AsiaGlobal Voices

Nahel Merzouk, a 17-year-old teenager of Algerian-Moroccan descent, was shot dead by the police on June 27 after being stopped for a traffic violation while driving a car in Nanterre, a suburb of Paris, France. His killing sparked demonstrations, which turned into a big riot. Most of the masses participating were teenagers and young people. For almost a week, France was in chaos. This came after a long series of large demonstrations and riots triggered by the government of President Emmanuel Macron moving to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64.

The events in France provided important lessons, especially for the Indonesian people. First, this incident underlined the importance of respecting human rights and upholding the principle of accountability in law enforcement. The government must continue to ensure that the security forces act in accordance with standard operating procedures, carry out their duties with proportionality, promote professionalism and are accountable.

Second, it is necessary to prioritize dialogue and reconciliation. In a tense situation, it is important to promote dialogue and reconciliation between security forces and society. Steps to improve communication, mutual understanding, and build trust will help avoid escalation of conflict and violence.

Third, police reform is urgently needed. Reform needs to start from top down. One key measure is to make the recruitment process transparent and accountable. Good professional training, openness and a sense responsibility are needed to strengthen police relations with the community.

Fourth, the riots in France were driven by young people. The incident underlined the importance of understanding and meeting the needs of youth in society. Efforts must be made to provide inclusive education, decent work and opportunities to participate actively in social and political processes.

The decision by the US Supreme Court to end affirmative action is a hot topic in Korea because of controversies over the issue of private education including the fairness of the Suneung, the College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT).

Affirmative action in the US clearly had an effect on correcting discrimination, increasing the admission rate of Blacks to prestigious universities. But the mechanism discriminated against whites and Asians, it was argued.

After the ruling, Harvard University said that “innovative education and research come from a community of people with diverse backgrounds and life experiences.” It added: “A vibrant community with members from all walks of life will continue to be maintained.” Harvard's argument is correct in terms of education and research. Creative innovation comes from diversity. But the need for diversity does not override the universal right to ban racial discrimination. If the system introduced to correct discrimination has become a contributor to racial discrimination, it is desirable to abolish it.

Legacy admissions (admitting children of alumni) at Harvard and many other universities seems like the exact opposite of affirmative action. In terms of community diversity, as Harvard University says, the two are like two sides of the same coin. This is because it is advantageous for community diversity to have alumni offspring from good families, even if they are lacking in credentials. Different life experiences increase diversity, and they are likely to make large donations in future.

If Asians and Caucasians from poor families are treated the same as Blacks, there would be no problem. But it is not fair to have your chances of getting into a prestigious university just because of your skin color. I understand Harvard University's emphasis on community diversity, but it is wrong for someone to be systematically discriminated against to maintain artificial diversity.

At the end of her visit to China, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said that the talks were frank and helped stabilize relations between the two powers. She also pointed out that there are disagreements between the United States and China on many issues. Washington is particularly concerned that Beijing is violating its World Trade Organization (WTO). She accepted that the Chinese side can raise the issue of American trade restrictions and that Washington would determine if they have gone too far.

Before Yellen, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited China. The US hopes that these trips will pave the way for Chinese leader Xi Jinping to meet with American President Joe Biden at the G20 Summit in Delhi in September or at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in San Francisco in November.

During the talks, Chinese officials expressed alarm about the restrictions on foreign investment that the United States is going to impose. But they were assured that these restrictions would not be large-scale. And if the Americans realize that they have gone too far, they will correct any misunderstanding. Chinese officials, meanwhile, made no promises that they will change industrial policy, which the US and other Western countries say violates China's commitments when it joined the WTO. Days before Yellen’s arrival, Beijing announced that, in response to US restrictions, it was imposing export controls on gallium and germanium, metals that are used in the production of semiconductors and solar cells. China is the world’s largest supplier of these metals.

As China expert Professor Andrey Karneev said, "the parties are not interested in seeing ties slide to the abyss; they want to stabilize the financial and economic relations. But deep-seated disagreements remain. Yellen's visit showed that both sides want to resolve their differences without a military conflict.”

A tour operator in Mongolia cooperated with a foreign company to take well-known people on a trip around the country. But the manager of the foreign firm shook his head and said, “Mongolia is not yet ready.” Tourists who have come here have found, from the attitude and service they receive, that many things have not meet their expectations. Electricity and hot water are cut off; food does not arrive on time. When the tour operator complains, they are practically threatened to be kicked out because of their demands.

This is the reality behind the scenes in our country which has set the goal of receiving one million tourists in 2023 and 1.5 million in 2024. It is implementing a comprehensive initiative called “Year to Visit Mongolia”. Yet, there are almost no places that can comfortably accommodate 10 or 20 people, let alone absorb a million tourists. Unfortunately, the reality is that our tourist camps and resorts are distinguished only by their filthiness, the smell of damp and mold, and the inflated prices.

The main reason for the poor implementation of tourism service standards is weak supervision. There are many entrepreneurs who believe that there is no need for strict standards in this industry. If Mongolia aims to develop tourism as a priority and compete in the international market, it has no choice but to pay attention to standards. The most important indicator is tourist satisfaction. But satisfaction is the result of quality service. Setting standards would be the main driving force for providing accessible and quality services.

The Hong Kong airline Cathay Pacific’s flight attendants discriminating against Chinese passengers became a hot topic overnight. A blogger witnessed flight attendants being impatient with passengers and collectively laughing at them in the rest area because the customers did not know how to say “blanket” in English. One flight attendant joked that “if you cannot say ‘blanket’, then you can’t have it!”

Treating people equally and without discrimination are the basic principles of civilization in a modern society. Discriminating against a person because of their language or accent is not merely a matter of being inappropriate, it is barbaric behavior that cannot be tolerated in the 21st century. In the service industry, discriminating against customers because of language can cost a company its reputation.

What was even more distressing about the incident is that it happened on a Chinese flight flying over Chinese airspace and it was the employees of a Chinese company who discriminated against Chinese customers. In the face of raging public opinion, Cathay Pacific issued a statement to apologize and said it would investigate. Since they want to investigate, the airline should check social media and communicate with those complaining about them. They should ask them about similar situations that they have encountered. They should dig at the problem from the root – Get rid of the soil that nurtures the practice of worshipping foreigners while discriminating against compatriots.

This is the only way to win the trust of the market.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s visit to Beijing has added guardrails to the US-China rivalry. The two sides agreed to continue dialogue and expand exhanges. This reminds us of talks between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait in Singapore 30 years ago. Both sides have marked this anniversary. Yet, the current government in Taipei has been in power for seven years, with no sign of possible contact, reconciliation or exchange with the other side.

During Blinken’s visit to China, some important agreements were reached – the two sides decided to advance joint working group consultations to resolve specific issues. Is anything similar possible on the cross-strait front?

Everyone understands that if you want to negotiate, you need to seek common ground amid the differences just as the US and China have just done. The Taiwan side always believes that cross-strait negotiations are transactional and should have nothing to do with political issues. The two sides have a slightly different understanding of the meaning of “one China”. To seek a solution to the problem, there needs to be talks. So long as the Constitution is upheld, there is room for continued contact and negotiations.

The politics of knowledge is not a new discourse among social science academics. It is a systematic and structured effort to master and dominate knowledge. Usually this is done by developed countries – in the past, the imperialist nations – to subdue the knowledge capabilities of developing countries without their realizing that they are being dominated. Usually this is done in a massive and structured manner through schools, book publishing, academic communities and other means.

The hegemony of the Global North – the United States and Western Europe – over science in developing countries is increasingly evident. If this knowledge dominance continues, it will hinder the progress of the Global South countries, including Indonesia, because it depends on knowledge production in the Global North. Often the knowledge – especially in the context of social sciences and humanities – produced in the North does not always match the context in the South. Knowledge should not be elitist.

Knowledge must be democratized by inviting the public to be involved in the dynamics of knowledge. One of the essential roles that can be performed by the library is to accelerate the democratization of knowledge. So far, the politics of knowledge has produced acute elitism. Knowledge seems to be only a matter of the elite. The voices that are heard regarding the debate on knowledge only come from those from the world's top campuses.

Libraries have a unique position because these institutions are different from campuses. Everyone, regardless of age, occupation, educational degree, can study at the library. Unfortunately, Indonesia still lacks librarians. As agents of knowledge dissemination, librarians need to be able to package existing knowledge so that it can be known and understood easily by the public. With these steps, the democratization of knowledge can be achieved and Indonesia can get out of the trap of knowledge politics.

Significant developments have emerged from Northeast Asian diplomacy among Japan, the United States and the Republic of Korea (ROK). Major moves include the visits to Japan and the United States by South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol, the visit to Seoul by Prime Minister Kishida Fumio, and the G7 Hiroshima summit.

These diplomatic activities are a joint response by the three countries to major changes in the international strategic environment – North Korea's development of nuclear weapons and various means of delivery, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and tensions across the Taiwan Strait. It is interesting to note that the strategic diplomacy of Tokyo, Washington and Seoul made progress by leveraging the normalization of Japan-South Korea relations.

This is in no way should diminish the significance of neighbor diplomacy that aims to settle more than a decade of turmoil in Japan-South Korea relations and put them on a new course. President Yoon has stated that "Japan has already expressed remorse and apology for past problems dozens of times.” He further emphasized that Japan and Korea are neighbors and partners who "share the universal values of freedom, human rights and the rule of law" and "pursue common interests in security, economy and the global agenda." Such frankness toward Japan probably prompted Prime Minister Kishida's visit to South Korea.

South Korea's diplomacy with Japan is fraught with difficulties. The extreme confrontation that exists between the ruling and opposition parties in the ROK makes it a dangerous point of contention. So far, the success of President Yoon's strategic diplomacy has more than compensated for the unpopularity of his neighbor diplomacy. What this diplomacy needs most right now from Japan is a "goodwill posture". Japan needs to give due consideration to issues to which South Korean public opinion is sensitive.

From the World Meteorological Organization to Southeast Asian countries, all have predicted that nations will have problems when the El Niño phenomenon occurs. Southeast Asian economies, which rely on agriculture to a considerable extent for their livelihoods, have begun to feel nervous. El Niño is a climate phenomenon caused by an abnormal increase in water temperature in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. It usually lasts for nine to 12 months and occurs every two to seven years on average. The last time was from 2018 to 2019.

Minister of Sustainability and the Environment Grace Fu Hai Yien said that the hot whether will affect food production and that electricity and water shortages will become more frequent, disrupting social and economic activity. The authorities may have learned from past experience and are therefore focusing on protecting the health of employees in various fields. They should carry out surveys on various types of outdoor and indoor working environments and reach a consensus with employers in various industries about conditions and protective measures.

Singapore has promised to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and has adopted a series of positive measures. It is the only country in Southeast Asia that has implemented a multisector carbon tax. Singapore does not act just because of its small size. The UN recently warned that countries are off track in fulfilling their commitments to address climate change, and there is also a lack of trust, support and cooperation among countries.

This new round of the El Niño seems to be more menacing. If countries are not prepared, then when a truly serious climate disaster hits the world in future, it will not just be about figuring out what to wear when it is hot.

The excitement in the run-up to the India-US summit is proving a little too much to bear for some commentators. The UK newspaper Economist‘s analysis for one oozes condescension, dismissing the summit between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Joe Biden as a bacchanalia of transactionalism between America and a client state – no questions asked, no strings attached. But the facts suggest that the conclusions drawn by the Economist suffer from a profound lack of balance and substance.

First, the Economist has not referenced any proof to back its claims that India’s democracy has measurably slid. The other most egregious assumption the Economist has made is that Western democracies are perfect and are the one-size-fits-all standard to which the rest of us must aspire. Only neo-colonialists sworn to cultural exceptionalism would today dare to exalt a strictly Western sense of democracy and stand in judgement of another model.

The most outrageous insinuation in the piece is that the Indo-American relationship is based on “fewer principles” than the two nations “care to admit”. This is a jaundiced unidimensional view of the bilateral relationship. Delhi and DC are “natural allies” united by a shared liberal political and moral philosophy that flows in India’s case from its ancient pluralistic dharmic tradition and in America’s case from the high ideals of the Enlightenment.

This enviable core of exalted civilizational values commits the two nations to pursue altruistic foreign policy objectives for the greater good of humanity – indeed, even when in pursuit of their individual and sometimes diverging interests. There are many examples of Indo-American collaboration driven by the elevated objective of bolstering a global rules-based order. Is it the Economist’s case that the influential Quad alliance lacks a moral core and is based on “fewer principles” than the grouping would “care to admit”?

Launched in April 2022, China’s Global Security Initiative, as described by Chinese Ambassador Huang Xilian, is “a new security path being promoted by Chinese leader Xi Jinping built on dialogue, partnership and “win-win” outcomes rather than confrontation with other countries. At a reception on a Chinese navy training ship which docked in Manila for a goodwill visit, Huang reminded guests that his country and the Philippines “have lived in harmony and peace for over 1,000 years.”

That is not exactly accurate; Chinese pirates marauded the Philippines in 1574. In those days, though, this archipelago largely traded in peace with merchants from China so the ambassador has a point.

Today, Chinese ships continue to enter the waters of what we now call the West Philippine Sea. Beijing’s claim over nearly the entire South China Sea, leaving other countries with only enough maritime area for beach resorts and small-scale fishing, makes Xi’s Global Security Initiative a tough sell in the Philippines. Beijing does not recognize the arbitral ruling that invalidated the entire claim. Massive swarms of Chinese militia vessels routinely shoo away Filipinos from traditional fishing grounds in the West Philippine Sea and challenge Philippine Coast Guard, Navy and Bureau of Fisheries ships that sale within the Philippines’ 200-mile exclusive economic zone.

Bilateral ties of course cover many other areas besides the maritime dispute. A streamer on the deck of the Chinese ship where the reception was held welcomed guests with the words “May China-Philippines friendship last forever”. I share that aspiration – except that the West Philippine Sea keeps getting in the way.

The Move Forward Party is new and has never been in power. This has driven some, particularly the elites and the upper middle class, to fear what is to come when (and if) the party is in charge.

Imagine being in charge of one of Thailand’s largest corporations. Your company has established connections with the old guards in politics, the bureaucracy, and the top echelon of society. It has achieved de facto oligarchy status in the market and you know how to deal with old-style politicians. Move Forward is an unknown quantity and has promised to spread wealth and create new opportunities for smaller businesses, as well as significantly increase the minimum wage. Suddenly you feel you are not sure on how to deal with them or whether your status quo can be maintained when they are in power.

This explains the reluctance or even opposition among some of the owners of big conglomerates in Thailand. One of country’s biggest tycoons warned that Thailand risks becoming like Ukraine if the new government is in power and that Move Forward candidate for prime minister Pita Limjaroenrat is increasingly resembling Volodymyr Zelensky. When I asked Pita about this, he brushed it aside. It may be far-fetched, but perception is reality and for many of the established elite and big businesses, they fear the old and familiar system may be undermined if Pita becomes PM.

If you have no greater ideology of wanting to see Thailand becoming a more equitable society, why take the risk and embrace Pita and a Move Forward government? Even if you are a member of the upper middle class, you may not want to see change under the Move Forward government, particularly if you are not keen on wanting to see Thailand becoming a more equal society.

There was a time when “woke” was a badge of honor among young people for social awareness. “Stay woke” was an urgent appeal: to re-examine how institutions of power benefit some while oppressing others; to speak out and act against systemic injustice – whether racism, sexism or economic inequality. In recent years, however, woke has been co-opted as an insult, particularly in US political discourse. Some groups who subscribe to conservative ideologies now use it as a catch-all label for irrational political correctness.

In the Philippines, the expression was not spared from dilution. Woke has been used as a synonym for histrionic, self-righteous and intellectual elitist. The negative connotation is a reflection of how polarized society has become when discussing social inequalities. Critics of “wokeness” tend to emphasize how a culture with heightened sensibilities has led to more divisiveness, rather than progress.

I mourn the diminishing of woke as a huge step backward. The world embraced the term because we caught a glimpse of what it is like to walk in the shoes of people who face injustice on a daily basis, and compelled us to ask how this mirrors our own realities. Whenever we use it in a condescending manner, we belittle its historical significance and undermine all the efforts that have been accomplished since.

To stay woke was never about touting the label and has always been about action. Crucial to this is the willingness to have genuine conversations about what is it that truly divides us. Upholding the integrity of the expression reminds us to be active in uplifting marginalized communities and in challenging beliefs or structures that perpetuate inequality. And in a country where the sins of the past are too easily forgotten, we need all the encouragement for social justice that we can get.

The main agenda of the new administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr is economic recovery. Ahead of the president’s first state of the nation address, the finance secretary said that “the government’s medium-term fiscal framework is aimed at reducing the budget deficit, promoting fiscal sustainability, and enabling robust economic growth.”

These policy goals seem perfectly reasonable. The economic picture for the country, however, is more complex, requiring extraordinary leadership, technocratic competence and political finesse from the Marcos administration.

In April, just weeks before Marcos’s election victory, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) forecasted 6.0 percent GDP growth for the Philippines this year and an even higher rate of 6.3 percent next year. Soon, however, it became clear that the new administration would have to deal with a combination of inherited and new economic challenges.

Marcos inherited a ballooning debt, due to his predecessor’s massive borrowing, which brought the debt-to-GDP ratio to a 16-year-high. Then came the triple shocks from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that disrupted global commodity markets, China’s economic slowdown that further disrupted regional production networks and growth outlook, and the interest rate hikes in the US, which dramatically drove down Asian currencies including the Philippine peso. The result is a toxic cocktail of rising prices and declining growth across the world, with the threat of global “stagflation” on the horizon.

It is hard to see how the government can simultaneously avoid tax increases, expand targeted subsidies to vulnerable sectors, maintain infrastructure spending at 5-6 percent of GDP, achieve above-average annual growth rates of close to 8 percent, reduce the budget deficit by more than 60 percent in coming years, and slash the debt-to-GDP ratio from more than 60 percent to just above 50 percent in 2028.

Welcome to real-world governance.

A rare contagious rash illness known as monkeypox has recently been found in more than 50 countries. The good news is that most infected people will have minor illnesses and recover on their own. It is a self-limiting disease with symptoms lasting two to four weeks and a case fatality rate of 3-6 per cent. When symptoms appear, it is critical to isolate the infected from other people and pets, cover their lesions, and contact the nearest healthcare provider. It is also critical to avoid close physical contact with others. Most people will recover completely.

Despite mild illness and a low transmission rate, the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared monkeypox, a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) to contain the disease. It is unclear whether the Covid-19 pandemic is exacerbating the current monkeypox outbreaks.

Never before in history have three infectious diseases (poliomyelitis, Covid-19 and monkeypox) been declared a PHEIC at the same time. Regrettably, this will not be the last time. There will almost certainly be more of these occurrences in the future. The world is yet to recognize emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases as a genuine threat. The immediate priority is to strengthen the surveillance infrastructure, including hiring public health professionals and field workers who can participate in outbreak detection and response during many future PHEICs. Mechanisms for initiating contact tracing, quarantining exposed people, and isolating infected people should be institutionalized. Without prioritizing the strengthening of public health, the threat of new and re-emerging infectious diseases, as well as the enormous social and economic challenges that accompany them, is real and grave.