School of History, Politics, and Strategy

The implementation of economic integration under the ASEAN Community is accelerated to 2015. Manyobservers argued that Indonesian businesses were not ready to compete. Then, a study was conducted to examine howJakarta consumers perceived the competitiveness of domestic shoes products, a leading Indonesian export products,against similar products made in some ASEAN and other developed and newly industrialized countries. The studyemployed six dimensions of Country Image for shoes products in revealing consumers’ perception of “made in” labels andconsumers’ perception of brands. The study also adopted the constructs of consumers’ nationalism and worldmindedness.To increase the validity of the study, the respondents were carefully selected with judgemental quota sampling, usinggender, area and cohort variables. The research revealed some interesting results that would be important for businesspeople and government as regulator.

Problem statement: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) envisioned an integrated regional community by the year 2015, following the European Union model. However, unlike the European Community which was formed after years of discussion at different levels of society, institutions and government, ASEAN was rather quick to conceptualize this initiative, without seeking the feedbacks for the public. Consequently, ASEAN Community initiative has been criticized for being elitist in its policy formulation process and for the lack of public opinions regarding this policy. The study examines how people in three ASEAN countries (Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore) view the concept of community building, especially from the perspective of the obstacles that this initiative is perceived to encounter in its formation. Approach: The study employs public opinion surveys to gather feedback from respondents regarding their opinion of the obstacles towards the establishment of the ASEAN community by the year 2015. The surveys conducted in eleven cities in three ASEAN countries, namely Indonesia (Jakarta, Makassar, Medan, Surabaya and Pontianak), Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Melaka, Johor Bahru and Kota Kinabalu) and Singapore. The surveys involved 1256 respondents- 551 from Indonesia, 451 from Malaysia and 294 from Singapore. Results: The study reveals several findings; firstly the low levels of education in several ASEAN countries have been cited as the main factor that hinders regional integration; secondly there has been a lack of initiative to engage the public regarding their opinions on regional integration and thirdly, issues such as lack of economic competitiveness, dependency on develop countries, socio-economic disparity, differences in legal and political systems and technological divide have scored high agreements among respondents-as contributory factors that would possibly slow down regional integration initiatives. Conclusion: The study concludes that ASEAN has remained elitist, with least amount of public participation. As such, it requires legitimization from the population which the regional integration wishes to serve.

ABSTRACT: This study is aimed to examine and analyze public opinion on the formation of regional political and security community initiated by the Association Southeast Asian Countries (ASEAN). It has been argued that the Southeast Asian regionalism and community building initiatives need to have general public’s support and understanding as it had been shown during the early stages of the European integration process. For decades, Southeast Asian regionalism tends to be governed by state. Hence, the study analyses and compares several interlinked variables such as awareness, attitudes, perception and aspiration on the proposed ASEAN Political Security Community (APSC). It is based on a survey conducted in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore. The questionnaire for the survey combined close-ended and open-ended questions. The questionnaire was made available in three different languages (Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Melayu, and English). A total number of 1,256 respondents were involved in the study. The quota-sampling procedure was employed to ensure that the respondents were balanced by gender and working status. The study found that respondents in the three countries did show lack of awareness on APSC. They perceived APSC as an elitist and dominated by state agenda. However, the majority of respondents were positive on the future of APSC since they believe that it would contribute among others constructive peaceful resolution in the region. Generally, the study found that respondents displayed some positive attitudes and support for the regional political-security community process, but their aspirations appeared to be different from that of the European regionalism.

The ASEAN Community is highly criticized for mostly employing the elitist approaches. It lacks the necessary efforts and instruments to gather the voice of the people. As the elites aspired for a more cohesive regional cooperation under the flag of ASEAN Community, the obstacles from the views of the public have not yet been understood. This study, therefore, analyses the perception of the public in Indonesia of the obstacles for establishing proposed ASEAN Community. It argued that the public perception on the obstacles for establishing the regional community should be given enough attention to get support from the people. The study discussed the perception of obstacles for establishing the regional community by using primary data from several surveys in five cities. Secondary data to support the finding were also exhibited. Finally, some implications of the study to the establishment of the ASEAN Community were discussed.

In the ASEAN’s Ministries of Trade’s Conference in 2006, it was decided that the implementation of economic integration under the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) to be accelerated to 2015. Many observers have argued and some study have been conducted about the readiness of Indonesian business toward globalization. However, the study in the perspective of Indonesian consumers was very rare. This study is aimed to understand the attitude of Indonesian consumers towards economic globalization. The study adapted the constructs of consumers’ nationalism and worldmindedness revealed by Rawwas, Rajendran, and Wuehrer (1996). Data was collected, in September -October 2007, using survey questionnaires to 488 respondents in 13 cities (Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tanggerang, Bekasi, Balikpapan, Denpasar, Makassar, Medan, Manado, Palembang, Surabaya dan Mataram). To increase the validity of the study, the respondents were carefully selected with judgemental quota sampling, using gender and cohort variables. The research revealed some startling results. Normatively, the consumer nationalism was quite high. Majority of respondents argued that the purchase of imported goods should be pressed as low as possible; that they should not buy foreign products and they should prefer Indonesian ones; and that the domestic products should become their first choice. Furthermore, most respondents agreed to the restriction of imported products that come to Indonesia if the products could be produced locally. Even, they agreed if the government protect local industries by implementing trade barriers to foreign products and by banning the imported goods that threaten local industry’s continuity. However, from the conative dimension, the nationalism of consumers showed the contradictive state. Most respondents show their hesitation to stop buying imported goods and to begin buying Indonesian products. Pragmatism also showed by consumers by not paying any attention if the products were subsidized by the origin countries.
Keyword: Consumer Nationalism, Worldmindedness, Globalization, Consumer Attitude.

The implementation of economic integration under the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) is decided to be accelerated to 2015. Many observers argue that Indonesian brands were not ready to compete with others’ ASEAN business. However, the battle of brands goes in the mind of consumers (Ries and Ries, 2002; Kotler, 2006). This study was conducted to examine how Indonesian consumers perceived the competitiveness of domestic shoes products, a leading Indonesian export products, against the similar products originating in some ASEAN and other developed and
newly industrialized countries. Inspired by the study conducted by Mohamad et al (2000) in Malaysia, the study employed 6 dimensions of Country Image for shoes products (that is:
innovativeness, design, prestige, workmanship and comfort). Beside used in revealing consumers’ perception in the “made in” labels, the measure also used in revealing the consumers’ perception of brands. Data were collected, in October 2007, using survey questionnaires to 288 respondents in 9 areas in greater Jakarta. To increase the validity of the study, the respondents were carefully selected with judgemental quota sampling, using gender, area and cohort variables. The research revealed some interesting results. Firstly, the shoes with Indonesia brands were perceived lower in quality than those from Europe, USA, Japan and Singapore. However, they were perceived in the same quality as Hong Kong’s brands; and higher in quality than Chinese and Malaysia’s brands. Secondly, the shoes products made in Indonesia is perceived lower in quality than those made in Europe, USA and Japan; in the same quality as shoes made in Singapore and Hong Kong; and in higher quality than shoes made in China and Malaysia. Thirdly, compared to the similar study in Malaysia, this study revealed the different position of other ASEAN countries in the perspective of domestic consumers. This may occur because of the nationalism of the consumers in each country.
Keyword: Country of Origin (COO), Brands, Made In, Globalization, Consumer’s Perceived Quality.

Inspired by the success of European initiative of integrating Western Europe, ten member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) commenced their ASEAN Vision 2020 in 1997 to build an ASEAN Community which is broad minded; living peacefully, steady, and prosperous; bounded together in a partnership and in a dynamic development in a caring community. Yet, the formation process of ASEAN Community has never seriously taken the nationalist sentiments into its consideration. This article examines the result of public opinion surveys regarding nationalist and perceived threat sentiments of the public in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore in five dimensions – chauvinistic, reactive, economic, consumer and perceived threats. The study finds that the extent of nationalist sentiments is quite high and that it is neighbouring countries that were perceived to pose threats to national sovereignty. Thus, the study argues that these sentiments need to be examined and carefully managed because they may influence the success of regional integration as it goes against international relations and integration initiatives.

The India-Pakistan rivalry is an inheritance of past antagonism. Both countries have fought three wars and several bloody conflicts over the possession of Kashmir. This territorial dispute, culminated soon after the India-Pakistan partition in 1948, has been a major impediment in their bilateral relations for more than six decades. To address this security dilemma, both countries have acquired nuclear capability to balance each other. This situation has led to arms race and increased hostility in their relations. This article examines how ‘nuclear capability’ is used in the balance of power between India and Pakistan. It argues that, in an asymmetrical power relations, countries may seek to balance each other through military alliances or by developing nuclear arsenal. The article analyses the strategies employed India and Pakistan to adjust their power asymmetry in order to reconcile each others’ positions. The findings suggest an asymmetric power balance between these countries, favouring the Indian side. The nuclear card, coupled with other security options, has been employed by both countries to gradually balance each other. The nuclear option has also given Pakistan a better bargaining power in its negotiations for management of the Kashmir dispute and other contentious issues with India.

In Indo-Pakistan relations, conflict, rivalry and hostility started immediately after their independence in 1947 followed by the first Indo-Pakistan war. Their bilateral relations have always been jeopardized by the Kashmir issue. They fought three conventional wars and faced several crises during the pre-nuclear and nuclear periods over the question of Kashmir. Both states attempted to acquire nuclear weapons with the primary aims of balancing each other and deterring wars. As a result, the possession of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan have in turn generated arms races, crises, rivalries and increased their hostile relations. Both countries have been trying to find mutually acceptable solution to the question of Kashmir issue since the time of its inception. In addition to the third party interventions, a number of bilateral negotiations at different levels have been initiated by the two countries to settle the protracted issue. This article provides critical examination on the genesis of this conflict. The article is divided into sections discussing the Hindu-Muslin antagonism, the formation of the Jammu-Kashmir state, the partition of 1948, accession of Kashmir to India and the UN intervention into this territorial dispute. The article employs a qualitative research methodology, primarily relying on the analysis of printed and written materials such as books, academic journals, magazines and newspapers. The primary findings suggest that the failure of bilateral negotiations has protracted the conflict and has contributed to the deepening of mistrust between these two nuclear countries.

Scholars argue that ASEAN is a community of nations and not a community of people. Decision making in ASEAN have been concentrated within the higher echelon of leadership, with little public engagement. This article analyses whether public attitudes and supports for the formation of ASEAN Community were affected by the perception of elitist formation of the regionalism initiative. It employs public opinion surveys to gather feedback from respondents about issues under study. The surveys conducted in eleven cities in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. Statistical analyses were employed for the study. Several findings were discovered; Firstly, it finds the respondents perceived that the formation of ASEAN Community is beneficial. Secondly, they strongly support the formation of the regional community. Thirdly, the formation is perceived as elitist and state-centric as they did not involve the people. Finally, the study concludes that the perceptions of elitist state-centric formation of ASEAN Community do have effects on the perception of benefits and supports. As such, the study implies that ASEAN should actively involve the public through public opinion surveys for its policies and issues of its establishment.

This study examines how nationalist sentiments affect the public's commitment to prioritize the proposed ASEAN Economic
Community and its three features – free flow of goods and services, free movement of skilled/professional workers and
freedom to invest in the region. It analyzes statistical data from public opinion surveys conducted to 1,040 respondents from
eleven cities in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore in 2010. Tested by OLS regression analysis, the study finds some mixed
findings for the four hypotheses, differences in results in the three ASEAN countries, and issues specific to developing
countries that vary the results from the European integration.

Penulisan ini mengkaji bagaimana sentimen nasionalisme mempengaruhi komitmen awam bagi memprioritaskan penubuhan Komuniti Ekonomi ASEAN mahupun ketiga fiturnya – perdagangan bebas, aliran pekerja mahir/professional, dan pelaburan intra-ASEAN. Kajian menggunakan data statistik dari survei opini publik yang dijalankan terhadap 1,256 responden di sebelas bandar di Indonesia, Malaysia dan Singapura pada tahun 2010. Dapatan kajian yang telah diuji dengan menggunakan analisis regresi berganda mendapati beberapa dapatan penting atas hipotesis kajian bahawa terdapat asosiasi positif antara sentimen nasionalisme dan komitmen terhadap AEC dan ketiga-tiga fiturnya. Bagaimanapun, wujud perbezaan dalam dapatan di ketiga-tiga negara ASEAN dan juga isu-isu yang khas pada negara-negara membangun yang berlainan daripada dapatan pada integrasi Eropah. Akhirnya, kajian menunjukkan beberapa cadangan bagi keberjayaan inisiatif dan arahan bagi kajian selanjutnya pada bahagian akhir artikel ini.
This article examines how nationalist sentiment affects public's commitment to prioritize the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community and its three features - free trade, the flow of skilled/professional workers and intra-ASEAN investment. The study uses statistical data from a public opinion survey conducted on 1,256 respondents in eleven cities in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore in 2010. The findings were tested using multiple regression analysis and found some important insights on the hypothesis of study. The sudy finds the existence of positive association between nationalism sentiments and commitment to prioritise AEC and its three features. However, the study finds some differences in findings in three ASEAN countries. In addition, the study also finds some issues in developing countries those are different from the findings of the European integration. Finally, some suggestions proposed for the success of regionalism initiatives and directions for future study are indicated at the end of the article.

ABSTRACT The formulation “ASEAN Community” has been criticized for being too elitist and lacking serious efforts to solicit public opinion. This article examines how the people in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore view the concept of “community building” and the obstacles this initiative may encounter.

The formulation “ASEAN Community” has been criticized for being too elitist and lacking serious efforts to solicit public opinion. This article examines how the people in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore view the concept of “community building” and the obstacles this initiative may encounter.

*ISI SSCI Impact Journal*
Please contact me directly for advice on how to get this article.

Scholars have remarked that the decision-making process in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is largely elitist in nature and concentrated within the higher echelon of leadership, with little public participation. Since ASEAN is moving toward community building by the year 2015, questions arise on whether the people are consulted, aware, and support this initiative – which is the focus of this article. The authors argue that increased awareness and knowledge of the public regarding the ASEAN Community initiative will eventually translate into increased support. Against this background, this article analyzes the extent the public in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore are aware of and support the proposed initiative, based on public opinion surveys conducted by the authors in these countries. To support the discussion, this article also employs the Pearson chi-square test to analyze the relationship between public awareness and support for the ASEAN Community.

*ISI SSCI Impact Journal*
Please contact me directly for advice on how to get this article.