This Report Card provides details as well as presents a comprehensive analysis of every promise included in the assessment. “Deep Dives” are areas and promises selected by IDEAS which will be analysed in a more in-depth manner. Therefore, we have selected three areas for our “deep dive” to shed more light of the issues in the Malaysia Agreement 1963, Sabah and Sarawak.
However, to ease these concerns, government must shoulder the responsibility of continuing to focus on Malaysia’s longer-term socio-economic development while ensuring a mature political culture. Furthermore, a clear communication strategy must be adopted to keep Malaysians well informed of the government’s agenda. Sustaining public support is crucial for the PH government to remain on track in keeping its promises in the next four years.
Date: November 2019
Food security is related to how a society can control food accessibility, availability, utilization and stability (FAO, 2009). Many countries increasingly rely on food importation to supply their deficit in production to fulfil the growing domestic food demand, which is often implemented through State Trading Enterprises (STEs). Despite the prevalence of STEs in Southeast Asia, relatively little work has been devoted to try and identify the consequences of these centralised food trading entities in achieving food security objectives. Therefore, it is necessary to assess on a country case basis in order to understand the specific successes and failures of STEs in achieving food security.
As the staple food of most Southeast Asian peoples, rice is an especially important commodity in the region. In the process of transitioning from food self-sufficiency to food security, many of these countries have utilised STEs to conduct food trading as well as to achieve some agricultural policy objectives. The STEs in Malaysia and Indonesia, BERNAS and BULOG respectively, have been selected for analysis due to their similarity as being instrumental entities holding state-mandated monopoly power over the trade of the nation’s staple food.
Date: October 2019
As part of the API, IDEAS consider the strategic economic relationship between ASEAN and the European Union (EU). The comparison is often made between these two regional blocs, which represent the two leading efforts to integrate their respective regions. The EU’s economic integration is significantly deeper and supported by a far more developed institutional and legal framework. The EU is in general more economically developed than ASEAN and is also more homogeneous in its level of development across its Member States than is the case across the 10 members of ASEAN. Despite these differences, we believe that ASEAN and the EU share an essential similarity: they are both groupings of countries that recognise the importance of regional integration and the benefits of openness to trade and investment in the context of a rules-based system. We therefore believe that putting the economic relations between the EU and ASEAN on the best possible footing is an important step in ensuring the long-term prosperity of ASEAN.
In our 2018 EU-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Report we discussed the prospects for a FTA between the EU and ASEAN. The report concluded that the prospects for a comprehensive FTA are currently low, due to a range of issues. Among those issues was the ongoing dispute over palm oil, between the EU on the one hand and Indonesia and Malaysia on the other. Therefore, in this report we decided to further investigate this dispute, with objective of setting out the issues clearly for stakeholders on both sides to provide a common basis of understanding.
Date: September 2019
This report, aim to provide an external assessment of implementation of AEC Blueprint 2025. The scope of the AEC Blueprint is very broad, and our resources are modest in comparison – as a result this report is intended to serve as a foundation which we will build on in future reports.
This report can be conclude in this 5 conclusion:
- Intra-ASEAN trade and investment has continued to grow in absolute terms, but the intensity of regional trade and investment remains broadly stable as a share of total trade and investment. Intra-ASEAN trade in goods remains between 22-24% through the years, varying largely as a result of the changes in extra-regional trade volumes. Both intra-ASEAN trade in services and tourism continues to stagnate amidst increasing flows with the world.
- Two years since the Consolidated Strategic Action Plan to implement the ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint was agreed, more than half of the total 647 actions lines have been fully or partially implemented. However, of these, we judge that only 17.7% have been fully implemented.
- Since 2003, the majority of ASEAN Member States have become significantly more integrated into Global Value Chains (GVCs) suggesting the ASEAN Economic Community has been successful in developing ASEAN as a single production base.
- Due to the relatively slower growth of intra-ASEAN trade and investment, it is unlikely that ASEAN will meet its target of doubling the share of intra-regional trade by 2025. This is largely driven by structural factors and the underlying dynamics of ASEAN economies, including the lack of trade complementarity and divergent development paths.
- The perception of the ASEAN Economic Community remains quite negative, despite some evidence of success. This may reflect the failure to achieve progress in the most important areas, the relative weakness of the actions or a lack of ambition in the overall level of integration.
Like many of its ASEAN neighbours, Malaysia needs to find new sources of economic growth and job creation to help it transition to a higher-income economy. Reorienting the economy towards knowledge-based industries will be essential. Astrong framework of intellectual property rights (IPRs) will be fundamental to achieving this, as it will allow the Philippines integrate deeper into global R&D networks and manufacturing value-chains, which are increasingly knowledge-based.
This report looks at the strengths and weaknesses of the Malaysian framework for the protection of IPRs, compares it to ASEAN neighbours, and outlines an agenda for reform. The report is a collaboration between six think tanks from five ASEAN countries.
The report shows that despite recent improvements the strength, scope and efficiency of the IP framework in the Malaysia is still well below the highest global standards. Nevertheless, it ranks above Thailand and Indonesia in international comparative indices.
Concluding with a number of specific reform recommendations, the report argues that strong IPRs need to be at the centre of national economic development and investment promotion strategies.