There is a pivotal scene in the 2008 movie, The Dark Knight, where the Joker has kidnapped Harvey Dent and Rachel Dawes and stashed them in two different locations that have been planted with explosives. When interrogated by Batman — who is in love with Dawes — the Joker reveals that unless someone gets to Dent and Dawes, they will both be blown up.
The explosives go off; Batman is able to rescue Dent but couldn’t stop him from getting half his face horribly scarred (hence, Two-Face), while the Gotham PD failed to get to Dawes in time, and she dies.
So, here’s one of the (many) things I have (Nick) always wondered about that scene. But above all, it’s this, and please bear with me — if Batman is part of the DC Universe, and if Superman is also part of that universe, why didn’t Superman help the Batman? With his speed and flight, Superman could save both Dawes and Dent, disarm the explosives, and head back to Metropolis with time to spare. This was superbly parodied by LA-based internet comedy company Collegehumor.
Anyway, it got me thinking — assuming, first and foremost, that Superman existed in the same universe as the Dark Knight (again, bear with me), maybe the reason Superman didn’t go to Gotham was because it was a Gotham-level problem. Crime in a city — okay, Gotham, you have a hero named Batman; it’s Batman’s problem. However, if there was an invasion by a tyrannical megalomanic from outer space, it’s a Justice League problem. Then you get the group together — Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Aquaman, Cyborg, whoever.
What does this have to do with anything? In a discussion that both co-writers of this article had, we were talking about what sort of problems a common Asean platform should address. Malaysia, after all, is about to assume chairmanship of Asean in 2025. In Canberra in March, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said as chair, Malaysia will attempt to breathe new life into Asean-led forums to achieve “something of consequence”.
What should that “something of consequence” be? Well, to start, we actually have to figure out what issues require an Asean-level response, as opposed to a Malaysia-level response, or even a neighbourhood-level response. When do we get the Justice League together? And when do we leave it to the individuals like Superman or Batman? For instance, if a playground in a Malaysian neighbourhood is falling to bits, it is hardly an issue for Asean. In fact, it is hardly an issue for the federal or state governments. It should be an issue at the level of municipal governments.
Another scene in The Dark Knight helps with this issue identification. The talk of The Dark Knight and municipalities got me (Carissa) thinking of the film’s courtroom/acid in the face scene where Dent tells Salvatore “The Boss” Maroni, “If you want to kill a public servant, Mr Maroni, I recommend you buy American”.
This scene reveals several facets of a curious implicit psyche. First, the belief in American manufacturing capabilities and, more broadly, that “manufacturing” should be a distinctly national issue. Second, the belief in the role of elected officials in delivering domestic public functions — Batman knowingly sits out of court proceedings.
This led me down a rabbit hole of attempting to grasp the Malaysian parallel — what captivates Malaysia’s national psyche and what would “something of consequence” within our capabilities be. Coincidentally, I came across the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute State of Southeast Asia Survey Report 2023, which provides a glimpse into the current Malaysian psyche. The dominant narrative in Malaysia, as highlighted by the report, is marked by anxieties surrounding unemployment and economic recession (63.7%), slightly surpassing the fear of climate change (61.3%). This shift from the 2022 survey, where Covid-19 dominated concerns (78.5%), signifies a transition from immediate health worries to long-term economic anxieties. Coming in hot in third place for two consecutive years, to no surprise, was domestic political instability.
These headliners are unsurprising, but they beg the question: which of these should be solved internally, and which should be solved at the Asean level? Climate change, for example, is something which goes across borders. It’s not as if carbon emissions just decide not to cross the Tuas or Woodlands checkpoints. There, a concerted effort in thinking about how the Asean countries might come together to regionally tackle climate change or ocean acidification (since so much of Asean is actually our waters) is justified.
This is not to say that all issues are easily categorised. Consider food security. On the one hand, a more efficient regional use of land to specialise in certain crops would make sense, and greater guarantees of regional trade to ensure unbroken supply chains of critical foods are useful. But, imagine if country A and country B both had rice shortages, and country A was obligated to send rice to country B. How would the citizens of country A react? Thus, in some ways, food security is about guaranteeing food for citizens and is, therefore, a national issue.
The reality is that the world is complex. Accordingly, a multilevel approach may be the right approach in addressing such issues. Consider food security once more. Sometime last year, the Indian government banned the export of non-Basmati white rice, imposed other duties, and a minimum price on other rice variants. The world is aware of Asean’s anxieties and some countries, like the US, see this as an opportunity for increased wheat exports as a substitute for rice.
The Malaysian in me was adamant that we will not be swayed by wheat substitutes following the snowball sample surveys carried out during meal appointments in March. Malaysian respondents to my informal survey overwhelmingly indicated a strong preference for rice and a resistance to the idea that wheat can be a true substitute for rice.
Yet, Malaysia is a net importer of both wheat and rice. For example, our beloved Maggi instant noodles are manufactured in Shah Alam, Selangor, using 100% imported wheat. Should a rice cartel (much like a rice Opec) be formed among rice exporting countries, Malaysia as is would certainly not qualify nor have strong leverage to directly influence outcomes.
However, there are aspirations among member states such as the Asean power grid (APG), in which Malaysia could play an instrumental role. The APG represents a project of common interest that could broaden electricity markets, bring economic benefits to member states and help Malaysia and its neighbours tackle the energy trilemma. While there remains a lot to be worked out (think, dispute resolution mechanisms and whatnot), we should avoid allowing these uncertainties to render us paralysed. Rather, Malaysia should continue to accelerate efforts to develop the APG with its immediate neighbours, Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia in hopes of better positioning Malaysia to support and benefit from the realisation of APG.
At risk of over-exhausting the point, the realisation of APG quite literally requires the grids of all Asean member states to be speaking the same language (otherwise known as grid harmonisation). Suffice to say there are 10 Asean member states and there were two parties (Nasa and Lockheed Martin) in the 1999 Mars climate orbiter incident, in which communication with the orbiter was lost due to a measurement mismatch between two systems: SI units (metric) by Nasa and US customary units by the builder of the spacecraft Lockheed Martin.
Taking the position as chair of Asean in 2025 requires some prioritisation of what is a national issue versus what is a regional or even global issue. Climate, electrification, food, regional geopolitical security, may be some of these issues, but what else? A clear foreign policy must outline this for the nation, lest we call in the Justice League for a neighbourhood issue or we call in only the Batman to take on an alien invasion.
This article was co-written with Carissa Livan Ding.