ASEAN can be a powerful regional bloc, but geopolitics is stopping it from being one. Fifty-five "happy birthdays" later, Asean still hasn't found a way to integrate the 660-million-strong region into a single market.
Our International Trade and Industry Minister Tengku Datuk Seri Zafrul Tengku Abdul Aziz is right. There will be no Asian Century without a strong Asean at its core. Put differently, first an Asean Century, then an Asian Century.
We think China alone can't make the Asian Century. Already, economists are saying India will soon take over as the world's third largest economy. But this is a Leader for another time.
We say geopolitics, not just politics, because Asean member states are being played one against the other by more powerful outside forces.
Take the case of the Southeast Asian bloc's peace plan for Myanmar. The ironically named Five-Point Consensus is 21 months old and yet the junta led by Min Aung Hlaing refuses to honour it.
If anything, the recalcitrant general has ramped up his brutal murders and suppression. Two dangers have made this possible. One, arms supplies by Asian big powers near and far have fuelled his bad behaviour.
Two, dissension within Asean on how to deal with Myanmar. This became crystal clear when Cambodia took over the chair of the bloc. Thus was born the Cambodia way of seeing Myanmar and the rest of Asean's way of seeing the errant member of the bloc. Because of this discord, the Asean peace plan for Myanmar remains a consensus only in name.
Asean's geopolitical dispute is influencing its economy. As a single market, the bloc has the chance to be the fifth largest economy in the world, but it doesn't want to be. Why the reluctance? First geopolitics. There are countries in the bloc that are China-friendly or America-friendly.
As for economics, Asean's diverse economies may hold the answer, according to an analysis by the CFA Institute. If the 10 economies of the bloc were a spectrum, it would look like this: newly developing markets such as those of Cambodia and Laos on one end and wealthy ones such as Singapore and Brunei on the other. The remaining six markets, both established and emerging, fall in between.
If multilateral markets are a problem, then the bilateral market is the answer. In the case of Malaysia, Indonesia is the market we should be after. To Tengku Zafrul, as he argued in his op-ed yesterday, Indonesia is essential for the Asean strategy of any country.
We say the Indonesian market is a must even without the Asean single market. Why Indonesia? Start with its population of 280 million, which is one-third of the Asean single market.
Secondly, Jakarta is our second largest trading partner and the third largest regional source of foreign investment. Finally, there is the need to speak with one voice, which Asean very often finds hard to do. Malaysia and Indonesia have a bilateral reason to do so: the anti-palm oil campaign.
Both are the world's biggest producers of the commodity. Except for Thailand, the rest of Asean opts not to fight an Asean war against anti-palm oil campaigners. The Asean lesson, with all its irony, is this: even in the crowd of 10 countries, there is a need for a bilateral talk and walk. Multilateralism in Southeast Asia is an idea whose time hasn't come.