ASEANs

This is the moment East Timor was officially declared ASEAN’s 11th member, what Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao called a ‘historic moment’. East Timor, which gained independence from Indonesia in 2002, is Asia’s youngest nation.

Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao hails membership as beginning of an ‘inspiring new chapter’ for Asia’s youngest nation.

East Timor has joined the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as the bloc’s 11th member state in a move Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao hailed as a “dream realised”.

The flag of East Timor, which is also known as Timor-Leste, was added to ASEAN’s other 10 on Sunday at a formal ceremony at the bloc’s annual summit at the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, drawing loud applause.

An emotional Gusmao said it was a historic moment for his country, with a new beginning that would bring “immense opportunities” for trade and investment.

“For the people of Timor-Leste, this is not only a dream realised, but a powerful affirmation of our journey – one marked by resilience, determination and hope,” Gusmao said.

“Our accession is a testament to the spirit of our people, a young democracy, born from our struggle,” he said.

“This is not the end of a journey. This is the beginning of an inspiring new chapter.”

Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, whose country currently chairs ASEAN, said that East Timor’s accession “completes the ASEAN family – reaffirming our shared destiny and deep sense of regional kinship”.

The country’s admission follows a 14-year wait, and is seen as one of the crowning achievements of Malaysia’s ASEAN chairmanship.

East Timor was ruled for three centuries by Portugal, which abruptly pulled out of its colony in 1975, paving the way for annexation and an at-times bloody occupation by neighbouring Indonesia before East Timor won full independence in 2002.

East Timorese President Jose Ramos-Horta, who also witnessed the event on Sunday, has long campaigned for ASEAN membership. An application was first submitted in 2011, during his first term.

Ramos-Horta, 75, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996, had raised the idea of East Timor joining ASEAN way back in the 1970s, to secure his country’s future through regional integration.

East Timor was granted observer status to the regional body in 2022, but its full membership was delayed by various challenges.

The country of 1.4 million people is among Asia’s poorest and hopes to see gains from integrating its fledgling economy, which at about $2bn represents only a tiny fraction of ASEAN’s collective $3.8 trillion gross domestic product (GDP).

Some 42 percent of East Timor’s population lives below the national poverty line, while nearly two-thirds of its citizens are under 30 years old.

Its major source of government revenue comes from the oil and gas industry, but with resources quickly becoming depleted, it is looking to diversify.

ASEAN membership gives East Timor access to the bloc’s free trade deals, investment opportunities and a broader regional market.

In an interview with Singapore-based Channel News Asia in September, Ramos-Horta said that his country must maintain stability and not burden ASEAN, adding that East Timor could contribute its experience on conflict, including for disputes over borders and the South China Sea.

“If we can in the future contribute towards strengthening ASEAN mechanisms such as conflict mechanisms, that is key. In each country in ASEAN, we put emphasis on dialogue,” Ramos-Horta said.

ASEAN began as a five-member bloc in 1967 and has gradually expanded, with Cambodia previously the most recent addition in 1999.

The viral claim that ASEAN warned Indonesia of possible disintegration by 2030 due to endemic corruption was swiftly debunked. No such statement appeared in the May 2025 ASEAN Summit documents nor in the World Bank’s official publications. However, its widespread circulation exposes a deeper unease—one rooted in the undeniable truth that corruption remains a corrosive force, weakening Indonesia’s economic foundations, threatening public trust, and undermining regional integrity.

This episode is more than a fact-checking exercise. It underscores a sobering reality: while Indonesia remains Southeast Asia’s largest democracy, its governance architecture is visibly strained. From chronic procurement fraud to weakened anti-graft institutions, the Indonesian state has yet to tame the entrenched networks of clientelism and political patronage that siphon national wealth and public trust alike.

The 46th ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur instead highlighted ‘Inclusivity and Sustainability’ as its 2045 vision—aspirations that cannot be realised unless the region tackles systemic governance failures. And nowhere is this more urgent than in Indonesia, where economic leakage, institutional decay, and digital disinformation form a toxic triangle.

Recent research paints a stark picture. Corruption is estimated to drain Indonesia of 2–3% of its GDP annually, amounting to tens of billions in lost services, distorted investments, and inflated procurement budgets. Inflation eased to 1.6% by year-end 2024 (2.3% average) and remained within the 2.5 ± 1% target corridor in 2025—testimony to tight policy coordination between Bank Indonesia and the government. Transparency International ranked Indonesia 37 out of 100 in its 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index—lagging behind ASEAN peers such as Vietnam and Malaysia. The World Bank’s Control of Corruption indicator placed Indonesia at –0.49, well below the global average.

The local impact is even more severe. Field studies show that in provinces where corruption exceeds certain thresholds, economic growth slows dramatically. Procurement funds vanish. Schools and hospitals are underbuilt or shoddily provided. Meanwhile, decentralisation reforms, intended to empower local government, have instead multiplied the number of hands skimming public budgets.

What does this mean geopolitically?

First, Indonesia’s capacity to lead the region as ASEAN’s de facto heavyweight is compromised by domestic governance weaknesses. Political capture by economic elites stifles reform. Recurrent scandals—some reaching into defence procurement and public infrastructure—fuel public cynicism and blunt Jakarta’s credibility when promoting regional norms of transparency and the rule of law.

Second, ASEAN’s credibility suffers. For all the talk of a rules-based order, corruption undermines the region’s soft power. If democratic erosion and institutional decline persist in member states, ASEAN risks becoming a hollow vessel for lofty declarations. The disinformation surrounding Indonesia’s supposed 2030 ‘collapse’ may be false, but its virality hints at waning confidence in ASEAN’s integrity.

Third, the digital ecosystem accelerates distrust. The viral ‘ASEAN warning’ narrative spread rapidly across Southeast Asian platforms. While easily disproven by reading the summit communiqué, few do. This reveals the new battleground: disinformation thrives when formal institutions lose moral authority. Where trust erodes, conspiracies take root.

What’s needed is not another ASEAN statement, but tangible action on governance resilience. Three avenues stand out.

ASEAN must initiate a Regional Integrity Compact—a binding, independently monitored governance framework that benchmarks anti-corruption reforms across member states. Inspired by the OECD’s Anti-Corruption Network, this compact should integrate real-time procurement tracking, sectoral red-flag indicators, and transparency scorecards linked to UNCAC compliance. A designated unit within the ASEAN Secretariat, working alongside neutral data partners, must publish annual reports accessible to civil society, investors, and member parliaments alike. Only through enforceable metrics—not rhetorical declarations—can ASEAN restore credibility in its governance ambitions.

Indonesia’s leadership in ASEAN hinges on the restoration of independent prosecutorial authority. The rollback of the Corruption Eradication Commission’s (KPK) powers since 2019 has severely compromised public trust. This must be reversed through emergency legislative amendment to reinstate its wiretapping capacity, shield it from executive interference, and ensure prosecutorial continuity. Pilot programs should be deployed for independent project audits in high-risk sectors like infrastructure and defence, backed by civic oversight dashboards. No ASEAN leadership claim can be sustained if Indonesia cannot clean its own house.

Australia and Japan—both leading ASEAN dialogue partners—must anchor a new Strategic Governance Partnership for the Indo-Pacific. This initiative should target forensic accounting training, secure whistleblower systems, and regional ombuds institutional support, particularly in fragile democracies. By aligning with the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, such a partnership would counteract opaque foreign investment and safeguard institutional resilience. As Beijing’s economic influence grows, a values-based governance bulwark is not merely ideal—it is indispensable.

Indonesia is not Sri Lanka. It retains a pluralist system, growing GDP, and an active civil society. But the Sri Lankan collapse remains a cautionary tale: corruption-fueled inequality, elite impunity, and opaque debt deals led to mass revolt and institutional failure. The same fault lines—if left unaddressed—exist in Indonesia.

Moreover, as Southeast Asia navigates a more contested Indo-Pacific, governance is no longer a domestic issue; it is strategic. Poor governance undermines resilience, emboldens foreign interference, and weakens regional cohesion. To dismiss the viral ‘disintegration’ claim as mere misinformation is to miss the signal in the noise.

ASEAN’s 2045 vision will be built not in summits but in procurement offices, audit bureaus, and independent courts. Indonesia’s leadership depends not only on its economy or geography, but on its willingness to confront the rot within. The disinformation storm is a symptom. The cure is integrity.

ASEAN nations have been closely observing the trajectory of US-China relations and have expressed their apprehensions vis-à-vis the uncertainty arising out of Trump tariffs. Leaders of Singapore and Malaysia have been particularly vocal in expressing their apprehensions.

While speaking at the opening of the 46th ASEAN Summit held at Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysian PM, Anwar Ibrahim, referred to the imposition of tariffs by US President Donald Trump. Said the Malaysian PM:

‘Indeed, a transition in the geopolitical order is underway, and the global trading system is under further strain with the recent imposition of US unilateral tariffs,’

How ASEAN countries have benefited from the China+1 strategy

Here it would be pertinent to point out that ASEAN nations have also benefitted from the China+1 strategy of Western companies. Through this strategy, Western companies have been keen to reduce their dependence upon China and have been shifting to several ASEAN countries. Companies have moved from China not just to Vietnam but to other ASEAN nations like Indonesia and Malaysia as well.

Impact of China-US thaw on ASEAN

While many would have thought that ASEAN countries would heave a sigh of relief after the China-US agreement signed in Geneva, via which the US reduced tariffs against China from 145 percent to 30 percent. There has been a mixed reaction to the same, given the possibility of companies redrawing their China+1 plans.

Malaysia’s interest in BRICS+

Another important impact of Trump’s policies has been ASEAN countries seeking entry into multilateral organizations. Indonesia entered BRICS as a member in January 2025.

Malaysia, which entered BRICS as a partner country in October 2024, has also applied for full membership. Two other ASEAN countries, Vietnam and Thailand, also entered BRICS.

Malaysian Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan, while commenting on the ASEAN nation’s interest in joining BRICS:

‘Malaysia’s desire to join BRICS represents its effort to uphold policies and identity as an independent and neutral country, striking a balance with great powers and opening up new business and investment opportunities,’

Malaysia shares close economic ties with China as well as the US and the EU. Malaysia’s bilateral trade with China in 2024 exceeded $200 billion ($212.04 billion). The ASEAN nation’s trade with the US was estimated at $80.2 billion in 2024.

The Malaysian PM, Anwar Ibrahim, had earlier proposed an ‘Asian Monetary Fund’ as an alternative to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In recent years, Malaysia has been pushing for “de-dollarization,” or trade in non-dollar currencies, with several countries.

Anwar Ibrahim’s Russia visit and discussion of BRICS+

Apart from several other bilateral issues, the role of Malaysia in BRICS+ was also discussed during the recent meeting between Malaysian PM Anwar Ibrahim and Russian President Vladimir Putin during the former’s Russia visit. The Malaysian PM thanked Putin for his role in facilitating Malaysia’s entry into BRICS+. The Russian president, on his part, welcomed the entry of Malaysia and other ASEAN nations as partner countries into BRICS+ during Russia’s chairmanship of BRICS+ in 2024.

During the meeting of Australian PM Anthony Albanese and Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto during the former’s Indonesia visit, one of the issues that was discussed was Indonesia’s entry into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and OECD. The CPTPP—earlier the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)—was initially conceived by former US President Barack Obama. During US President Donald Trump’s earlier presidency, the US had pulled out of TPP. While the organization did face a setback after the US exit from the CPTPP — members like Japan and Australia, which are wary of China’s growing clout in the Indo-Pacific, have been playing a key role in giving a push to economic linkages. Two other ASEAN countries—Malaysia and Vietnam—are already members of the CPTPP.

The Indonesian president thanked Australia for its support for Indonesian into the CPTPP.

The Australian PM, while commenting on his support for Indonesia’s entry into CPTPP:

‘I assure you, Mr. President, of Australia’s support for your joining the OECD as well as your accession to the CPTPP.’

The Australian PM also reiterated Indonesia’s strategic importance in the context of the Indo-Pacific.

Indonesia’s important role on the global stage

Indonesia has robust ties with both China and the US and seeks to use multilateral platforms for further enhancing its clout, as several middle powers have done in recent years. Indonesia has sought to present itself as an important voice of the Global South and as an important link between the G7 and G20.

ASEAN-China-GCC

On the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit, the first ASEAN-China-GCC Summit was held for the first time. The Malaysian PM dubbed this as extraordinary. Anwar Ibrahim also said:

‘I am confident that ASEAN, the GCC, and China can draw upon our unique attributes and shape a future that is more connected, more resilient, and more prosperous.’

Conclusion

In conclusion, the interest of countries like Malaysia and Indonesia in entering multilateral organizations is driven by the changing geopolitical situation in ASEAN and beyond. These nations need to be deft and nimble and can not afford to have a zero-sum approach towards the same. The recent ASEAN Summit is a strong illustration of how ASEAN member states are seeking to diversify their relationships by seeking entry into important multilateral blocs. Apart from this, one point that is evident from the recent ASEAN summit was that ASEAN as a grouping is also seeking to strengthen ties with groups like the GCC.

Among the geopolitical dynamics of the Southeast Asian region, cultural heritage has become a battleground of identity that presents both challenges and opportunities for ASEAN regional solidarity. As a manifestation of national identity inherent in a nation’s collective identity, claims over cultural heritage often trigger diplomatic tensions when they intersect with nationalistic sentiments. The case of the Cambodia-Thailand dispute over Phra Viharn Temple is clear evidence of how cultural heritage can transform a simple conflict into a multidimensional sovereignty issue. But behind its destructive potential, nationalism also holds constructive power that can strengthen ASEAN cultural integration through respect for diversity and diplomacy based on cultural exchange. This article explores the complex role of nationalism in the dynamics of ASEAN cultural cooperation, offering perspectives on how such sentiments can be managed and directed to strengthen the region’s collective identity without compromising the cultural uniqueness of each member state.

Based on cases of conflict related to cultural heritage that have occurred in the ASEAN region, it can be said that nationalist sentiment has a major effect on exacerbating conflict. The reason is, as is known, that cultural heritage itself is the “identity” of a nation that represents the nation, which provides meaning for individuals and groups in understanding the world and their position in it. The presence of this culture also distinguishes it from other nations, which is the point of an identity itself. If the identity is claimed by other parties, of course this becomes a sensitive issue because the identity itself is already an ownership that reflects the characteristics of the nation.

Cultural heritage becomes a national identity, which will build its own pride for a nation. As happens in Indonesia, which consists of various provinces with their respective cultural identities, these differences make people from different cultures unite to represent Indonesia as a nation that has many cultures. This form of pride then creates a sense of “nationalism,” where a nation will love and preserve its identity.

Then what if the cultural heritage that is the identity of this nation is claimed by another party? It will certainly bring up feelings like losing self-identity. This feeling then triggers conflict when a nation fights for its identity in the form of cultural heritage, as in the Cambodia-Thailand dispute over the Phra Viharn Temple claim, where both parties have different views regarding the claimed cultural heritage. Preah Vihear Temple is located on Mount Dangrek, Preah Vihear Province, in the northern part of Cambodia and Sisaket Province in southwestern Thailand, which has led to unclear boundaries between the two countries. Preah Vihear Temple was named a world heritage site in 2007, triggering a territorial dispute over the temple’s claim. This claim issue then shifted into a more serious political issue that threatened national sovereignty with the support of nationalist demonstrations. Thus, nationalist sentiments can be influential in exacerbating conflicts and creating issues that spill over into the realm of politics and sovereignty for the reasons explained earlier.

Is nationalism always an obstacle to cultural cooperation in ASEAN? Not always. There will be a role for nationalism in both directions, either as an obstacle or a driver of cultural cooperation in ASEAN, depending on how the sentiment is “expressed.” If seen from the cases that have occurred, it is true that there are times when nationalism is an obstacle. Where the impact of this conflict affects cultural cooperation, such as the refusal to recognize sovereignty and cultural development, as done by Thailand against Cambodia. It also affects cultural exchange policies, which, as we know, can be a platform for diplomacy between countries. With cases related to nationalism, there can be a feeling of fear of pollution of national culture by foreign influences so that cultural exchanges are limited on the grounds of “protecting” local culture. In ASEAN itself, nationalism affects cultural cooperation, which is a regional vision, which in turn creates competition rather than cultural collaboration.

Considering these things, it is evident that nationalism is an obstacle. However, the role of nationalism as a driver cannot be denied and ignored. The existence of nationalism also plays a role in encouraging cultural cooperation in the ASEAN region, such as strengthening cultural cooperation itself by respecting mutual forms of identity between nations in the ASEAN region. Nationalism also strengthens cultural cooperation through cultural exchanges where the cultures of each country are introduced to each other. Within the ASEAN framework, this cultural exchange is a forum for cultural diplomacy, which is soft power. In addition, each country can also support cultural collaboration so as to create an ASEAN image that supports the preservation of ASEAN culture and identity diversity.

Because of the two-way influence of nationalist sentiment, it proves that it is not always an obstacle. What needs to be done is to have countries and nations turn the sentiment of nationalism into a driver of cultural cooperation in ASEAN, for example, by viewing the sentiment as a cultural interaction rather than a threat that must be limited to foreign cultures or by strengthening ASEAN integration, where its role is to facilitate cultural cooperation in the ASEAN region.