AsiaGlobal Voices

The pandemic has proven the intrinsic value of the cultural and creative sector at generating social cohesion and economic growth in times of crisis. 

Mongolian artists are seeking to embrace the latest technologies and merge Western techniques with Mongolian subject matter. The Ministry of Culture of Mongolia is even pursuing an e-culture policy. The ministry explains that cultural creations and resources must be combined with technical innovations to produce new types of products and put them into use. However, judging by the current situation, it does not provide enough revenue to support a professional career in Mongolia.

Even in Mongolia, major festivals and concerts are being held online. However, current monetization models in the digital environment are not sustainable for most artists. All streaming revenues effectively go into one big content pot, and artists’ royalties are allocated according to the overall market share of artists on the platform. This favors a small number of major international artists and acts.

New legislation and collaborative projects involving companies and civil society organizations, which benefit artists without hindering their presence on platforms, are needed to guarantee the viability of artists around the world. 

The social security net for artists in Mongolia was already inadequate but the pandemic has exposed just how vulnerable workers in the cultural and creative sectors are. Public expenditure worldwide in the creative industries declined in the years preceding the Covid-19 pandemic, which in turn, led to an unprecedented collapse in income and employment in the sector, magnifying the already precarious working conditions of many artists and cultural professionals.

No measures are being taken to protect and support cultural workers in Mongolia. There is no real protection for them, no equal distribution of financial support, and no minimum wage.

As saber rattling continues in the crisis over Ukraine, shifting geopolitics have pushed Russia and China into closer alignment while exposing differences within the Western coalition on how to respond. It has further intensified East-West polarization and sent tensions soaring to a new high amid US warnings that Russia might invade Ukraine. 

The stand-off between US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries and Russia is widely seen to be about the balance of power and security architecture in Europe. President Vladimir Putin, who has witnessed several waves of NATO’s eastward expansion, has now drawn a red line insisting on a halt to more expansion. He regards this as a threat to Russia’s security and intrusion into its “sphere of influence”. 

What this crisis has done is bring Moscow and Beijing into a tighter embrace which some Western analysts are now describing as a China-Russia axis. The meeting between President Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Winter Olympics in Beijing concluded with a strong expression of solidarity and resolve to mount a united front against the US.

Although the crisis is still playing out it has been marked by echoes of the Cold War. The stand-off also reinforces the overarching global dynamic of growing East-West mistrust and confrontation while holding out the prospect of a world increasingly riven into two competing blocs.

India’s decision to refrain from commenting on the Ukraine issue at the Quad foreign ministers’ meeting in Australia should come as no surprise. It is in keeping with the stance it adopted at the United Nations Security Council when it abstained on a vote on the issue and advised all parties to find a solution. This is an adequate and appropriate stand for India to take. 

The sudden rise in tensions between the United States and its transatlantic allies, on the one hand, and the recharged China-Russia alliance, on the other, has spawned many columns in the media on India’s neutral stance. Many enthusiastic advocates of closer India-US relations have been suggesting that the Russia-China alliance and the East-West confrontation are reducing diplomatic space for India and that we will have to move even closer to the US. Some international relations scholars have argued that India cannot hold on to this neutral stand for long and will have to take sides.

This view is blind both to Indian history and strategic thinking. Successive governments in India, from Jawaharlal Nehru’s to Narendra Modi’s, have repeatedly asserted India’s right to adopt an independent stand based on its national interests, without aligning itself with any particular military bloc unless this was necessitated by national interest. 

India’s independent voice in international affairs is a manifestation of her national self-image and no political leader, however favorably disposed to one bloc or another, can go against this grain of Indian nationalism. There is no denying that the US-India relationship is the most consequential relationship for India. Yet, India has no reason to favor the return to a “unipolar” world in which the US vanquishes Russia and China and reasserts its dominance over Europe and Asia. Rather, a multipolar balance of power system is a better option.

Many Europeans refer to the Lunar New Year Festival as the "Chinese New Year". Not many know that Tet is uniquely Vietnamese. We should change this. Promoting culture is not a competition, but more people should know about our country's Tet celebrations. It is such an integral part of Vietnamese culture and a great opportunity to highlight our country on the global stage. 

When I was ambassador to the EU, every time our embassy organized Tet events overseas, instead of mere parties, we opted for something a bit more comprehensive. We placed more emphasis on the word "Tet" as Vietnam’s unique variation of the Lunar New Year Festival, wanting people to remember and recognize the name as a distinctly Vietnamese event.

Brussels, as an international center in Europe, is famous for its festivals. While some people came to our Tet event to satisfy their curiosity at first, they soon became regulars. Soon, in the days leading to it, people began referring to "the Vietnamese Festival," and it attracted people from across Europe who came to enjoy Vietnamese food and cultural performances.

Gradually but certainly, Vietnamese Tet gained a footprint in Belgium. Every year our event was covered by the local news media. This is just a small story for me to tell as a diplomat. Vietnam has many more stories to tell the world. Tet is a small but significant one.

So, this Tet, bring along a foreigner friend to your home for a celebration. We can all become ambassadors and diplomats of our country by treasuring and sharing our values with the world. Tet is great way to start heightening awareness and appreciation of Vietnamese culture.

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement has come into effect. Now is the time for Japan to reconsider its risks and opportunities. Japan's national interest is to maintain a mutually beneficial relationship with China without alienating the US, Tokyo's ally. RCEP is a platform to pursue this interest. 

This is where the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) comes in. In this context, the CPTPP can be positioned as an additional framework of a higher order. China, which applied to join the CPTPP, has for the first time in a long time put itself in the position of being a "demandeur". This is not bad for Japan. After all, Japan is the leader of the CPTPP and has veto power as a current member so it has little to lose even if China does not join.

There is room for Japan and the rest of the world to take advantage of this opportunity to correct and mitigate the China problem. Tokyo should take this opportunity to move to prevent China from unilaterally deviating from universal rules. During the past decade or so, China has baffled many countries with its coercive economic diplomacy. In light of China's tendencies, this is a difficult enough task on its own, but it is also important to work to bring some relief to political and military matters as well. 

In urging a gradual reduction in the establishment of military bases, the flying of military aircraft, and the intrusion of (armed) fishermen and public vessels into politically disputed areas, it would do no harm to bring up the CPTPP membership application. To use a cold-hearted metaphor, take as much as you can before you let them into the room, and if the tactic does not work, let them stand in the hallway forever.

The High Court has ruled that the use of Tamil and Mandarin in vernacular schools is constitutional. Conservative Malay nationalists, however, are likely to appeal or combine with other political and religious forces to challenge the right of children to receive education in their mother tongue.

The rise of far-right Malay forces stemmed from the weakened political position of the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) since 2008. The far right has become more and more vocal since the Pakatan Harapan coalition came into power in 2018. Prior to this, opposition to mother tongue education mainly came from UMNO politicians including Mahathir Mohamad, prime minister from 1981 to 2003 and from 2018 to 2020, and Anwar Ibrahim, Mahathir’s deputy from 1993 to 1998 and now leader of the opposition.

Throughout his political career, Mahathir always publicly claimed that mother-tongue education hinders national unity. He also repeatedly promoted the Vision School initiative in a bid to promote national unity and integration, which was tantamount to supporting Malaysia’s extreme right-wing forces. Mahathir resumed these remarks after he became prime minister again in 20018. Even Teo Nie Ching, deputy minister of education under Mahathir, who had always been vocal on the subject of mother tongue education, dared not oppose his plans. 

The background of this lawsuit is a result of Malaysia’s turbulent political situation and the fact that no political party can lead, allowing far right forces to manipulate the emotions of Malay voters. In an era when Malay politics are increasingly divided, the possibility for right-wing organizations to cooperate with extreme politicians will only increase. The public should respond calmly to avoid making the situation worse.

The outlook for China’s domestic exports was pessimistic during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. The economy, however, has subsequently outperformed, with the year-on-year growth rate for exports (in US dollars terms) increasing from 0.5 percent in 2019 to 3.6 percent in 2020 – and 32.3 percent in January-October 2021. Contrary to the mainstream view that China's export growth rate will decline significantly, exports will maintain double-digit year-on-year growth in 2022 for the following three reasons: 

First, the pandemic’s trajectory remains uncertain. Despite the rapid increase in global vaccination coverage, the number of new confirmed cases observed worldwide continues to rise and fall in waves every 3-4 months. The recent emergence of the Omicron strain has triggered panic in global capital markets. If there is a super mutant strain in 2022, the recovery of overseas production will continue to be limited, which will increase import demand for Chinese goods.

Second, the safety and stability of China's industrial chain has been well demonstrated throughout the pandemic. This is conducive to boosting the popularity of Chinese enterprises to overseas customers and increasing exports, with the automobile industry serving as an example.  

Third, the pandemic has given many Chinese products opportunities to go global. The label “Made in China” is constantly improving, and Chinese brands are more and more associated with affordable quality. As the pandemic has limited some overseas production, some customers have been "forced" to buy Made-in-China products, highlighting China’s cost-effective advantage. This trend can be expected to continue in 2022.

Overall, assuming the global pandemic continues throughout 2022, the market share of Chinese exports may expand. This will mean that the export industry chain will continue to play an important role in China’s economic growth, supporting stable employment while also managing the risk of renminbi depreciation. 

Every year, nearly two million Indonesians travel abroad for medical treatment. As a result, the state lost revenue worth 97 trillion rupiah (US$6.8 billion). This is the reason for constructing the Bali International Hospital, President Joko Widodo said at the groundbreaking. The hope is that Indonesian citizens will no longer go abroad to get health services, and even foreigners will fly in. When medical facilities in countries such as Singapore and Malaysia are more sophisticated, with many doctors available, why choose Indonesia? 

Indonesia needs more than just international hospitals to capture health travelers, both domestic and international. First, if Indonesia is serious about becoming a center for medical tourism, a strategy is needed to acquire the most advanced medical technology. This could be the added value of the Bali International Hospital compared to reputable hospitals in other countries.

Second, Indonesia needs its sons and daughters to return to serve the country. The health minister has acknowledged that Indonesia has a shortage of doctors. At least 700 doctors died due to Covid-19. This is the time for Indonesian doctors who graduated abroad to return home. Many talented physicians want to return, but regulations make this almost impossible. But if doctors want to serve their homeland, why hinder them from doing so? 

If the government is serious about making Bali a world health-services center and attracting two million Indonesians as well as foreign tourists, we need more than just luxury facilities. The country's medical system needs a breakthrough: It should not be limited to just services but also needs to be supported by high-quality education, research and development.

Global technology and talent, especially Indonesian diaspora doctors, are the keys to improving the quality of the national health system. Indonesia needs more than just an “international” hospital to host world-class healthcare.

The Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology's regulation for the prevention and handling of sexual violence in higher education is a beacon of hope for the protection of victims. Indonesian criminal law has not been very friendly to the victims. This regulation, however, will not be strong enough if the state still maintains loopholes that allow perpetrators to make retaliatory accusations against the victims. 

In many cases, perpetrators sue victims for libel because they can claim their name has been tainted and they know the victims do not have solid evidence. Libel reports by suspects of sexual violence need to be reconsidered so that the substance of the problem that needs to be resolved first, namely sexual violence, does get ignored. If the police shift their investigation to the libel case, the process gets muddied.

To avoid this situation, the state must first resolve allegations of sexual violence experienced by the victim even though there is a report by the suspect. Then, the viability of the libel case should be determined by the results of the investigations into the allegations against the perpetrator. This is to ensure that victims of sexual violence get a fair treatment of the case.

If these changes are made, the state can protect victims and help them recover. And it can move forward to eradicate sexual violence in any form, especially on a school campus.

On September 16, 2021, China applied to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). A week later, Taiwan filed its own application. Singapore, Malaysia and Mexico have all expressed their support for China's accession. Meanwhile, Japan and Australia have shown no intention of supporting China's joining in the short term. Singapore, as a founding member with close relations with China, should play a more active role in promoting China's membership. 

Once China joins, the development prospects of CPTPP will improve for the following reasons:

First, China is already the largest trading country in the world and the Asia-Pacific region. Without China's participation, the CPTPP would not be a true Asia-Pacific trade agreement. 

Second, preventing China from joining goes against the concept of CPTPP as a free-and-open trade agreement. Instead, it would turn the CPTPP into a political tool used to confront and contain China. Owing to the political intentions of Japan and Australia against China, the ideological nature of the CPTPP has been strengthened. But other member states, including Singapore, do not want to conflict with China.

Third, the CPTPP is an important measure to promote further China's integration into Asia-Pacific and global trade. China has already conducted comprehensive research and evaluations and committed to high-level market opening that exceeds China’s current practices. 

Finally, support for China to join the CPTPP will also ultimately benefit Singapore. At present, China is Singapore's largest trading partner. By supporting China's accession, the bilateral trade relationship between Singapore and China can be consolidated further.

This same time last year, though we tried our very best to keep up the festive spirit, things were much more subdued and grim. And while a lot has happened this past year, many things have still stayed the same.

If there is one thing we are more attuned with these days, it is rolling with the punches. We have accepted that change happens, and we are now more adaptable creatures. Change can be good when we do not resent it and readily accept it. Change is vital in enabling progress. And sometimes, we need to take a pause to internalize all of this. That is perhaps one of the gifts the lockdown brought us – the time to reflect and to realize. Life does indeed go on if we allow it to, and that the sun shines on us even when we least expect it.

The true meaning of Christmas is a prime example of tradition that will never change regardless of any situation. While the manner in which we choose to spend the holidays can differ, the core and the “reason for the season” will always remain the same.

We will look back at this pandemic as the time when the world literally came to a halt and our views of normalcy and routine changed completely. And although life has started to go on again, the question of whether we will ever return back completely to the normal we once knew still looms. When that day comes, I would like to keep the attitude of resilience, flexibility and open mindedness. This pandemic, if anything, taught me to count my blessings and appreciate the small things.

There has been an unprecedented flurry of reactions both in support and opposition to amending the controversial lèse-majesté law, which makes it a crime to defame, insult or threaten the king and other royalty. Protests by monarchy-reform groups have reiterated their year-long call for the abolition of, or at least an amendment to, the law. It was not long before parties, ruling and opposition, publicly took a stance. Any hope that the current parliament will table a proposal for debate was diminished when Prime Minister Gen. Prayuth Chan-o-Cha said he opposes any amendment of the law. “Do not destroy what we respect,” he said.

With elections widely expected by the middle of next year if not earlier, it is most unlikely that the proposal will even be tabled by the current parliament. For many who are passionate for or against the law, the next elections will not just be about how to solve the economic crisis but will partly be a de facto referendum on the law itself if not more.

Any expectations that all the opposition parties are solidly behind the proposal to amend the law were dashed when the parties met and said in a press conference that they take no common stance on the law but will respect each opposition party’s position on the matter.

To amend or not amend the lèse-majesté law, or even to abolish it, is a debate we need to have. We can start by the different groups trying to be more honest about where they stand. The perpetuation of a state of self-denial will not do Thailand any good.

After achieving a vaccination rate of 82 percent, Singapore appeared ready to transition to the new normal of a Covid-19 resilient society. Then in August, the number of new daily cases rose dramatically. The question is: How long can society tolerate coexisting with the virus?

After two years there seems to be no end in sight and even after cases fall, it will till take several years for the world to return to normal. Indeed, over the past 130 years, the world has faced five major pandemics, lasting up to five years. The vaccine offers some hope. Yet, countries that have reached a certain percentage of vaccination rates such as Singapore now require their citizens to get a third booster shot. And even in the future, they will have to administer the vaccine regularly to maintain immunity as the virus evolves. Challenges stem from new variants and increased transmission during autumn and winter.

The situation is therefore precarious. Society believes that the government should not rush to loosen restrictions and that opening the borders must be done gradually. Reintroduced movement control measures have caught the public and companies by surprise. A survey found that two-thirds of the surveyed Singaporeans struggle with restrictions that limit social interaction and dining. Such measures will also undoubtedly affect Singapore’s economic performance in the second half of the year. Yet, without such action, infections will continue to climb, and it will be even more difficult to flatten the curve.

Coexisting with this virus over the next five years will be no easy task. The government must strike a careful balance between protecting Singapore’s livelihood and saving lives.

The country is better prepared today against this variant, following its experiences on the Alpha, Beta and Delta waves. The government has administered 96 million vaccine doses or 86.4 percent of our total population of 111,050,000. Those fully vaccinated (two doses) stands at 38,700,000 persons, or 34.76 percent of the total population. The number of booster inoculations is also increasing. And unlike last year, people can even choose their preferred brands because of the government’s huge supplies.

The highly infectious Omicron variant will have a direct effect on the coming political campaign and its results. Even if found “milder” or deadlier than Delta, disruptions in our daily life will happen. Probably, we will see a repeat of lockdowns, return of face shields/masks and closed businesses due to higher alert levels next year. And this means limited campaigns, political rallies and stricter health protocols for candidates and supporters.

If Omicron is a milder, controllable variant, the administration candidates especially the incumbent mayors will have the advantage, being at the forefront of relief and successful vaccination of their citizens. But if Omicron becomes deadlier than Delta, then the government’s pandemic response becomes an election issue. This administration’s moves will be under microscopic scrutiny by voters. If cases zoom up again because of Omicron and hospitals are overwhelmed, then the opposition candidates in both national and local elections will have a better chance of winning.

When Omicron arrives, it is inevitable that we will again return to strict or very strict precautionary measures. Yes, it will be hard, but unlike last year, we now have available anti-Covid-10 drugs to avoid hospitalization and death. Also, our healthcare system is much now better following its Alpha, Beta and Delta experiences. We all must hope for the best.

During a virtual keynote speech on Japan-Taiwan relations at a forum organized by a Taiwan think tank, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe warned Beijing that an attack on Taiwan would be “economic suicide”. Beijing immediately lashed out at the former Japanese leader, denouncing Abe’s remarks as “openly nonsensical”,

Was Abe’s speech “openly nonsensical”?

As always, Abe was cautious in his use of words. He neither referred to the Republic of China nor Taiwan as an independent state. He neither called for its independence nor separation.

What might have alarmed China was Abe’s reference to an armed contingency. He said, “A Taiwan contingency is a Japanese contingency, and therefore a contingency for the Japan-US alliance. Beijing, President Xi Jinping should not have any misunderstanding in recognizing this.”

What Abe said is far from nonsensical. He wished for China to consider its ultimate national interests. He said that “any military adventure in Taiwan will have serious repercussions for the global economy” and therefore “China will suffer badly” because it is deeply involved in the global economy.

China will be or perhaps is already facing what I call “the middle-income trap with Chinese characteristics”. If China attacked Taiwan, China would immediately see its wealth and assets evaporate, which the nation and its people worked hard for over the past 40 years. Surely China does not wish for this.

Abe went on to say that “a military adventure against Taiwan is the way to economic suicide for China and would also have a significant impact on the world economy,” which China will continue to heavily depend on. If China’s political leaders are rational, they will clearly understand what Abe meant to say.