In Search of Solutions for the Governance of the Rights of Migrant Workers in Southeast Asia: Regulatory Regionalism as a Reasonable Approach45262

In Search of Solutions for the Governance of the Rights of Migrant Workers in Southeast Asia: Regulatory Regionalism as a Reasonable Approach Thuy Duong Nguyen 1 * 1 Hanoi Law Universi

In Search of Solutions for the Governance of the

Rights of Migrant Workers in Southeast Asia:

Regulatory Regionalism as a Reasonable Approach Thuy Duong Nguyen (1) (*)

(1) Hanoi Law University, Hanoi, Vietnam

* Correspondence: duongnt@hlu.edu.vn

Abstract: The issue of migrant worker rights has been a difficult challenge for ASEAN to address

Many commentators pointed out inadequacies of ASEAN’s governance on this issue such as the lack

of legal binding regional instruments which are compatible with international labour standards; the absence of an enforcement mechanism; the low protection of migrant labour rights in its member states These shortcomings are the consequences of incompatible national interests of member nations and very strong working principles of ASEAN – non- interference in the international affairs of member states; consultation and consensus in decision-making These principles have been considered as a way to respect ASEAN member states’ sovereignty Hence, it is unrealistic to suppose that ASEAN could change these norms to improve the situation of migrant workers within the region The paper focuses on the concept of regulatory regionalism as a possible solution for ASEAN to deal with this problematic issue – although it will be a long and challenge process This innovative approach not only allows ASEAN to play the more central role but also ease member states’ concerns

of their sovereignty in promoting and protecting the rights of migrant workers within the region in

a truly comprehensive and integrated manner

Keywords: migrant worker rights; regulatory regionalism; migrant workers in Southeast Asia;

1 Introduction

It is estimated that the number of migrant workers originated from Southeast Asia

is 20.2 million, while there are approximately 6.9 million of intra – ASEAN migrant workers) There are two mainly migrant intraregional flows between ASEAN member countries First is in the Mekong sub regional areas including the migrant labours from Myanmar, Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam to Thailand Other corridor regards to migrant flows from Indonesia and Philippines to other Southeast Asia countries including Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia and Singapore (Allison-Reumann, 2017) Apparently, regarding to intraregional migrant labours, ASEAN member states could be divided as sending countries and receiving countries, which leads to the fact that it seems impossible to harmonize conflict of interests on the issue of migrant workers between them (Allison-Reumann, 2017)

Given that most of Asian migrant workers are temporary and unskilled, they would easily be classified as undocumented hence remain more vulnerable, to be compared with skilled and professional labor Howbeit, the laws of member countries including home and host do not provide adequate protection for migrant workers (Brown, 2016) In the countries

of destination, migrant workers endure severe discrimination against citizenship For instance, Singapore does not have a provision for migrant workers, migrant helpers are not also protected under the country’s labor law Similarly, Malaysia does not mention medical care for migrants, their children are not allowed to enroll public schools (Ramji-Nogales, 2017) In their home countries, the insufficiency of legal mechanism and institutional capacity to protect migrant workers results in the prevalence of private bookers over

national official recruitment process in terms of migrant workers’ choice, (Farbenblum, 2017; Kneebone, 2012), which later leads to the risk of those people becoming irregular migrant workers or even falling victims to human trafficking Subsequently, they would stand a lower chance of being involved in protection mechanism in the host states In other words, responsibilities over migrant workers are continuously unsettled between those countries

Researchers concur that regional integration has led countries to fall into homogeneous situation, which is called ‘regional boats’ that requires regional decisions and actions (Chavez, 2015; Farbenblum, 2017) In addition, scholars also agreed that there were shared responsibilities between host and origin counties in protecting rights of migrant workers (Farbenblum, 2017; Kneebone, 2012)

ASEAN is the regional organization with the earliest efforts to protect and promote rights of migrant workers as it is the origin of the largest number of persons who migrant workers Migration issue was acknowledged for the first time in 1999 in ASEAN Nevertheless, it seems that ASEAN recently has revealed many inadequacies in addressing this issue One of the basic characteristics of regional governance of migrant workers issue

in ASEAN, which is clearly reflected in their legal documents, is a securitized approach, considering that migration needs monitoring to ensure national security, in spite of the fact that right-based approach is required to be contemplated when it comes to migration issue However, it seems that this approach is not, both on national and regional level Accordingly, migrant workers are violated in their rights and the raising number of migrant workers is unmanageable

This paper aims to analyzes ASEAN’s efforts as a regional international organization

in developing a governance mechanism for the rights of migrant workers Simultaneously,

it would point out the limitations and explanations why ASEAN has obstructed in building

a model of migrant workers’ rights management in accordance with regional countries, distinctively The paper would also discuss on researches’ suggestion for ASEAN in the process of detecting a relevant solution to this regional convoluted issue Among manifold solutions, regulatory regionalism is likely to prevail

2 Methodology

The paper considers migrant workers’ rights as a regional issue which requires common activities of ASEAN as a regional cooperation to search for a reasonable solution for the association to deal with this issue Hence, the paper does not focus on migrant worker issues in sending or receiving countries at the national level The scope of this research paper goes beyond the boundary of national territories Thus, it is impossible for the author to use research methods such as interview or observation which requires abilities of getting access

to stakeholders who are directly related to migrant workers issues (for examples the brokers, the recruitment agencies, the migrant workers and their families) or policy – making actors

at both of national and regional level Therefore, the author mainly uses the documentary analysis as an inexpensive and effective method to carry out this research The paper uses desk research based on the theory of regulatory regionalism Also, the paper considers the

issue of migrant workers’ rights within Southeast Asia countries as a case study to explain

the situation of migrant workers’ rights

3 Results

3.1 ASEAN’s efforts in addressing migrant workers’ rights issues

Though regional agreements and initiatives play a determining role in the governance of the rights of migrant workers in ASEAN, they have not gained comprehensive result as expected of the association

In 1997, ASEAN started to implement activities in cooperation with respect to migrant workers issues ASEAN has come up with some notable innovations to solve migrant labor problems as illustrated below

- The ASEAN Declaration on Transnational Crime 1997 to commit to fight against the illegal immigration and human trafficking

- The ASEAN Vision 2020 (1997) to motivate the establishment of regulations and cooperating actions for transitional issues such as trafficking in women and children

- The Hanoi Action Plan (1998) to elaborate the detailed schedules to execute The ASEAN Vision 2020 of an integrated ASEAN community and to make a commitment of fundamental cooperation in the combat of trafficking in women and children

- The Bangkok Declaration on illegal immigration 1999 was signed by ASEAN members and other countries including Australia, Bangladesh, China, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka and Hong Kong government to take the pledge to solve the immigration problems, especially illegal immigration in a thorough and balanced way, and to strictly follow every step to fight against people trafficking in ASEAN area

- The ASEAN Declaration Against Trafficking in Persons Particularly Women and Children 2014 to commit to build a head-connection against people trafficking in ASEAN area

All these initiatives, programs do not directly intend to the migrant worker issues in the regional scale As their focus is the issues of human trafficking or protecting vulnerable groups like woman and children, while the whole picture of migrant workers’ problem is still off the table

In 2004, the Vientiane Action Program was the first reaction of the association toward the migrant workers’ rights issues This document aims to undertake ASEAN members to sing a regional framework instrument to protect and promote the rights of migrant workers within the region In order to implement the commitments reached in Vientiane Action Program 2004, the Declaration on the promotion and protection of human rights of migrant workers was adopted at the ASEAN Summit 12th in Cebu, Philippines on 13th January 2007 (referred to as the Cebu Declaration) has confirmed the necessity to adopt a comprehensive policy at regional level and determine the principles and measure specifically aim at protecting and promoting the rights of migrant workers in ASEAN The declaration recognizes the contributions of migrant workers in both receiving and sending states of

ASEAN This document stipulates the need to adopt appropriate and comprehensive migration policies on migrant workers and to address cases of abuse and violence against migrant workers whenever such cases occur The declaration is considered as a momentous achievement when ASEAN firstly gives a general statement to protect and promote the rights of migrant workers

The Cebu Declaration sets the general principles for the protection and promotion migrant workers’ rights for ASEAN members Accordingly, member countries will need to cooperate closely with each other and promote the value and potential of migrant workers

in an environment of freedom, justice, stability in accordance with the national law and policies Furthermore, the Cebu Declaration stipulate obligations of both sending and receiving countries in promoting and protecting the rights of migrant workers in ASEAN

To specify, the home countries have obligations to intensify efforts to protect the fundamental rights, promote the welfare and uphold human dignity of migrant workers; facilitate access to resources and remedies through information, training and education, access to justice, and social welfare services as appropriate and in accordance with the legislation of the receiving state; Promote fair and appropriate employment protection, especially in payment of wages, and adequate access to decent working and living conditions for migrant workers (from Article 5 to Article 10) For sending countries, their policies and legislation need to ensure access to employment and livelihood opportunities for their citizens as sustainable alternatives to migration of workers relating to recruitment issues; set up policies and procedures to facilitate aspects of migration workers, including recruitment, preparation for deployment overseas and protection of the migrant workers when abroad as well as repatriation and reintegration to the countries of origin (from Article

The Cebu Declaration reflects initial steps of the association which makes commitments of ASEAN members regarding to migrant workers’ rights This document also sets provisions on monitoring progress in implementing these activities and requests the ASEAN General Secretariat to submit an annual report on the implementation of the Cebu Declaration on the ASEAN Summit through the Council ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (from Article 15 to Article 22 of the Declaration) However, one of the biggest drawbacks of this document is that it is political binding instead legally binding (Ramji-Nogales, 2017) Hence, Article 22 in the Cebu Declaration imposes obligations for ASEAN members to

“develop an ASEAN instrument on the protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers” as a first step to prepare the foundation for future development of an effective mechanism in protecting migrant workers’ rights in ASEAN It is likely that ASEAN often starts at low or non-legal binding frameworks, often for a political purpose, and then gradually, they upgrade to formal instruments that have higher legal binding effect

After the Cebu Declaration was signed in 2007, ASEAN has taken specific actions

to bring the commitments in the Declaration into reality, which was the trigger for some future progresses of the association in the governance of the migrant workers’ rights issue

Firstly, ASEAN has taken the first steps to implement the Declaration by establishing ASEAN Committee on the Implementation of the ASEAN Declaration on the

Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers (ACMW) In 2008, the ACMW was established with the main task to develop a legal binding instrument to protect and promote rights of migrant labours The first Meeting of the ACMW was held on 15 – 16 September 2008 in Singapore, adopted its Terms of Reference and Work Plan ACMW has the responsibility to ensure the commitments in the Declaration will be implemented As can be seen in the Work Plan of ACMW, the Committee has four main activities: (i) Step up protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers against exploitation and mistreatment; (ii) Strengthen protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers by enhancing labour migration governance in ASEAN Countries;(iii) Regional cooperation to fight human trafficking in ASEAN; (iv) Development of an ASEAN Instrument on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers

Secondly, ASEAN has established an expertise group to support the implementation of activities to promote and protect the rights of migrant workers in the region - Task Force on ASEAN Migrant Workers (TF-AMW) Task Force on migrant workers

is a mechanism to ensure the rights of migrant workers through civil society organizations

of the region and the country, trade unions, human rights organizations and institutions, NGOs on immigration

The TF-AMW is composed of SAPA regional networks of civil society organizations and trade unions including:

- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA);

- Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA);

- Mekong Migration Network (MMN);

- ASEAN Service Employee’s Trade Union Council (ASETUC);

- Southeast Asia Migrant Workers’ Initiative;

- National Working Groups and Focal Points who coordinate national advocacy activities in ASEAN Countries: Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam

The Task Force will continue to work with ASEAN member countries to ensure the implementation of the Cebu Declaration 2007 in protecting and promoting migrant workers’ rights efficiently, especially in enhancing the progress of drafting the ASEAN Framework Instruments in this issue

Thirdly, ASEAN established the ASEAN Forum on Migrant Workers (AFML) At the first meeting of the Senior Labour Officials Meeting (SLOM) held on March 2008 in Thailand, the members agreed to establish an ASEAN forum on migrant workers as a regular activity in the work plan of ACMW The objectives of the AFML are three folds:

- To share stakeholder experiences, challenges and good practices in implementation of the Recommendations at past AFML meetings This is undertaken during the Review Session in each of the AFML meetings

- To examine in detail Articles of the Cebu Declaration that pertain to the obligations

of both countries of origin and destination This is completed through the adoption of two Thematic Sessions in every AFML meeting

- To draft and agree on Recommendations arising from discussions of the thematic sessions

This is an event relating to the governments of the ASEAN member countries, organizations of workers, employers and civil society organizations (CSOs) The forum provides a space of dialogue and exchange of ideas on issues facing migrant workers in Southeast Asia Each forum focuses on a theme, usually relates to the problem of how to implement the ASEAN Declaration on the rights of migrant workers At each forum, participants agree to adopt a set of conclusions in a document namely “Recommendations” The Recommendations are crafted by a drafting committee during the AFML meetings which would be discussed, finalized and adopted in a plenary session with all stakeholders attending the AFML

Eventually, after a long time of negotiation, ASEAN reached a final agreement by signing the Consensus on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers

at the 31st ASEAN Summit on 14 November 2017 (referred to as the Consensus) Although

it took ASEAN a decade to adopt the Consensus, this document was morally binding rather than a legally binding as intended in the Cebu Declaration (Rother, 2018) The Consensus was considered that brings a step forward of ASEAN in the protection of the rights of migrant workers in the region Albeit the document created non-binding principles, it also increases and expands the important obligations of ASEAN member states After the Consensus was signed, ASEAN members also decided to adopt the Action Plan (2018 – 2015) to implement the Consensus which was developed by the ACMW

It is also necessary to refer to the adoption of the ASEAN Declaration on Human Rights in 2012 (ADHR) Albeit the ADHR is also a non-legally binding agreement, this document shows the stronger commitments in addressing the migrant workers’ rights issues Article 4 of the ADHR expresses that the rights of migrant “are an inalienable, integral and indivisible part for human rights and fundamental freedoms” It is the important evidence of commitments of ASEAN member states in the protection of the rights

of migrant workers

In general, ASEAN has a tendency to use “soft law” tools in the governance of migrant worker issues All most all of regional documents regarding to migrant workers are non-legally binding (Ramji-Nogales, 2017)

3.2 Inadequacies of ASEAN governance regime of migrant workers’ rights

Although ASEAN made an attempt on the establishment of a governance regime on the issues of migrant workers’ rights within its member states, the association still shows the limitations and deadlocks on this progress It is likely that except for strong words expressed in non-binding agreements ASEAN reveals its inadequacies on the governance

of migrant labour rights issues

Firstly, provisions of ASEAN non-binding agreements are relatively vague, which diminishes the effectiveness of the regional mechanisms regarding to the protection of migrant workers’ rights On the one hand, ASEAN documents show the imbalance between sending and receiving member states, which is expressed by Kneebone (2011) that it reflects the status of “weak” and “strong” states in the ASEAN countries’ relationship with respect

to migrant worker concerns For example, Article 13 of the Cebu Declaration impose the responsibilities of protecting migrant workers not only in the progress of recruitment, preparation for deployment overseas but also when they are working abroad as well as repatriation and reintegration to the home country without mentioning any obligations of cooperation of the host states Kneebone (2012) claimed that despite both of sending and receiving countries gain benefits from migrant workers but it seems to have disjointed responsibilities in the protection of migrant workers between these two partners

Secondly, ASEAN focuses on securitized aspects when it comes to migrant workers problems rather than human rights ones This is also a traditional approach of countries that considers migrant workers as an issue which have negative impacts on national security Therefore, the issues related to the rights of migrant workers has not been gotten attention

of regional agendas in Southeast Asia sufficiently Instead, ASEAN member states concentrate on the negative aspects of migrants to national security, for example illegal immigration, human trafficking, and smuggling (Cheah, 2009; Kneebone, 2011), affecting to the regional cooperation activities

An example of this is the situation of undocumented migrant workers account for a large number in total of migrant workers within the region They are able to get a high exposure of being abused, working under the insufficient conditions, having health problems without getting access to medical care or even being treated as criminals in the host states However, ASEAN seems to keep silent on the protection of undocumented migrant workers in its regional instruments ASEAN has raised its attention for irregular migrants since 1999 The 1999 Bangkok Declaration on irregular migration prescribed that

“regular and irregular migration should not be considered in isolation from each other” The next documents of the Association states otherwise Both of the Cebu Declaration and the Consensus stipulated that undocumented migrant workers’ rights are only considered when it comes to “humanitarian reasons” (Article 2 of the Declaration and Article 56 of the Consensus) It can be seen that this humanitarian approach excludes responsibilities of ASEAN member states in protecting the rights of undocumented migrant workers Clauses

49 and 59 also showed that ASEAN focus is still on preventing irregular migration rather than protecting their rights when they have been already worked at the host states This humanitarian approach excludes responsibilities of ASEAN member states in protecting undocumented migrant workers’ rights Cheah (2009) criticized that the humanitarian approach could allow member states consider undocumented migrant workers simply from the lens of the lack of kindness rather than a more complicated problem may exist such as synesthetic elitism in Southeast Asia society

Secondly, it is evident that the attempts on the build of formal normative frameworks for the association has been failing As noted above, the Cebu Declaration

aimed to enhance the progress of adopting a regional instrument which have legally binding effect on the protection and promotion of migrant workers’ rights This shows the deadlock

of the association in reaching the consensus between member states on the common approach of migrant workers issues There are several reasons for this situation

One of the main reasons for the delay in signing a legal binding instrument for this issue is the contradict interests between sending and receiving member countries In the progress of drafting the regional framework instrument, there are three points that revealed major conflicts between ASEAN members which are the legal-binding effect of the document; irregular migrant workers issue; and the protection of family members of migrant workers (Allison-Reumann, 2017; Bal & Gerard, 2018; Rother & Piper, 2015) These conflicts, as explained by Chavez (2015), comes from the priority of ASEAN member states

to sovereignty which was expressed by the ASEAN principles of non-interference and consensus on decision making (Kneebone, 2012) (Auethavornpipat, 2017) This is evident in the case of Malaysia which required full sovereignty in the migrant policies (Ramji-Nogales, 2017)

3.3 Regulatory regionalism as an appropriate solution for the governance of migrant workers’ rights issues in Southeast Asia

3.3.1 The concept of regulatory regionalism

The concept of “regulatory regionalism” developed initially by Jayasuriya (2009) Regulatory regionalism is a new mode of regional governance which places emphasis importance on actual activities of national and local institutions of states rather than formal regional cooperation mechanism or official international agreements Its emergence of regulatory regionalism to tackle transboundary issues more effectively in Asia would be firstly discussed on this paper, then followed by Southeast Asia

Jayasuriya (2009) uses the term “regulatory regionalism” in reference to a new mode

of regional governance which takes root in possibilities of reshaping economic and political borders between countries in the context of globalization Globalizations have contributed

to develop cross-border interactions among different actors in various countries, which created the so called “political and ideological boundaries” As a result, the new borders system will be ameliorated under complex transnational economic and political relations between countries which later creates new spaces of governance that are dependent from territorial national boundaries (Jayasuriya, 2015) From this lens, Jayasuriya and Hameiri (2011) pointed out that these new spaces have been created as regional regulatory frameworks and networks in terms of convoluted transnational social, economic, security issues through soft law and informal mechanism rather than official international and regional agreements or institutions In addition, regulatory regionalism is an internal transformation process of states (Jayasuriya & Hameiri, 2011), enabling the implementation

of regional policies in the national level (Chattranond, 2018) A radical example is when China actively participated in regulatory regionalism projects The Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) in the Economic Cooperation Program of the Asian Development Bank reflected the engagement of local authorities of Yunnan and Guangxia provinces in the National Coordination Group for the GMS Program which were established by the Chinese

government in 2006 This institution was the combination of central government and local authorities including Ministry of Trade, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, General Department of Customs and local authorities of Yunnan and Guangxi (Jayasuriya, 2015)

Unlike nationalism methodology, regulatory regionalism does not express state sovereignty within the national territory in regional integrations There appears to reach some agreements of scholars regarding to disadvantages of the nationalism approach in the international and regional integration (Jayasuriya, 2009) To effectively address transboundary issues, concerned nations need to have a cross-border governance system through the engagement to international or regional institutions However, from the lens of nationalism approach, some functions of states are able to be replaced by the establishment

of such institutions, which limits state power in some national domestic affairs (Jayasuriya, 2009) As a result, countries are not willing to engage into regional integration addressing variety of cross-border problems due to the impact of this approach Thus, unlike nationalism approach, regulatory regionalism as the new mode of governance is not based

on the idea that regional institutions would replace national sovereignty or even the cooperation of intergovernmental organizations, which would create more opportunities for conservative countries to seek for a more effective governance forms addressing transboundary issues

3.3.2 The emergence of regulatory regionalism governance in Asia Pacific

As mentioned above, ASEAN shows a weak regionalization (Fernández-i-Marín & Jordana, 2015) when it compares to other regions due to the persistence of absolute sovereignty of country members which results in the strong conservative of ASEAN members on innovative governance modes (Ravenhill, 2009) (Fernández-i-Marín & Jordana, 2015) However, Asia witnessed a broad spectrum of new governance forms – regulatory regionalism governance, starting at financial surveillance forms, then expanding to a variety

of other issues such as water management (Jayasuriya & Hameiri, 2011)

There are several primary reasons for the emergence of a new regulatory form of regional governance in such a conservative region as Asia when it comes to regional integration

Firstly, the emergence of regulatory regionalism in Asia is a predictable inevitability which attributes to the economic and political impacts of the globalization to national governance of many countries in Asia This alternative governance mode is not a political choice of parties in a state (Jayasuriya, 2009), but their responds to the strong demands for

an effective governance system Which could be capable of solving cross-border issues rising

in the context of globalizations

Globalizations with the development of transnational productivity networks have facilitated continuous flows of capital across international borders in various regions including Asia, creating changes in regional economical governance form On the one hand, transnationalization of markets in the region which accede countries to get access to economic resources and enabled them to reach economic development Instantaneously On

the other hand, cross-border trade and investment flows create new problems within the states such as financial crises, climate changes, environmental degradations, infectious diseases, migrant, human trafficking, laundry crimes, and so on In this context, it is difficult

to ensure the stability of the markets and address these transboundary issues without a regional governance regime including evolving countries Chattranond (2018) gave example

of the overlapping systems of different countries along the Mekong rivers to manage the hydro power market in this region However, it is likely that states demonstrate their central roles in policy making and the market management to serve public interests Thus, it leads

to conflicts between requirements for effective governance and demands of keeping the power of national states regarding to transboundary issues Therefore, regulatory projects have appeared to aid states to diminish concerns of transfer of power for regional institutions to have an efficient governance system to ensures the stability of transnational markets

Secondly, scholars also suggest that new generation FTAs which has been signed recently reflects a new approach in establishing transnational governance systems (Jayasuriya, 2009) Such FTAs like RCEP or TPP (and now CPTPP) show that besides stipulating traditional provisions related to trade arrangements among countries, these agreements also set rules and principles for social issues in country members such as environmental protections, safety food and labour standards in national policies This approach creates new political relations and compel governments to participate in political and social regulatory projects, which brings more reactions and communications among national agencies of states In other words, Jayasuriya (2015) suggested that new generation FTAs ride the forefront of the new mode of regional governance development

As mentioned above, Jayasuriya (2009) expressed the importance of active participation of national agencies in the implementation of regulations rather than in international treaties and formal regional cooperation Unlike Jayasuriya, Fernández-i-Marín and Jordana (2015) also proved that when becoming members and participating on international and regional agreements or institutions, national agencies of states communicate, learn experiences and exchange views from each other These interactions gradually form internal transformations in national agencies, then in governance system of these countries Representatives of countries in international and regional institutions brings national-level initiatives and experiences of other countries in practice Eventually, networks of new national regulatory agencies between countries were established in the regional level In other words, it is likely that the emergence regulatory regional governance has come from the actual interrelations between national agencies

Thirdly, scholars also pointed out that due to inflexibility and structural rigidity of prevailing systems of regional governance in Southeast Asia, a new form of regulatory regional governance had a chance to appear Indeed, there are various issues rising from globalizations in the region, demanding for a regional governance form to handle transnational issues promptly and effectively However, Southeast Asia countries lack flexible governance structures adapting to continuous changes in the context of globalization Various scholars indicated that it has been a long and slow process of