 28 June 2021, the government noted that, based on EPF and SOCSO data, 1 million account holders in social protection institutions had incurred income losses and would be offered cash assistance.

The extent to which these income losses derive from unemployment was not disclosed, but the overall figure far exceeds the official increase in the number of unemployed, which registered the widest margin of 300,000 between February 2020 and May 2020. Whether youth unemployment has been more severely undercounted than other age groups is also hard to ascertain. It suffices at this juncture to note that the labour market downturn for all, including youth, is probably more severe than the official account.

Following international convention, Malaysia defines the unemployed as those who are not working but are looking for work, and the labour force is defined as the population aged 15-64 who are either working or unemployed. Those who withdraw from the labour force – who are not working and are not seeking a job – are omitted from the statistics. In the first three quarters of 2020, at the peak of economic downturn and job loss, young Malaysians withdrew from labour force participation at a relatively high rate (Cheng 2021). The labour force participation (LFP) rates, capturing the share of the working age population (15-64 years old) that are either working or looking for work, fell marginally from 68.9% (2019-Q3) to 68.4% (2020-Q3). Among youth (15-24 years), however, the LFP decline was substantial, from 46.0% (2019-Q3) to 41.8% (2020-Q3). Some patterns based on educational qualifications are also noteworthy. The decline in labour force participation among the young, from 2019 to 2020, was steepest among male degree holders (85% to 75%) and female diploma holders (64% to 56%). The increased numbers of youth not even looking for work, and hence are excluded in the unemployment equation, underscore the need to look beyond the official unemployment rate.

Employment: Amount and distribution of jobs

Employment data, which tells us how many jobs exist and where they are located, are instructive. Young workers experienced a precipitous drop in the number employed, on a year-on-year basis, at a far steeper rate than for other age brackets (Figure 2). In the third quarter of 2020, the number of employed 15-24 year-olds was 11.6% lower compared to the third quarter of 2019. The latest figures, for 2021-Q2, however, show that the number of employed stayed the same over the preceding year (zero percent change from 2020-Q2) for workers under 35 years, but grew for workers aged 35 and above. 

Variations based on employment status and occupation

Disaggregating these data further by employment status and occupation yield further insights. These data are only available on an annual basis, but we may observe the 2018-2020 interval to deduce COVID-19 recession impacts. Based on employment status (Figure 4), we can see marked differences in the decrease of young employees alongside growth in the self-employed, who operate solo without any employees.[7] The drastic slowdown in recruitment has induced young workers to start their own businesses, whether as a new enterprise or perhaps in subcontracting or outsourcing arrangements.

Patterns of employment growth by occupation concur with the realignment toward more self-employment, confirming that young workers have generally borne the brunt of the economic downturn. In almost all occupation groups, employment of 15-25 year-olds either expanded or remained stable between 2018 and 2019. However, the number of managers, which includes employers and the self-employed, grew noticeably in 2020 – and even more so for the 25-34 year category, as expected, due to their greater capacity to venture into new business. Simultaneously, in categories typically filled by employees – professionals, technicians, clerical workers, craft workers, machine operators, and elementary jobs – employment of young workers declined, with the exception of service and sales workers (Figures 4a and 4b). The decline in youth employment has therefore affected all levels of skills and educational qualifications, but is more pronounced in lower skilled occupations.

Steady demand for skilled labour, based on job advertisements, are consistent with this impression that more skilled labour – especially those suited to technological transformation – are disproportionately benefiting in the current milieu.[8] Comparing the last three quarters of 2020 with the corresponding period in 2019, the number of employed with tertiary education grew by 8.7%, while those with only primary education declined by 13.5% (Cheng 2021).

Data breakdowns by industry show that worse-affected sectors have tended to reduce youth recruitment. Looking at sub-sectors, particularly services most impacted by the COVID-19 recession and the succession of MCOs, is quite instructive. In general, the GDP of services sub-sectors contracted, with a select few enjoying growth. Employment of 15-24 year-olds in food and accommodation sectors plummeted in 2020, while wholesale and retail and transportation barely changed, registering zero to 1% growth. Transport services took a -21.9% impact in terms of GDP, but also saw a surge in the ‘postal and courier’ category – amounting to a bonanza 16.6% growth – reflecting the proliferation of delivery services. However, the ability to engage in these new activities is largely contingent on owning or accessing motorized vehicles. These factors likely explain the higher growth in employment in transport among workers above 35 years.

Under-employment

A further aspect of labour market impact on the young pertains to under-employment, of which there are two varieties: time-related under-employment, referring to those who are working less than 30 hours per week, and skill-related under-employment, referring to those who are holding a job that is below their qualifications, most saliently degree holders in routine low-skilled jobs (Figure 7).[9] The rise in time-related under-employment in 2020 was widest among young workers, but appears to have recovered by 2021-Q1. These patterns capture transitory impacts of the economic downturn. Skill-related under-employment, however, raises more concern if it translates into structural, enduring problems of skills mismatch. There was an increase in skill-related under-employment in 2020, and the incidence remains high, although in view of some fluctuation in recent quarters, it is hard to tell whether the problem will stabilize or worsen in the near future.

YOUNG WORKERS’ INCOME

The dreary employment scenarios above can be expected to correspond with declining income, and various journalistic and local investigative accounts attest to family hardships.[10] However, the impact of the COVID-19 recession on income is harder to gauge on a national scale.

Graduate tracer studies, based on disclosures about employment status and the salary range of employed fresh graduates who report these data prior to their graduation ceremonies – typically 3-6 months after completing their studies – provide one available reference.[11] We can observe patterns consistent with a modest decline in fresh graduates’ salaries from 2019 to 2020, but not a drastic drop.[12] The proportion of degree graduates earning under RM2,500 rose marginally, from 69.4% to 70.3% (Figure 6). What is of concern is the sizable decline in the share of degree graduates earning RM2,001-2,500, from 18.7% in 2019 to 16.7% in 2020, while the share earning under RM1,500 increased from 32.6% to 35.2%.[13] Among diploma graduates, those earning below RM1,500 increased from 6% in 2019 to 64.3% in 2020. The increase may be slight, but the staggeringly large share in these low salary brackets reflects chronic labour market issues.

The severer drop in youth employment and in lower-skilled jobs exerts downward pressure on wages in these categories. Statistics from the just-released Salaries and Wages Survey Report 2020 concur (Figure 7). This survey specifically captures the salaries of Malaysian employees or fixed income recipients, in both private and public sectors.[14] Employees aged 15-24 encompassing all education levels endured the widest decline in mean salary, registering a -13.7% change from RM1,793 in 2019 to RM1,547 in 2020. The next most affected is the 25-34 age group with a -12.9% change, from RM2,916 to RM2,538. The decline for both age groups significantly exceeded the overall average of -9.0%. Based on educational attainment (of all ages), the evidence suggests that employees with tertiary education have been more able to weather the storm, compared to those with only secondary or primary education. While the salary figures for educational attainment do not differentiate by age, we can presume that the effects apply across the board. In line with the relatively greater contraction in lower-skilled employment, we may deduce that the wages of lesser-educated youth have declined by wider margins.

YOUTH-RELEVANT AND YOUTH-TARGETED STIMULUS PROGRAMMES

Malaysia introduced various programmes to relieve economic distress, retain existing jobs and stimulate new jobs. The unique adversities of the pandemic have inclined policies to prioritize job protection and income protection, which do not target by age and would relatively benefit more experienced workers. The discussion that follows highlights measures that explicitly designate fresh graduates or young workers, or that are more likely by design to benefit them. The Bantuan Prihatin Rakyat cash assistance primarily benefited households but also provided for non-married Malaysians. However, the meagre RM100 provided can barely qualify as relief.[15] The following, however, merit an overview, with a summary in Table 1.

Penjana hiring incentives

The Penjana stimulus package of July 2020, succeeding the Prihatin package of March 2020 which focused on preserving jobs, introduced a menu of allowances for employers to generate jobs. This is especially pertinent to youth, who comprise a large segment of new labour market entrants, whereas the massive wage subsidy programme focused on already hired workers, and reportedly benefited 2.5 million employees. Penjana incentives have not explicitly targeted workers by age group, but young adults are poised to benefit from the Penjana Kerjaya (work generator) programme that boosts recruitment, especially in the form of apprenticeships. Youth may also be better matched, in terms of being able-bodied and suitably skilled, for the Malaysianization scheme seeking to induce employers to hire locals in place of non-citizens.

Information on these programmes’ outreach have been disclosed, including by age bracket, but the efficacy of these programmes remains difficult to appraise. Penjana Kerjaya 2.0, a continuation of the programme for January-July 2021, reportedly benefited 153,000 workers under 40 years at end July, surging from 25,000 at end-March. Clearly, the full lockdown from June drove participation in Penjana Kerjaya, but the adequacy will need to be rigorously evaluated. As a general reference, the unemployed in the age range of 15-34 numbered 546,400 in the second quarter of 2021 (April-June). Take-up of the apprenticeship also saw a spurt in June-July, counting 34,000 participants by end July, a steep rise from about 13,300 in mid-May. Again, participation has not reached the target of 50,000. Malaysianization, a slim prospect given the low pay and exacting work conditions imposed on foreign workers, unsurprisingly drew a meagre 2,870 by end July (EIAS 2021a, 2021b).

Ministry of Higher Education – Career Advancing Programme (MOHE-CAP)

Under the Penjana stimulus package of June 2020, the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) implemented a RM100 million Career Advancing Programme (CAP) to reduce unemployment among graduates.[16] Under the scheme, each participant would be given a choice to be equipped with job competencies or geared up for self-employment in one of the following three pillars namely, Place and Train, Entrepreneurship and Gig Economy. Trainers were to be recruited from universities and industry players, and the programme cost of RM4,000-5,000 per participant fully borne by MOHE. While this programme is on paper commendable for retraining graduates and enhancing their employability, the ministry has not provided follow-up data on whether participants have secured employment or their salary incomes. In addition, based on the expenditure required per participant, CAP is estimated to benefit only 20,000 unemployed graduates or a mere 10% of the overall unemployed graduates in Malaysia.

Place and Train by Human Resource Development (HRD) Corp

The Place and Train programme was further boosted in the recently announced Pemulih stimulus package whereby HRD Corp was allocated with RM125 million to assist school leavers between the age of 18 and 40 and graduates who are unemployed. Apart from a month-long training course, participants would have six months of Placement Job Training (PJT) with a firm. Companies participating in the Place and Train programme can receive up to six months of PJT allowance, as an incentive to participate and offset the cost of hiring trainees. Candidates in the programme would be hired by the company for at least a year, inclusive of the six months PJT period. The programme has targeted 30,000 beneficiaries, but it is as yet too soon to evaluate its impact. 

Table 1. Key information of selected relief and stimulus programmes: youth-related and youth-targeted

Sources: EIAS 2021a, 2021b; news reports.[17] Note: n.a.=not available.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 recession of 2020 and continuing sluggish conditions in 2021 have compounded employment and income difficulties for Malaysia’s young workers. Youth experience higher unemployment, and greater withdrawal from labour participation. Contraction in the number of young workers from occupational and sectoral angles show more adverse impacts in lower-skilled jobs and in most industries except wholesale and retail. Young workers have also, on average, experienced worse impact than other age groups in terms of wage decrease and under-employment.

The higher priority accorded to the already-employed is an appropriate response to the economic shock of the lockdown, and in view of the fact that older workers are more likely to be supporting dependents. Nonetheless, it is also imperative to buffer the adverse effects on young workers and fresh graduates. Malaysia has implemented various programmes, mostly for the general populace but with a few addressing young worker concerns.

It is difficult at this still early stage to ascertain the efficacy of these policy responses, specifically on youth. Available evidence shows some inadequacies in the extent and amount of assistance, and reveals possible structural labour market challenges in the years ahead. Malaysia’s youth have boldly expressed their discontent with Malaysia’s political dysfunction and economic exclusion, and the burden now falls on the new government to pay due attention to the capability, employment, wages and economic security of the nation’s young.

ISEAS Perspective 2021/116, 3 September 2021

REFERENCES

Cheng, Calvin. 2021. “Pushed to the margins: Unequal impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on Malaysian workers”. ISIS Virtual April 2021, Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia.

DOSM. 2021a. Labour Force Survey Report 2020. Putrajaya: Department of Statistics, Malaysia.

DOSM. 2021b. “Salaries and Wages Survey Report 2020 – Press Release”. 14 July 2021, Department of Statistics, Malaysia.

DOSM. Various editions. Labour Market Review. Putrajaya: Department of Statistics, Malaysia.

EIAS. 2021a. Employment Insurance System Weekly Report (Week 13, 2021). Employment Information and Analysis Services (EIAS), Employment Insurance System Office, Putrajaya, 2 April 2021.

EIAS. 2021b. Employment Insurance System Weekly Report (Week 30, 2021). Employment Information and Analysis Services (EIAS), Employment Insurance System Office, Putrajaya, 30 July 2021.

Lee, Hwok-Aun (2020a) “Unemployment among Malaysia’s youth: Structural trends and current challenges” ISEAS Perspective 2020 No. 65. Singapore: ISEAS.

Lee, Hwok-Aun (2020b) “Work and wages of Malaysia’s youth: Structural trends and current challenges.” ISEAS Perspective 2020 No. 98. Singapore: ISEAS.


ENDNOTES

[1] Graduate tracer studies have found that, in the months after completing their studies, fresh graduates from lower income backgrounds are less likely to be working, compared to counterparts from middle- and high-income families. On the demand side, Malaysia’s labour market also insufficiently generates skilled jobs. The share of young workers holding skilled occupations declined from 11.8% in 2016 to 11.3% in 2019 (Lee 2020b).

[2] “Malaysia’s unemployed graduates rose 22.5% in 2020”, The Edge Markets, 27 July 2021 (https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/malaysias-unemployed-graduates-rose-225-2020).

[3] It is noteworthy that the 55-64 bracket saw unemployment worsen continuously into 2020-Q3, but across all age categories, unemployment stayed quite constant from 2020-Q3 until 2021-Q1, the most recent age-disaggregated statistics.

[4] A recurrent theme in socioeconomic statistics in recent times is the disconnect between the data and the reality on the ground. This is a complex matter; surveying methods have advanced, but so has social media, which may inflate anecdotal observations of social problems and discontent. Caveats therefore run both ways; both the official statistics and critiques must be taken with circumspection. Importantly, doubts about the veracity of headline indicators such as the unemployment rate must be empirically grounded.

[5] This rough estimate of a half million decline in the number of foreign worker permits in 2020 is based on public disclosures of the total count: 2.0 million in August 2019, 1.6 million in October 2020, and 1.3 million in Feb 2021. The sources are, respectively, Chester Tay, “Malaysia has 1.99 million foreign workers registered as at Aug 31”, The Edge Markets, 8 October 2019 (https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/malaysia-has-199-million-foreign-workers-registered-aug-31) ; “More than 90% of foreign workers in Malaysia not provided with regulation-compliant housing: Minister”, Channel News Asia, 3 December 2020 (https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/malaysia-foreign-workers-not-provided-housing-regulations-13691408); and unpublished data anonymously shared with the authors.

[6] The sampling mode of the household-based Labour Force Survey from which unemployment is calculated, by omitting dormitories and work sites surely undercounts the migrant worker population, and hence also understates the increase in unemployment in the past year, although we are unable to estimate the precise margin.

[7] We use the more readily understandable term ‘self-employed’ term instead of ‘own account worker’, although the latter remains the term of choice in Malaysia’s labour market reports.

[8] “Survey shows Malaysia’s top employers offering jobs despite pandemic”, Bernama, 9 May 2021 (https://bernama.com/en/business/news.php?id=1960253).

[9] The definitions of time-based and skill-based under-employment are not mutually exclusive. Hence, some workers may be classified as under-employed in both contexts, time-based and skill-based.

[10] Derrick A Paulo and Ikhwan Rivai, “Can the poor in Malaysia cope with the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic?”, Channel News Asia, 18 October 2020 (https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/cnainsider/poor-malaysia-cope-challenges-posed-covid-19-pandemic-poverty-13303070) ; “Families on the Edge: Low-income families need continued support to recover from the effects of COVID-19”, UNICEF Malaysia, 24 August 2020 (https://www.unicef.org/malaysia/press-releases/families-edge-low-income-families-need-continued-support-recover-effects-covid-19).

[11] The data reported here were obtained from http://great.mohe.gov.my/Statistik. Graduate Tracer Study reports have not been published for 2019 and 2020, but the 2018 report is available (https://www.moe.gov.my/en/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikan-tinggi/laporan-kajian-pengesanan-graduan), reporting that 299,723 out of 341,311 graduates participated in the survey, for a response rate of 87.8%.

[12] Statistics from this source have circulated in public, albeit with a rather misleading way that warrants an explanatory note. News reports, in stating that a ‘majority’ of graduates earned RM1,000-1,500 in 2020, but a ‘majority’ of graduates earned RM2,000-2,500 in 2019, suggested that the starting salary of fresh degree graduates had shifted from a concentration in a higher bracket to a concentration in a lower bracket. The actual scenarios of declining starting salaries, as explained in this Perspective, are noticeable but more moderate (Danial Dzulkifly, “Report: Fresh grad salaries fell to minimum wage level in 2020, says Stats Dept”, 1 April 2021, Malay Mail (https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2021/04/01/report-fresh-grad-salaries-fell-to-minimum-wage-level-in-2020-says-stats-de/1962896).

[13] Notably, an increase in the share of the RM1,001-1,500 range is accompanied by a drop in the share of the lowest (<RM1,000) bracket.

[14] The survey omits the self-employed, employers, casual workers and part-time workers.

[15] The Bantuan Prihatin Rakyat (BPR) cash assistance benefits households with a monthly income of less than RM5,000, and non-married Malaysians (above the age of 21) earning below RM2,500. Presumably, numerous young adults, employed or otherwise, have received BPR. For young Malaysians who are married, the cash amount of BPR can reach up to RM1,800 depending on the number of children. However, the amount provided for singles is a mere RM100 for the July 2021 disbursement.

[16] To be eligible for MOHE-CAP, the student must have graduated in 2020 or unemployed as of 2019 (should they have graduated from earlier cohorts).

[17] “Graduates need new skills to enter job market, says minister”, 5 April 2021, Bernama, published in Malay Mail (https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2021/04/05/graduates-need-new-skills-to-enter-job-market-says-minister/1964022), Ida Lim, “Pemulih: How will it help Malaysians personally? A quick look at cash aid, help with food and living costs and more”, 23 July 2021, Malay Mail (https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2021/07/23/pemulih-how-will-it-help-malaysians-personally-a-quick-look-at-cash-aid-hel/1992027).

ISEAS Perspective is published electronically by: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute   30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace Singapore 119614 Main Tel: (65) 6778 0955 Main Fax: (65) 6778 1735   Get Involved with ISEAS. Please click here: /supportISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute accepts no responsibility for facts presented and views expressed.   Responsibility rests exclusively with the individual author or authors. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission.  
© Copyright is held by the author or authors of each article.
Editorial Chairman: Choi Shing Kwok  
Editorial Advisor: Tan Chin Tiong  
Managing Editor: Ooi Kee Beng  
Editors: William Choong, Lee Poh Onn, Lee Sue-Ann, and Ng Kah Meng  
Comments are welcome and may be sent to the author(s).

2021/115 “Understanding the Selective Hesitancy towards Chinese Vaccines in Southeast Asia” by Khairulanwar Zaini and Hoang Thi Ha

 

A student receives a shot of the Sinovac covid-19 coronavirus vaccine at a school in Lhokseumawe, Indonesia’s Aceh Province on 30 August 2021. Photo: AZWAR IPANK, AFP.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • China has supplied 190 million doses of its homegrown vaccines to Southeast Asia. However, perceptions of Chinese vaccines among the regional public largely trend negatively, suggesting a non-linear relationship between China’s vaccine diplomacy and its soft power in the region – especially at the popular level.
  • An examination of six countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, The Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam) reveals some common factors driving the selective hesitance towards Chinese vaccines in the region.
  • These factors can be grouped into three broad categories: (i) General Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy; (ii) Specific concerns about the efficacy and religious permissibility of Chinese vaccines, and (iii) Political factors, namely public mistrust of national governments and/or China.
  • Some pockets of enthusiasm for Chinese vaccines exist. This is due to their use of traditional vaccine technology and China’s promise of easier passage into the country for recipients of its vaccines.

* Khairulanwar Zaini is Research Officer, and Hoang Thi Ha is Fellow and Co-coordinator of the Regional Strategic and Political Studies Programme at ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute.

Download PDF Version

INTRODUCTION

Southeast Asia is a primary region for China’s vaccine diplomacy. Chinese-made Sinovac and Sinopharm are by far the most available Covid-19 vaccines in the region, with 190 million doses having been delivered, the bulk through commercial channels.[1] While most regional governments adopt the policy of diversification to obtain as many doses as possible amid the severe global shortage, they have to take into account public opinions towards the various vaccines, in their procurement and deployment decisions. This Perspective outlines some broad trends in public perceptions of Chinese vaccines in six Southeast Asian countries – Indonesia, Malaysia, The Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam – based on publicly available data, including surveys, social media reactions, news articles and research papers.

Several polls undertaken since late 2020 paint a mixed picture of public perceptions towards China’s vaccines in these countries. These polls were conducted by different organisations at different periods of time, with different sampling methods and questionnaires. Therefore, straightforward comparative conclusions cannot be easily drawn from the data. Moreover, the fluidity of the pandemic and people’s shifting reactions may result in some inconsistencies and contradictions between the various survey results. Recognising that each survey represents a particular time-specific context, the analysis of the survey data in this Perspective is not for the sake of accurate statistical measurement, but for the purpose of parsing the thematic issues surrounding public perceptions of Chinese vaccines in the region.

A December 2020 survey indicated that 28% of respondents in Indonesia viewed Chinese vaccines positively against 23% with negative views, while in Singapore the ratio was almost inverse (23% positive versus 32% negative). (See Table 1 for comparisons of such perceptions in China and in the West).[2]

Further surveys conducted in Indonesia between late 2020 and early 2021 suggest that the Indonesians did not necessarily have a bias for or against any specific vaccine on the basis of its origins. A KOMPAS survey in January 2021 showed that respondents did not favour any particular vaccine over another — the rates of acceptance and rejection of vaccines produced in China, Europe and the United States were generally similar (Table 2).[4] This finding appears corroborated by a more granular survey done by Indikator in February 2021 (Table 3), which examined trust levels in specific vaccine brands.[5] Though the survey reveals that trust in Sinovac, the most commonly-used vaccine in Indonesia, was higher than trust in other vaccines (32.3%), it was also the most distrusted brand (33.2%).

In Thailand, a Suan Dusit poll in May 2021 (which did not include the Sinovac and Sinopharm vaccines in the mix) suggested a prevailing preference for Pfizer (75.1%) and Moderna (72.1%), followed by Johnson & Johnson (68.5%), AstraZeneca (65.9%) and Sputnik V (61.9%).[6] Another Suan Dusit poll in July 2021 suggests greater acceptance of Sinopharm vis-à-vis low trust towards Sinovac among the Thais, when they were asked about their preferred brand for the second and third jabs (Table 4).[7]

In The Philippines, a few polls were conducted since early 2021 in different localities with different samplings, offering some converging and diverging results. A survey by the OCTA Research Group in January-February 2021 indicated that only 15% of Filipinos trusted vaccines from China;[9] 41% trusted vaccines from the United States, followed by the United Kingdom (25%), Russia (20%) and India (17%). Similarly, the Social Weather Station (SWS) poll in May 2021 found that 63% of respondents preferred made-in-America vaccines versus 19% favouring Chinese ones. However, in terms of vaccine brand preference, 39% chose Sinovac, followed by Pfizer (32%), AstraZeneca (22%) and Johnson & Johnson (10%). A higher level of brand recognition for Sinovac among Filipinos could explain this seeming contradiction, given that Sinovac was the dominant vaccine deployed in the country at the time of polling.[10]

Public perceptions of Chinese vaccines in the select Southeast Asian countries are influenced by many considerations, including the severity of the pandemic outbreaks at the local or national levels, the impact of government vaccine awareness programmes versus vaccine misinformation campaigns, and the accessibility to Chinese vaccines vis-à-vis other vaccines at a given point in time.[11] This article focuses on some key common factors that can be identified in two or more of these countries. These factors are grouped in three categories: (i) General Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy; (ii) Specific concerns about the efficacy and religious permissibility of Chinese vaccines; and (iii) Political factors, namely public mistrust of national governments and/or China.

These factors are not equally salient across the countries. As the subsequent section will illustrate, general scepticism of vaccines and worries about Sinovac’s halal status are most responsible for the selective hesitancy against Chinese vaccines in Indonesia. For Thailand, the impetus is more political: Popular distrust of the government and, to some extent, of China, negatively colours public perception of Chinese vaccines. In Vietnam, the dim reception of Chinese vaccine offerings can mostly be put down to the public’s prevalent distrust of China. 

GENERAL COVID-19 VACCIne Hesitancy

YouGov’s data revealed a shifting trajectory of Covid-19 vaccine acceptance in Indonesia, Malaysia, The Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Between December 2020 and July 2021, vaccine acceptance levels sharply increased across these countries, save for Thailand (Table 5).[12] Vietnam is the only country where the rate of vaccine confidence remained consistently high. Another survey conducted between October and December 2020 saw Vietnam leading the world in terms of the share of the population willing to be vaccinated (98%).[13]

The pandemic is still in a very fluid situation and massive Covid-19 outbreaks in most of these countries over recent months have driven, and will continue to drive further vaccine willingness among the public. However, there remains a considerable minority who resist Covid-19 vaccines, regardless of their origins. A number of surveys in the region indicate that the general vaccine hesitance is largely attributed to concerns about vaccine effectiveness, safety and fears about side effects (Table 6).

Some of the hesitancy towards Covid-19 vaccines can be attributed to the low health literacy about the virus in certain segments of the population, partly due to government failures in communicating relevant information about the virus and their response.[20] This situation is most extensively reported in Indonesia. For instance, 25 out of the 30 participants interviewed for a study in September 2020 expressed their “disbelief” about Covid-19, describing it as “a common cold, flu, and cough” that “has been blown out of proportion by the government” — even though Indonesia was then recording 4,000 new cases and 100 deaths daily.[21] This has prompted the Covid-19 vaccine to be construed as an unnecessary risk. Another study of 50 Indonesian women with certain vulnerabilities (HIV patients, pregnant women, frontline health workers) in early 2021 revealed their vaccine hesitance to be partly due to the belief that Covid-19 is not a severe health threat and can be mitigated by other means.[22]

Public scepticism about the existence and severity of Covid-19 feeds into vaccine hesitancy, especially in the wake of anti-vaccine disinformation campaigns. In The Philippines, anti-vaccine theories peddled by US-based evangelical Christian groups have filtered into local church networks and Facebook discussion groups.[23] In Malaysia, a ‘Covid Research Centre’ has been fearmongering about the Pfizer vaccine, while promoting “herbal and other natural treatments” as a means of preventing Covid-19.[24] Even politicians are not averse to indulging in such anti-vaccine rhetoric. In December 2020, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Malaysia’s longest-serving parliamentarian, repeated the claims of anti-vaxxer Michael Yeadon that vaccines are unnecessary because “people around the world are acquiring the natural herd immunity”.[25]

Another reason for vaccine hesitance in the region could be the lack of trust in government vaccination programmes. This is salient in The Philippines and Indonesia, both having recently mismanaged vaccination campaigns involving children. In April 2016, The Philippines introduced a plan to vaccinate all nine-year-olds with the dengue vaccine Dengvaxia.[26] A public furore erupted in 2017 when Dengvaxia’s manufacturer revealed that this caused those who were dengue-naïve to be more susceptible to more severe dengue infection in future. The Dengvaxia controversy drove vaccine confidence in The Philippines to plummet from 93% in 2015 to 32% in 2018. Similarly, Indonesia’s campaign in 2018 to inoculate children against measles and rubella faltered after it was revealed that the vaccine contained “negligible traces of pork gelatin”.[27] The trauma of these botched vaccine roll-outs perhaps accounts for the initial reticence in both countries to get the Covid-19 vaccine: in December 2020, only 55% in Indonesia and 52% in The Philippines were willing to be vaccinated.

SELECTIVE HESITANCY TOWARDS CHINESE VACCINES

The selective hesitancy towards Chinese-made shots in the region is partly an extension of the general vaccine hesitancy due to the considerations above. Apart from vaccine-related factors such as efficacy and religious permissibility, political factors also drive selective hesitancy towards Chinese vaccines, especially in countries where members of the public do not trust their national governments and/or China.

Vaccine-related Factors: Efficacy and Religious Concerns

A major factor behind selective hesitancy of Chinese vaccines among Southeast Asians is widespread concerns about their reliability. As a July 2020 study in Indonesia noted, acceptance of a particular vaccine hinges on its effectiveness: While 93.3% of respondents would get a Covid-19 vaccine with an effectiveness of 95%, this drops to 67.0% for a vaccine that is 50% effective.[28] Thus, in the absence of clarity about their efficacy rates, public confidence in China’s homegrown vaccines is likely to take a hit, especially when real-world developments suggest that these vaccines may not offer robust protection against newer Covid-19 variants.

For example, Sinovac’s effectiveness remains mired in doubt, compounded by the company’s reluctance to promptly publish their trial data or actively address the diverging efficacy results. According to separate clinical trials, Sinovac’s protection rate varies between 50% to 90% — the vaccine was 83.5% effective in a Turkish study, but data from Indonesia and Brazil placed it at only slightly above 50%.[29] Moreover, a 27 July pre-print paper from a Chinese lab disclosed that the amount of Covid-19 antibodies from Sinovac decreased “below a key threshold” after six months.[30]

Sceptics of Chinese-made vaccines also look to Singapore’s reluctance to fully integrate Sinovac into its national vaccination programme. Health regulators had requested for additional clinical data from Sinovac in March 2021, but this was only submitted in July.[31] As a result, even though a shipment of 200,000 shots had arrived since February, Sinovac was only released through a select number of private clinics in June. Those interested in Sinovac were however warned by a senior health ministry official about the “significant risk of vaccine breakthrough”.[32] Moreover, recipients of Sinovac were not regarded as being properly “vaccinated” until early August, when the authorities decided to recognise all vaccines approved by the World Health Organization for emergency use.[33]

Public confidence in the Chinese vaccines is unlikely to improve with the reports of Covid-19’s resurgence in countries that had primarily relied on either Sinovac or Sinopharm.[34] This includes Indonesia, where Sinovac’s early success story is turning awry. In May 2021, the Indonesian health ministry announced that a study of 130,000 Indonesian healthcare workers showed Sinovac was at least 90% effective in preventing symptoms, hospitalisation and death.[35] However, the emergence of the more infectious and vaccine-resilient Delta variant has pushed Indonesia’s Covid-19 tally to almost double over two months (from 1,837,126 cases on 3 June to 3,496,700 cases on 3 August), with around 48,000 deaths.[36] These figures include a growing number of Indonesian healthcare workers who died from Covid-19 despite being fully vaccinated (often with Sinovac).[37]

Similar doubts about the reliability of Chinese vaccines against the Delta variant have emerged in other countries around the region. A group of doctors in Thailand have protested the government’s decision not to prioritise medical personnel for a Pfizer booster shot as worries grew after 618 Thai healthcare workers were infected between April and July despite being double-jabbed with Sinovac.[38] In Malaysia, Director-General of Health Noor Hisham Abdullah’s assurance that both “Sinovac and Pfizer are equally effective against Covid-19” was greeted with a measure of incredulity, with some taking to his Facebook page to accuse him of cherry-picking the data and ignoring Sinovac’s weaker performance against newer variants.[39] It was reported that many Filipinos skipped their appointments at vaccination centres that were using Sinovac, while a crowd formed at another centre offering Pfizer shots.[40] Similar sentiments can be found in Vietnam and Thailand, where Chinese products — including its vaccines — are seen as lacking “a good reputation for quality” or being “second-rate”.[41]

For the Muslim-majority countries of the region, a religious element drives Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy in general and reluctance towards Chinese vaccines in particular. Studies have indicated that religious concerns motivated 20.8% and 8% of vaccine hesitance in Malaysia and Indonesia respectively.[42] For one, the Chinese provenance of Sinovac has generated misgivings about its halal status, especially in Indonesia after the measles-rubella vaccine fiasco.[43] To assuage these worries, religious authorities in both countries have taken pains to assure that Sinovac was indeed halal.[44] Politicians, including Indonesian President Joko Widodo and Malaysian vaccine minister Khairy Jamaludin, also did their part to convince their citizens by taking the Sinovac jabs themselves.[45]

Intertwining concerns about the reliability and religious permissibility of Chinese vaccines may explain the relatively lower vaccination rates in southern Thailand. In the Muslim-majority provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat, those who have taken the jabs tended to be Buddhists. Many locals doubted the Sinovac’s efficacy and subscribed to the misinformation-driven religious fear that “Islam did not allow such medical measures”.[46] These objections to Sinovac are also informed by the region’s deep-seated mistrust of the Thai state following decades of secessionist struggle, a factor that will be explored further in the next section.

Political Factors: Distrust of National Governments and China

Misgivings about their reliability aside, public perceptions of the Chinese vaccines in some Southeast Asian countries have also been affected by domestic politics and popular suspicions of China.

This is particularly true of Thailand which saw a sharp decrease in public willingness for vaccination in recent months, bucking the region’s trend. Thailand has had to rely on Sinovac for the early phase of its vaccine roll-out, primarily due to the lack of alternatives. According to Tita Sanglee, “widespread distrust of the Prayut government is aggravating Sinovac hesitancy in the country” and “Sinovac faces politically motivated problems”.[47] This selective hesitancy against Sinovac signals both a rejection of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and Thailand’s increasing tilt towards China under his leadership. Major opposition parties such as Pheu Thai and Move Forward Party have raised questions about the safety and efficacy of the Sinovac vaccine,[48] while the pro-democracy movement demanded that the government drop Sinovac in favour of Pfizer and Moderna when they took the streets in mid-July 2021.[49] Moreover, those who espouse pro-democracy leanings (especially younger Thais) generally view Beijing with askance due to the latter’s perceived support for Prayut. The dependence on Sinovac is also seen as yet another sign of Thailand being further beholden to China.

In the case of Vietnam, it is popular distrust of China, rather than lack of confidence in the government, that affects public perception of Chinese vaccines. Prior to the latest Covid-19 outbreaks, the Vietnamese government enjoyed approval ratings of above 90% for its pandemic management.[50] Hanoi remains reluctant to buy Chinese vaccines, except in limited numbers for emergency situations. Apart from concerns about efficacy, this decision is likely due to the prevalent public wariness of Beijing — China’ trust deficit in Southeast Asia is most pronounced in Vietnam. Pew’s polling data from 2017 showed that only 10% of Vietnamese respondents had a favourable view of China (against 88% who viewed it negatively)[51], a sentiment also reflected in the annual State of Southeast Asia Surveys by the ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute.[52]

Such anti-China feelings, seemingly ingrained among the Vietnamese public as an almost unconscious bias, explain the largely negative reaction to China’s donation of 500,000 Sinopharm doses in June 2021. On local mainstream and social media, many rejected the vaccine outright, either out of visceral anti-China attitudes or an entrenched distrust of made-in-China products. An overwhelming majority were willing to wait and pay more to get their top vaccine choices of Pfizer and Moderna, while some would rather choose AstraZeneca, Russia’s Sputnik V or Vietnam’s homegrown vaccines.[53] However, public acceptance of Chinese vaccines could grow since alternatives remain in short supply while new infections are sweeping across southern Vietnam. The authorities of the badly-hit Ho Chi Minh City (with 8492 Covid-19 deaths as of 30 August 2021) recently allowed the import of five million Sinopharm doses, and long queues have formed at some vaccination sites.[54] Some, however, reportedly left upon knowing that they would receive a Chinese vaccine.[55] 

CONCLUSION

Despite the above-mentioned factors undermining public trust in Chinese vaccines among Southeast Asians, there remain pockets of enthusiasm for Chinese vaccines. Among Singaporeans doubtful about the newer mRNA-based vaccines, Sinovac and Sinopharm have some appeal since they rely on the “more established” technology of using an inactivated virus.[56] In Singapore-based vaccine-sceptical channels on Telegram, a recurring topic of discussion revolves around Sinovac and Sinopharm as less risky alternatives to the Pfizer and Moderna shots. Those enquiring were more concerned about the vaccines’ relative safety rather than their efficacy, driven by fears about the supposed hazards of mRNA vaccine technology.[57] 

Sinovac and Sinopharm are also attractive options for those with extensive links or travel plans to China. In March 2021, Beijing announced that “it will simplify visa applications” for foreigners immunised with a Chinese vaccine.[58] Chinese embassy officials have also hinted that recipients of Sinovac would find it “very convenient” when applying for a visa.[59] Immigration considerations also underlined the agreement between Vietnam and China to reserve the 500,000 Sinopharm shots for Chinese nationals living in the Vietnam, Vietnamese citizens heading to China for work and study, and those living in the border areas.[60]

Public reactions to Chinese vaccines, which largely trend negative, suggest a non-linear relationship between China’s vaccine diplomacy and its soft power in the region – especially at the popular level. Support for Chinese vaccines appears sporadic compared to the widespread doubts on the ground about their reliability (be it scientifically-informed or misinformation-fuelled). China has its work cut out to improve public confidence in its vaccine offerings and made-in-China products more generally. Furthermore, with populist anti-China narratives against reliance on Sinopharm and Sinovac emerging in some parts of the region, it remains to be seen whether Beijing will succeed in projecting an image of a more “reliable, loveable and respectable China” among ordinary Southeast Asians.

Going forward, public opinions of Chinese vaccines in Southeast Asia will be subjected to the pandemic’s unpredictable trajectory. For some Southeast Asian countries, Chinese vaccines may be the only viable choice for large-scale vaccinations if other vaccine manufacturers are not able to provide prompt and sufficient supplies. Given the ongoing surge of infections in the region, the counsel by Indonesia’s health minister that “a good vaccine is the one that is available” still holds true. The emergence of newer variants and the need for booster shots could also change how the various vaccines are perceived. Furthermore, the “mixing and matching method” of different vaccines, pioneered by Thailand and under consideration by The Philippines and other countries,[61] suggests a pathway where Chinese and other vaccines could be deployed in a complementary rather than mutually exclusive way. Another potential game-changer is China’s venture into mRNA-based Covid-19 vaccine development.[62] If successful, this will significantly improve the appeal of China’s future vaccine offerings in the region. The game of vaccine diplomacy is not over yet. 

ISEAS Perspective 2021/115, 1 September 2021


ENDNOTES

[1] “Wang Yi: China provides over 190m COVID-19 vaccine doses to ASEAN members”, CGTN, 03 August 2021, https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-08-03/Wang-Yi-China-provides-over-190m-vaccine-doses-to-ASEAN-members-12qBgPnY5C8/index.html. For further details, please see Khairulanwar Zaini, “China’s Vaccine Diplomacy in Southeast Asia – A Mixed Record”, ISEAS Perspective, 2021/86, /articles-commentaries/iseas-perspective/2021-86-chinas-vaccine-diplomacy-in-southeast-asia-a-mixed-record-by-khairulanwar-zaini.

[2] International COVID-19 vaccine attitudes, YouGov, https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/4e9ls5v0js/YouGov%20-%20international%20COVID-19%20vaccine%20attitudes.pdf.

[3] The ten Western countries surveyed were Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden, the United States and the United Kingdom.

[4] Bestian Nainggolan, “Aroma ”Nasionalisme” dalam Pilihan Vaksin Covid-19”, Kompas, 23 January 2021, https://www.kompas.id/baca/riset/2021/01/23/aroma-nasionalisme-dalam-pilihan-vaksin-covid-19.

[5] “Siapa Enggan Divaksin? Tantangan Dan Problem Vaksinasi Covid-19 Di Indonesia”, National Survey by Indikator Politik Indonesia, Feb 2021, https://indikator.co.id/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Materi-Rilis-Indikator-Feb_21-02-2021.pdf.

[6] Neill Fronde, “Suan Dusit Poll: most people will get gov’t Covid-19 vaccine”, Thaiger,23 May 2021, https://thethaiger.com/news/national/suan-dusit-poll-most-people-will-get-govt-covid-19-vaccine.

[7] “Most see Covid situation as ‘extremely serious’: poll”, Bangkok Post, 18 July 2021, https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2150727/most-see-covid-situation-as-extremely-serious-poll.

[8] Interesting, 50% expressed their desire to continue with Sinopharm for their follow-up shots, with only 42.2% wanting an mRNA vaccine. This higher receptiveness towards Sinopharm could perhaps be attributed to the apparent royal imprimatur on the vaccine, since it was the royal academy of Thai Princess Chulabhorn that brought in the stock of one million doses. See “Thailand authorises Sinopharm COVID-19 vaccine, royal academy seeks 1 million doses”, Channel NewsAsia, 28 May 2021, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/thailand-authorises-sinopharm-covid-19-vaccine-royal-academy-seeks-1-million-doses-1415091.

[9] Sofia Tomacruz, “46% of adult Filipinos still unwilling to get vaccinated vs COVID-19”, Rappler, 25 February 2021, https://www.rappler.com/nation/octa-research-filipinos-covid-19-vaccine-willingness-february-2021.

[10]  “First Quarter 2021 Social Weather Survey: 63% of adult Filipinos prefer the USA as a source of Covid-19 vaccines”, Social Weather Services, 24 May 2021, https://www.sws.org.ph/downloads/media_release/pr20210524%20-%20SWR%202021-I%20Preferred%20country-origins%20and%20brands%20of%20Covid19%20vaccine%20(media%20release).pdf.

[11] For example, the first vaccine that came to Indonesia was Sinovac (8 Dec 2020), followed by AstraZeneca (8 March 2021) and  Pfizer (19 August 201) and Moderna. The same goes for Thailand and the Philippines in the early months of 2021. Meanwhile, Singapore experienced the opposite – Pfizer and Moderna were made available first before Sinovac. This might influence the changing attitudes towards Chinese and other vaccines at different periods of time.

[12] COVID-19: Willingness to be vaccinated, YouGov, https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/articles-reports/2021/01/12/covid-19-willingness-be-vaccinated.

[13] “WIN World Survey: Covid-19 Vaccine and Intention to Travel in 2021”, Worldwide Independent Network of Market Research, 27 December 2020, https://winmr.com/win-world-survey-covid19-vaccine-and-intention-to-travel-in-2021.

[14] Syed Alwi, S.A.R., E Rafidah, A Zurraini et al., “A survey on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and concern among Malaysians”, BMC Public Health 21, no. 1129 (2021), DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-11071-6.

[15] The Ministry of Health, National Immunization Technical Advisory Group, UNICEF, and World Health Organization, “COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance Survey in Indonesia”, November 2020, https://covid19.go.id/storage/app/media/Hasil%20Kajian/2020/November/vaccine-acceptance-survey-en-12-11-2020final.pdf.

[16]  “Siapa Enggan Divaksin? Tantangan Dan Problem Vaksinasi Covid-19 Di Indonesia”, National Survey by Indikator Politik Indonesia, op. cit.

[17] Tomacruz, “46% of adult Filipinos”.

[18] Angelito P. Bautista Jr., Doris G. Bleza, Dianne M. Balibrea, and Cynthia Equiza, “Acceptability of Vaccination Against COVID-19 Among Selected Residents of the Cities of Caloocan, Malabon, and Navotas, Philippines”, preprints.org, April 2021, https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202104.0702/v1.

[19] “Singapore’s Older Adults Resist COVID-19 Vaccinations”, SMU, 06 Jul 2021, https://news.smu.edu.sg/news/2021/07/06/singapores-older-adults-resist-covid-19-vaccinations.

[20] Yanuar Nugroho and Sofie Shinta Syarief, “Grave Failures in Policy and Communication in Indonesia during the COVID-19 Pandemic”, ISEAS Perspective, 2021/113, /articles-commentaries/iseas-perspective/2021-113-grave-failures-in-policy-and-communication-in-indonesia-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-by-yanuar-nugroho-and-sofie-shinta-syarief. See also Fistra Janrio Tandirerung, “Poor coronavirus handling: A warning to reshape Indonesia`s scientific literacy”, The Jakarta Post, 01 December 2020, https://www.thejakartapost.com/academia/2020/12/01/insight-poor-coronavirus-handling-a-warning-to-reshape-indonesias-scientific-literacy.html.

[21] Najmah, Siti Khodijah, Najema Alkaff et al., “Believe it or not, it’s Covid-19”, Intersections: Gender and Sexuality in Asia and the Pacific 45 (2021), http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue45/najmah2.html.

[22] Najmah, Sharyn Graham Davies and Kusnan, “What is behind vaccine hesitancy in Indonesia?”, New Mandala, 25 May 2021, https://www.newmandala.org/whats-behind-covid-19-vaccine-hesitancy-in-indonesia.

[23] “How vaccine disinformation, hesitancy is undermining Southeast Asia’s virus response”, South China Morning Post, 1 July 2021, https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/3139405/how-vaccine-disinformation-hesitancy-undermining-southeast.

[24] Covid Research Centre and Mustafa Ali Mohd, “Is the Pfizer vaccine suitable for Malaysia?”, Astro Awani. 12 December 2020,https://www.astroawani.com/berita-malaysia/pfizer-vaccine-suitable-malaysia-272804.

[25] “Come clean on Pfizer vaccine deal, Ku Li tells govt”, The Vibes, 7 December 2020, https://www.thevibes.com/articles/news/8794/come-clean-on-pfizer-vaccine-deal-ku-li-tells-govt.

[26] Ashley Westerman, “Filipinos hesitant about getting COVID jab after dengue fever vaccine debacle”, The World, 19 May 2021, https://www.pri.org/stories/2021-05-19/filipinos-hesitant-about-getting-covid-jab-after-dengue-fever-vaccine-debacle.

[27] David Rose, “‘Non-halal’ measles-rubella vaccine hits resistance in Muslim Indonesia”, South China Morning Post, 1 September 2018, https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/society/article/2162079/non-halal-measles-rubella-vaccine-hits-resistance-muslim-indonesia.

[28] Harapan Harapan, Abram Wager, Amanda Yufika et al., “Acceptance of a COVID-19 Vaccine in Southeast Asia: A Cross-Sectional Study in Indonesia”, Frontiers in Public Health (2020), DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00381.

[29] See “Low Efficacy of Chinese Shots Sows Concern on Global Rollout”, Bloomberg, 12 April 2021, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-11/sinovac-shot-cuts-risk-of-symptomatic-covid-in-half-in-key-study and Emma O’Brien and Dong Lyu, “China’s Biotech Learning Curve”, Bloomberg, 3 June 2021, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-06-03/china-s-biotech-learning-curve.

[30] “Antibodies from Sinovac’s COVID-19 shot fade after about 6 months, booster helps – study”, 12 August 2021, https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/antibodies-sinovacs-covid-19-shot-fade-after-about-6-months-booster-helps-study-2021-07-26.

[31] Hariz Baharuddin, “HSA evaluating additional data from Sinovac on its vaccine”, Straits Times, 16 July 2021,https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/hsa-evaluating-additional-data-from-sinovac-on-its-vaccine.

[32] Nicholas Yong, “‘Significant’ problems linked to Sinovac vaccine in other countries: MOH official”, Yahoo! News, 18 June 2021, https://sg.news.yahoo.com/significant-problems-sinovac-vaccine-other-countries-moh-official-105357031.html.

[33] Jalelah Abu Bakar, “Those who opt for Sinovac, other vaccines under WHO emergency list to be considered fully vaccinated”, Channel NewsAsia,6 August 2021, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/sinovac-vaccine-covid19-sinopharm-astrazeneca-fully-vaccinated-2096576.

[34] Sui-Lee Wee, “They Relied on Chinese Vaccines. Now They’re Battling Outbreaks.”, New York Times, 22 June 2021,https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/22/business/economy/china-vaccines-covid-outbreak.html.

[35] Shotaro Tani, “Indonesia study shows China’s Sinovac vaccine highly effective”, Nikkei, 12 May 2021,https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Coronavirus/COVID-vaccines/Indonesia-study-shows-China-s-Sinovac-vaccine-highly-effective.

[36] United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, “Situation Update: Response to COVID-19 in Indonesia (as of 3 June 2021), https://reliefweb.int/report/indonesia/situation-update-response-covid-19-indonesia-3-june-2021-enid and “Situation Update: Response to COVID-19 in Indonesia (as of 3 August 2021)”, https://reliefweb.int/report/indonesia/situation-update-response-covid-19-indonesia-3-august-2021-enid.

[37] See, for instance, Jon Emont, “Covid-19 Killed 26 Indonesian Doctors in June—at Least 10 Had Taken China’s Sinovac Vaccine”, Wall Street Journal, 27 June 2021,https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-killed-26-indonesian-doctors-in-juneat-least-10-had-taken-chinas-sinovac-vaccine-11624769885; Tom Allard and Kate Lamb, “COVID infections imperil Indonesia’s vaccinated health workers, and hospitals”, Reuters, 7 July 2021, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/covid-infections-imperil-indonesias-vaccinated-health-workers-hospitals-2021-07-07 and “Indonesia reports record number of doctor deaths from Covid-19 in July”, Straits Times, 18 July 2021, https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/indonesia-reports-record-number-of-doctor-deaths-from-covid-19-in-july.

[38] Jitsiree Thongnoi, “Coronavirus: Thai doctors want Pfizer vaccines amid doubts over Sinovac’s efficacy against Delta variant”, SCMP, 14 July 2021, https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/health-environment/article/3140979/coronavirus-thai-doctors-want-pfizer-vaccines-amid.

[39] https://www.facebook.com/DGHisham/posts/4559998030690716.

[40] Alan Robles, “Most Filipinos don’t want a coronavirus vaccine. Especially not a Chinese one”, SCMP, 26 May 2021, https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/health-environment/article/3134950/most-filipinos-dont-want-coronavirus-vaccine.

[41] Sen Nguyen, “Coronavirus: Vietnam approves Sinopharm’s vaccine, but will people take it?”, SCMP, 05 June 2021, https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/health-environment/article/3136137/coronavirus-vietnam-approves-sinopharms-vaccine-will; Tita Sanglee, “Sinovac or Not: Thai Vaccine Politics”, Fulcrum, 31 May 2021, https://fulcrum.sg/sinovac-or-not-thai-vaccine-politics.

[42] Syed Alwi et al., “A survey on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and concern among Malaysians” and Ministry of Health et al., “COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance Survey in Indonesia”.

[43] “Indonesian President Joko warns against rushing for Covid-19 vaccines amid halal concerns”, Straits Times, 19 October 2020, https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/indonesian-president-jokowi-warns-not-to-rush-coronavirus-vaccines-amid-halal-concern; “Indonesia’s MUI to issue fatwa on Covid-19 vaccine amid concerns over halal status”, Straits Times, 09 December 2020, https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/indonesias-mui-to-issue-fatwa-on-covid-19-vaccine-amid-concerns-over-its-halal-status.  

[44] See Hazlin Hassan, “Malaysia says halal issue won’t affect vaccine roll-out”, Straits Times, 10 December 2020, https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/malaysia-says-halal-issue-wont-affect-vaccine-roll-out; “Indonesian clerics declare Sinovac’s COVID-19 vaccine halal”, Reuters, 08 January 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-indonesia-vaccine-idUSKBN29D16U. Only Sinovac has been certified halal by the Indonesian Islamic Religious Council (MUI). The clerical body considers Sinopharm, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca to be haram, but permits their use due to the pandemic emergency and the need to achieve herd immunity.

[45] Kiki Siregar, “President Jokowi gets Sinovac jab to officially launch Indonesia’s COVID-19 vaccination programme”, Channel NewsAsia, 13 January 2021,https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/indonesia-jokowi-gets-first-dose-sinovac-china-vaccine-covid-19-401726; “Minister Khairy Jamaluddin first in Malaysia to get Sinovac jab against Covid-19”, Straits Times, 18 March 2021, https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/coronavirus-minister-khairy-jamaluddin-first-in-malaysia-to-get-sinovac-jab.

[46] Vijitra Duangdee, South China Morning Post, 29 June 2021, https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/health-environment/article/3139074/thailands-conflict-hit-deep-south-mistrust-fuels-covid; Mariyam Ahmad, “Distrust of Thai Govt Drives Vaccine Fears in Deep South, Activist Says”, Benar News, 2 July 2021, https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/thai/vaccine-fears-07022021145254.html.

[47] Tita Sanglee, “Sinovac or Not: Thai Vaccine Politics”, Fulcrum, 31 May 2021, https://fulcrum.sg/sinovac-or-not-thai-vaccine-politics.

[48] Ibid.

[49] Randy Thanthong-Knight, “Thai Protesters Adopt Vaccine Demand in Push to Widen Support”, Bloomberg, 14 July 2021, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-14/thai-protesters-adopt-vaccine-demand-in-push-to-widen-support.

[50] “WIN World Survey”

[51] “Opinion of China”, Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/global/database/indicator/24.

[52] /category/articles-commentaries/state-of-southeast-asia-survey.

[53] Hoang Thi Ha, “A Tale of two Vaccines in Vietnam”, Fulcrum, 12 July 2021, https://fulcrum.sg/a-tale-of-two-vaccines-in-vietnam.

[54] “Người dân TP.HCM xếp hàng chờ tiêm vắc xin Vero Cell” (Ho Chi Minh City peole wait in queues for Vero Cell vaccination), vietnamnet.vn, 14 August 2021, https://vietnamnet.vn/vn/thoi-su/nguoi-dan-tp-hcm-xep-hang-cho-tiem-vac-xin-vero-cell-765885.html.

[55] “TP Hồ Chí Minh: Tiêm vaccine Vero Cell hoàn toàn tự nguyện, người dân đồng ý mới tiêm” (Ho Chi Minh City: Vero Cell inoculation is voluntary), baotintuc.vn, 13 August 2021, https://baotintuc.vn/van-de-quan-tam/tp-ho-chi-minh-tiem-vaccinevero-cell-hoan-toan-tu-nguyen-nguoi-dan-dong-y-moi-tiem-20210813174710553.htm.

[56] Chen Lin Aradhana Aravindan, “Sinovac’s vaccine finds supporters in Singapore despite effectiveness questions elsewhere”, Reuters, 16 July 2021, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/sinovacs-vaccine-finds-supporters-singapore-despite-effectiveness-questions-2021-07-16.

[57] This is based on the author’s observations of the discussions in the various Telegram channels. For more, see Peter Guest, Febriana Firdaus and Tammy Danan, ““Fake news” laws are failing to stem Covid-19 misinformation in Southeast Asia”, Rest of the World, 28 July 2021, https://restofworld.org/2021/fake-news-laws-are-failing-to-stem-covid-19-misinformation-in-southeast-asia.

[58] “China eases visa rules for recipients of its vaccines”, Reuters, 15 March 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-vaccine-idUSKBN2B71XM.

[59] Dewey Sim, “Singaporeans, Chinese nationals queue up for Sinovac vaccine, despite regulators’ concerns over efficacy”, South China Morning Post, 22 June 2021, https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/health-environment/article/3138309/singaporeans-chinese-nationals-queue-sinovac-vaccine.

[60] “Bộ Y tế tiếp nhận 500.000 liều vaccine Vero-Cell của SINOPHARM” (Ministry of Health receives 500,000 Vero-Cell doses of SINOPHARM), Website of the Ministry of Health of Vietnam, https://moh.gov.vn/hoat-dong-cua-lanh-dao-bo/-/asset_publisher/TW6LTp1ZtwaN/content/tiep-nhan-500-000-lieu-vaccine-vero-cell-cua-sinopharm.

[61] Shotaro Tani, “Delta-hit ASEAN turns to vaccine ‘mixing and matching’ boosters”, Nikkei Asia, 20 July 2021, https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Coronavirus/COVID-vaccines/Delta-hit-ASEAN-turns-to-vaccine-mixing-and-matching-boosters.

[62] Josephine Ma, “Domestic clinical trials planned for China’s mRNA Covid-19 vaccine”, South China Morning Post, 22 July 2021, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3142084/domestic-clinical-trials-planned-chinas-mrna-covid-19-vaccine.

ISEAS Perspective is published electronically by: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute   30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace Singapore 119614 Main Tel: (65) 6778 0955 Main Fax: (65) 6778 1735   Get Involved with ISEAS. Please click here: /supportISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute accepts no responsibility for facts presented and views expressed.   Responsibility rests exclusively with the individual author or authors. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission.  
© Copyright is held by the author or authors of each article.
Editorial Chairman: Choi Shing Kwok  
Editorial Advisor: Tan Chin Tiong  
Managing Editor: Ooi Kee Beng  
Editors: William Choong, Lee Poh Onn, Lee Sue-Ann, and Ng Kah Meng  
Comments are welcome and may be sent to the author(s).

2021/114 “Vietnam Continues Efforts to Reduce Trade Dependence on China” by Bich T. Tran

 

As of August 2021, Vietnam has officially joined 15 FTAs, including six ASEAN FTAs with regional partners (China, South Korea, Japan, India, Australia, and New Zealand) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. In this photo, Vietnam’s Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc (R) is pictured on a TV monitor clapping next to other country signatories during the signing ceremony for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) trade pact at the ASEAN summit that is being held online in Hanoi on 15 November 2020. Photo: Nhac NGUYEN, AFP.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • Vietnam’s trade deficit with China has grown rapidly since 2001. Its heavy dependence on Chinese intermediate and capital goods creates vulnerabilities in its entire production chain.
  • China has a history of using trade as a weapon to punish countries with which it has disputes. Escalating tensions in the South China Sea have served as a wake-up call for Hanoi to reduce its trade dependence on Beijing.
  • Towards this end, Vietnam, has over the past few years, signed a number of new-generation free trade agreements (FTAs), including the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which excludes China, and the European Union-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA).
  • However, Vietnam’s efforts to reduce its trade dependence on China through these FTAs have not produced desired outcomes. Both the CPTPP and the EVFTA have come into force in Vietnam for a short while, and it may take more time for Vietnam to fully benefit from them.
  • In the meantime, Vietnam will need to take proactive measures to increase the utilization rate of these agreements and push forward economic and institutional reforms to strengthen its overall economic resilience. If Vietnam is successful in these efforts, its trade reliance on China, which is likely to persist in the short to medium term, will be less of a concern.

* Bich T. Tran is a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of Antwerp, a Fellow at Verve Research, and an Adjunct Fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS). Her research interests include Vietnam’s grand strategy, Southeast Asian states’ relations with major powers, and political leadership.

Download PDF Version

INTRODUCTION

China and Vietnam share a long border of 1,306 km, which has facilitated bilateral trade since the normalization of bilateral relations in 1991. The two-way trade has grown dramatically, and China has been Vietnam’s largest trading partner since 2004. The structure of bilateral trade, however, reveals Vietnam’s substantial dependence on China. Due to the intensifying disputes between the two countries in the South China Sea, this has been increasingly seen by policy makers in Hanoi as a security vulnerability for Vietnam. Hanoi has therefore made conscious efforts to reduce its trade dependence on Beijing. In particular, since 2014, it has signed a string of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with different countries to diversify its economic relations and mitigate its economic vulnerability vis-à-vis China.

This paper accesses the extent of Vietnam’s economic dependence on China, the developments leading to changes in Vietnam’s trade policy, Vietnam’s participation in major new-generation FTAs that excludes China, and whether these FTAs have been effective in helping Vietnam reduce its trade dependence on China.

VIETNAM-CHINA TRADE TIES BEFORE 2014

Vietnam has run a chronic trade deficit with China since the latter joined the World Trade Organization. From US$211 million in 2001, the deficit grew to US$10.01 billion in 2008, when the two countries signed a comprehensive strategic partnership of cooperation. In the joint statement announcing the partnership, “the two sides agreed to actively explore new growth points in the bilateral trade, maintain fast growth of two-way trade and at the same time adopt effective measures to improve trade mix to achieve balanced development in a spirit of complementarity, mutual benefit and win-win results”.[1] However, that objective has not been achieved as Vietnam’s trade deficit with China continues to widen, reaching US$18.52 billion in 2014. Importing too much and too easily from China has constrained Vietnam’s economic potentials and failed to motivate Vietnamese businesses to strengthen their manufacturing capabilities.

Vietnam has also relied heavily on China for intermediate goods (inputs used to produce final goods or finished products). In 2000, Vietnam imported US$1.40 billion worth of intermediate goods from China, accounting for 31.47 percent of all imports from the latter that year. By 2014, that number had soared to US$16.97 billion, accounting for 38.88 percent of Vietnam’s total imports from China.[2] Many of Vietnam’s key export industries, such as textiles, garments and footwear, still heavily depend on inputs imported from China. In 2010, for example, Vietnam imported US$3.13 billion raw materials and accessories for its textile, leather and shoe industries from China, which accounted for 31.94 percent of total imports for this product category.[3] By 2014, the main fabric supplier for Vietnam remained China, with a turnover of US$4.66 billion, accounting for 49.47 percent of all the fabrics that Vietnam imported that year.[4]

Vietnam also depends on China for capital goods, which includes machinery, equipment, vehicles, and tools used to make finished goods. In 2000, Vietnam imported US$600 million of capital goods from China, accounting for 42.85 percent of all imports from the latter. By 2014, that figure had climbed to US$20.19 billion, 33 times higher than in 2000 and accounting for 46.25 percent of Vietnam’s total imports from China.[5] Heavy dependence on imported intermediate and capital goods from China heightens the vulnerability of Vietnam’s entire production chain. If supplies from China were disrupted, Vietnam would face serious economic consequences.

Likewise, Vietnamese businesses that export mostly to China are also vulnerable. For example, China was the leading export market for Vietnam’s rubber in 2010, taking in 464,000 tons and thus accounting for 59.4 percent of Vietnam’s total rubber exports.[6] In 2014, China was still the largest export market for Vietnamese rubber. In addition, Vietnam’s fruit and vegetable products were mainly exported to China to a value of US$436 million in the same year, accounting for 29.2 percent of the country’s total export in this category.[7]

CHINA’S WEAPONIZATION OF TRADE AND VIETNAM’S POLICY CHANGES

China has a record of using trade as a weapon to punish countries with which it quarrels. In 2010, for instance, Beijing barred shipments of rare earth minerals to Japan following the latter’s detention of a Chinese fishing captain near the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.[8] Later that year, China reacted with fury when the Oslo-based Nobel Peace Prize committee revealed that it would honour Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. This resulted in the collapse of Norwegian exports of fresh and frozen salmon to China.[9] During the Scarborough Shoals standoff in 2012, China imposed import restrictions on bananas from the Philippines.[10] After South Korea allowed the United States to deploy a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in 2017, China carried out an aggressive campaign of economic retaliation, including allowing fewer tourists to travel to South Korea, and limiting domestic distribution of South Korean entertainment products, cosmetics as well as automobiles.[11] Following Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s call for an international inquiry into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, China abruptly imposed a ban on lobster imports from Australia, affecting 96 percent of Australian exports of southern rock lobsters. Since then, China has also imposed restrictions on imports of Australian coal, meat, cotton, wool, barley, wheat, timber, copper, sugar and wine.[12]

Vietnam has been trade-dependent on China for a long time, but only after a major bilateral crisis in the South China Sea broke out in 2014 did Vietnam feel the urgency to diversify its economic relations away from China to mitigate risks. In May 2014, Beijing deployed a giant oil rig in Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off its central coast, triggering a wave of anti-China protests and riots in Vietnam that spiralled out of the government’s control. Angry rioters in some central and southern provinces vandalized hundreds of factories thought to belong to Chinese companies, leaving at least six Chinese dead. Beijing issued travel warnings and evacuated many of its nationals. The number of Chinese tourists to Vietnam fell by half in the months that followed.[13] The crisis sparked unprecedented public discourses about the extent and consequences of Vietnam’s economic vulnerabilities vis-à-vis China.

In December 2014, Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung issued Decision No. 2146 to approve a “Blueprint on Restructuring the Industry and Trade Sectors to Serve the Cause of National Industrialization, Modernization and Sustainable Development through 2020, with a Vision toward 2030”.[14] The document urged Vietnam to continue to increase exports rapidly by developing overseas markets, build and strengthen strategic partnerships for sustainable market development, and diversify import and export markets. Most importantly, the document called for “avoiding dependence on one single import market”, the first time a Vietnamese official document has done so. It also directs the country to reasonably control imports and improve Vietnam’s trade balance with main import markets. Although the document did not name China specifically, the drafters of the document clearly had China in mind.

The political report of the 11th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam presented at the 12th National Party Congress in 2016 also guided Vietnam to “continue to research, negotiate, sign, and carefully prepare conditions for the implementation of new-generation free trade agreements,” actively integrate into the international economy, diversify international economic relations, and “avoid dependence on any particular market or partner”.[15] These points were repeated in the Party’s political report presented at its 13th National Congress in early 2021, with a view to “improving the economy’s resilience to negative impacts from external fluctuations”.[16]

NEW-GENERATION FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS AND THEIR IMPACT

Since 2014, Vietnam has made efforts to conclude many FTAs. As of August 2021, Vietnam has officially joined 15 FTAs, including six ASEAN FTAs with regional partners (China, South Korea, Japan, India, Australia, and New Zealand) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. The Vietnam-United Kingdom FTA, which entered into force on 1 January 2021, is Vietnam’s latest trade agreement. Most notably, Vietnam is a party to two new-generation FTAs—the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which excludes China, and the European Union-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA). Unlike traditional FTAs that focus on tariff elimination, new-generation FTAs extend their scope to cover new areas, including state-owned enterprises, intellectual property, labour, environment, transparency, and sustainable development.[17]

The CPTPP, which was formerly known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), came into force on 14 January 2019. It has eleven parties, namely Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. The EVFTA, which went into effect on 1 August 2020, is a trade agreement between Vietnam and 27 EU members. Joining the two FTAs provides Vietnam better access to 37 markets in Asia, Europe, and Latin America, including those with which Vietnam does not have a bilateral trade agreement. Moreover, the CPTPP and EVFTA will provide stable and long-term frameworks for economic cooperation between Vietnam and important partners such as Japan, Australia, Canada, Singapore, and EU members, to reduce its trade dependence on China and to improve its strategic position vis-à-vis China, especially in the South China Sea. As observed by the former American ambassador to Vietnam, Ted Osius, “tension in the South China Sea and the TPP were related. Vietnam viewed the TPP as a strategic agreement that would prevent China from dominating its economy and enable it to secure diplomatic support when the Chinese resorted to bullying tactics.”[18]

Implementing these new-generation FTAs will bring Vietnam great opportunities for economic growth. The CPTPP is expected to increase Vietnam’s exports by 4 percent and the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) by 1.3 percent, by 2030.[19] Meanwhile, the EVFTA is expected to increase Vietnam’s exports to the EU by 20 percent by 2020, 42.7 percent by 2025, and 44.37 percent by 2030. The increase in imports from the EU is projected at 15.28 percent by 2020, 33.06 percent by 2025, and 36.7 percent by 2030. The EVFTA is also expected to raise Vietnam’s GDP by 2.18 to 3.25 percent between 2019 and 2023, 4.57 to 5.30 percent between 2024 and 2028, and 7.07 to 7.72 percent between 2029 and 2033.[20]

New-generation FTAs like the CPTPP and EVFTA will also stimulate Vietnam’s institutional reforms, including refining the legal system and improving the investment and business environment. On 14 June 2019, for example, the National Assembly passed revised laws on insurance business and intellectual property.[21] On 20 November 2019, it also passed a new Labour Code, which took effect in January 2021. The new code offers greater protection for employees and marks the first time Vietnam has allowed the establishment of independent trade unions.[22] These moves are part of Vietnam’s efforts to comply with international standards set in the new-generation FTAs that it has signed.

Participating in the CPTPP and EVFTA also supports Vietnam’s economic restructuring. For example, the two FTAs require products made in Vietnam to use a certain percentage of inputs originating from member states to enjoy preferential treatments offered in these agreements. This will encourage Vietnamese enterprises to use inputs from domestic sources, which, in turn, will stimulate the country’s supporting industries. Before domestic suppliers can meet the demand, Vietnamese firms will need to import inputs from CPTPP and EU partners, thereby helping Vietnam reduce imports from China. In addition, modern technologies from CPTPP members and EU countries will enter Vietnam. Although they may be more expensive than Chinese counterparts, they will over time produce high-quality and international-standard products that can be exported worldwide. Vietnam will therefore have a better chance to move up the global value chains.

However, Vietnam’s endeavours to mitigate its trade dependence on China through these FTAs have not produced expected outcomes yet. After one year of CPTPP implementation, Vietnam’s trade deficit with China in 2019 continued to widen and reached a record high of US$32 billion, a 36 percent year-on-year increase.[23] That year, Vietnam imported US$35.73 billion of capital goods and US$26.60 billion of intermediate goods from China, which accounted for 47.26 percent and 35.20 percent of all imports from China, respectively.[24]

Vietnam’s continued reliance on imports from China is driven by a number of factors. First, the relatively low prices of Chinese products, made possible by China’s economies of scale and developed supply chains, and the geographical proximity between the two countries facilitate China’s exports to Vietnam. In fact, China has long been a primary source of capital goods and intermediate goods for many countries, not just Vietnam. It will be challenging for Vietnam to find substitute import markets or to develop domestic supplies to replace Chinese imports in the short term.

At the same time, many Vietnamese enterprises lack relevant information about the CPTPP and EVFTA, and have therefore not utilized them. For example, although most of them have heard about the CPTPP through media sources, only one out of every 20 businesses knows about CPTPP commitments related to their business activities, and more than 75 percent of surveyed firms are not aware of relevant trade benefits.[25] In 2019, only 1.67 percent of Vietnam’s exports to CPTPP countries took advantage of the agreement’s tariff preferences. This is a very low level of utilization compared to not only the average utilization rate of 37.20 percent for all FTAs of Vietnam in 2019, but also the rate during the first year of many other FTAs.[26]

CONCLUSION

Vietnam’s growing trade deficit with China and its overdependence on capital goods and intermediate goods imported from China are economic vulnerabilities for the country. Due to escalating tensions in the South China Sea, these issues have been considered as a matter of national security for Vietnam. The country has therefore joined the CPTPP and EVFTA to reduce its trade dependence on China. However, so far, this effort by Vietnam has not been as successful as expected. 

Since both the CPTPP and EVFTA have been in effect only for a short while, it may take more time for Vietnam to benefit properly from them, including in terms of reducing its trade dependence on China. In the meantime, Vietnam will need to take proactive measures to increase the utilization rate of these two agreements. For example, Vietnamese authorities should better educate Vietnamese businesses about the CPTPP and EVFTA, especially regarding the opportunities and challenges that they bring. At the same time, Vietnam should also push forward domestic economic and institutional reforms in line with its commitments to strengthen its overall economic resilience. If Vietnam is successful in these efforts, its trade reliance on China, which is likely to persist in the short to medium term, will become less of a security concern for the country.

ISEAS Perspective 2021/114, 27 August 2021


ENDNOTES

[1] Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “China-Viet Nam Joint Statement”, 25 October 2008, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjb_663304/zzjg_663340/yzs_663350/gjlb_663354/2792_663578/2793_663580/t520438.shtml

[2] World Integrated Trade Solution, “Vietnam Product Imports from China in US$ Thousand 2000-2019”, accessed 15 July 2021, https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/VNM/StartYear/2000/EndYear/2019/TradeFlow/Import/Indicator/MPRT-TRD-VL/Partner/CHN/Product/all-groups; World Integrated Trade Solution, “Vietnam Product Import Product Share from China in percent 2000-2019”, accessed 15 July 2021, https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/VNM/StartYear/2000/EndYear/2019/TradeFlow/Import/Indicator/MPRT-PRDCT-SHR/Partner/CHN/Product/all-groups

[3] Vietnam Customs, “Tình hình xuất nhập khẩu tháng 12 và 12 tháng năm 2010” [Import and export situation of December and 12 months of 2010], https://www.customs.gov.vn/Lists/TinHoatDong/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=18059&Category=Th

[4] Vietnam Customs, “Sơ bộ tình hình xuất khẩu, nhập khẩu hàng hóa của Việt Nam tháng 12 và 12 tháng năm 2014” [Preliminary situation of export and import of Vietnam’s goods in December and 12 months of 2014], https://www.customs.gov.vn/Lists/TinHoatDong/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=22019&Category=ThpercentE1percentBBpercent91ngpercent20kpercentC3percentAApercent20HpercentE1percentBApercentA3ipercent20quan

[5] “Vietnam Product Imports from China in US$ Thousand 2000-2019”.

[6] “Import and export situation of December and 12 months of 2010”.

[7] “Export and import of Vietnam’s goods in December and 12 months of 2014”.

[8] Keith Bradsher, “Amid Tension, China Blocks Vital Exports to Japan,”The New York Times, 22 September 2010, https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/business/global/23rare.html

[9] Mark Lewis, “Norway’s salmon rot as China takes revenge for dissiden’s Nobel Prize”, Independent, 23 October 2011, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/norway-s-salmon-rot-china-takes-revenge-dissident-s-nobel-prize-2366167.html

[10] China accounted for more than 30 percent of Philippine banana exports. See, “The China-Philippine Banana War”, Asia Sentinel, 6 June 2012, https://www.asiasentinel.com/p/the-china-philippine-banana-war

[11] Matt Stiles, “Upset over a U.S. missile defense system, China hits South Korea where it hurts — in the wallet”, Los Angeles Times, 28 February 2018, https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-south-korea-tourism-20180228-htmlstory.html

[12] Kevin Rudd, “Why the Quad Alarms China”, Foreign Affairs, 6 August 2021, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-08-06/why-quad-alarms-china.

[13] Adam Taylor, “The $1 billion Chinese oil rig that has Vietnam in flames”, The Washington Post, 19 May 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/05/14/the-1-billion-chinese-oil-rig-that-has-vietnam-in-flames/

[14] Vietnamese Prime Minister, “Quyết định số 2146/QĐ-TTg của Thủ tướng Chính phủ : Phê duyệt Đề án Tái cơ cấu ngành công thương phục vụ sự nghiệp công nghiệp hóa, hiện đại hóa và phát triển bền vững giai đoạn đến năm 2020, tầm nhìn đến năm 2030” [Decision No. 2146/QD-TTg of the Prime Minister: Approving the Project on restructuring the industry and trade sector to serve the cause of industrialization, modernization and sustainable development for the period to 2020, with a vision to 2030], 1 December 2014, http://vanban.chinhphu.vn/portal/page/portal/chinhphu/hethongvanban?class_id=2&mode=detail&document_id=177748

[15] 11th Party Central Committee, “Báo cáo chính trị của Ban Chấp hành Trung ương Đảng khóa XI tại Đại hội đại biểu toàn quốc lần thứ XII của Đảng” [Political report of the 11th Party Central Committee presented at the 12th National Party Congress], accessed 15 July 2021, https://tulieuvankien.dangcongsan.vn/ban-chap-hanh-trung-uong-dang/dai-hoi-dang/lan-thu-xii/bao-cao-chinh-tri-cua-ban-chap-hanh-trung-uong-dang-khoa-xi-tai-dai-hoi-dai-bieu-toan-quoc-lan-thu-xii-cua-dang-1600

[16] 11th Party Central Committee, “Báo cáo chính trị của Ban Chấp hành Trung ương Đảng khóa XII tại Đại hội đại biểu toàn quốc lần thứ XIII của Đảng” [Political report of the 12th Party Central Committee presented at the 13th National Party Congress], accessed 15 July 2021, https://tulieuvankien.dangcongsan.vn/ban-chap-hanh-trung-uong-dang/dai-hoi-dang/lan-thu-xiii/bao-cao-chinh-tri-cua-ban-chap-hanh-trung-uong-dang-khoa-xii-tai-dai-hoi-dai-bieu-toan-quoc-lan-thu-xiii-cua-3669

[17] WTO Center, “Full Text of CPTPP”, accessed 12 August 2021, https://wtocenter.vn/chuyen-de/12782-full-text-of-cptpp; WTO Center, “EU-Vietnam trade and investment agreements”, accessed 15 July 2021, https://wtocenter.vn/chuyen-de/12778-eu-vietnam-trade-and-investment-agreements

[18] Ted Osius, “Nothing Is Impossible: America’s Reconciliation with Vietnam” (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2021), p. 141.

[19] Ministry of Industry and Trade, “Câu Hỏi Thường Gặp” [Frequently Asked Questions], accessed 15 July 2021, http://cptpp.moit.gov.vn/?page=overview&category_id=9f610acd-c168-4829-b0b0-6b3a68711536

[20] WTO Center, “Hỏi – Đáp về Hiệp Định Thương Mại Tự Do giữa Việt Nam và Liên Minh Châu Âu (EVFTA)” [Questions and Answers about the Free Trade Agreement between Vietnam and the European Union (EVFTA)], accessed 15 July 2021, https://wtocenter.vn/file/18228/qa-evfta-updated2.pdf

[21] LuatVietnam, “Law No. 42/2019/QH14 dated June 14, 2019 of the National Assembly on Amending and Supplementing a Number of Articles of the Law on Insurance Business and the Law on Intellectual Property”, accessed 15 July 2021, https://english.luatvietnam.vn/aw-no-42-2019-qh14-dated-june-14-2019-of-the-national-assembly-on-amendment-and-supplement-of-a-number-of-articles-of-the-law-on-insurance-business-175004-Doc1.html

[22] Vietnam Briefing, “Vietnam Approves Labor Code for 2021” accessed 15 July 2021, https://www.vietnam-briefing.com/news/vietnam-approves-labor-code-2021.html/.

[23] Author’s calculations based on data from World Integrated Trade Solution.

[24] “Vietnam Product Imports from China in US$ Thousand 2000-2019”; “Vietnam Product Import Product Share from China in percent 2000-2019”.

[25] WTO Center, “Việt Nam sau 02 năm thực thi Hiệp định CPTPP từ góc nhìn doanh nghiệp” [Vietnam after 2 years of implementing the CPTPP from a business perspective], accessed 15 July 2021, https://wtocenter.vn/file/18394/bao-cao-danh-gia-tinh-hinh-viet-nam-sau-2-nam-thuc-thi-cptpp-tu-goc-nhin-doanh-nghiep.pdf

[26] Ibid.              

ISEAS Perspective is published electronically by: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute   30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace Singapore 119614 Main Tel: (65) 6778 0955 Main Fax: (65) 6778 1735   Get Involved with ISEAS. Please click here: /supportISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute accepts no responsibility for facts presented and views expressed.   Responsibility rests exclusively with the individual author or authors. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission.  
© Copyright is held by the author or authors of each article.
Editorial Chairman: Choi Shing Kwok  
Editorial Advisor: Tan Chin Tiong  
Managing Editor: Ooi Kee Beng  
Editors: William Choong, Lee Poh Onn, Lee Sue-Ann, and Ng Kah Meng  
Comments are welcome and may be sent to the author(s).

“Pandemic Fallout, Disruptive Technologies, and Divergent Demographics: Policy Challenges Facing Countries in the Indo-Pacific” by Jayant Menon