ASEAN Chair: 3-day security preparedness exercise at KLCC from today — MKN
MKN, in a statement, said the session will involve comprehensive testing of the Emergency Action Plan based on MKN Directive No.18, namely the Policy and Mechanism for the Management and Handling of Terrorism Crises.
According to MKN, the exercise comprises three phases, namely the Diplomat Mind Symposium today, covering preparation briefings and current inputs regarding the exercise, followed by the 'Table Top Exercise' (TTX) simulation discussion tomorrow before concluding on Wednesday with the 'Field Training Exercise' (FTX), involving simulation and demonstrations.
'Throughout this exercise, especially on Wednesday, the public is advised to remain calm regarding the simulation implementation that will involve the movement of assets and security personnel around the KLCC area,' said MKN.
It said the exercise is conducted to ensure all involved agencies are at the highest level of preparedness and coordination.
MKN said the exercise is also following its move to activate the Crisis Management Team together with security agencies to strengthen national defence, security and public order throughout Malaysia's ASEAN 2025 chairmanship.
Checks on the myasean2025.my website found that among the ASEAN meetings to be held starting May 24 are the 19th Meeting of the ASEAN Coordinating Council Working Group on Timor-Leste's ASEAN Membership Application (ACCWG), the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting and the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
Malaysia assumed the ASEAN Chairmanship on Jan 1 from Laos, with the theme 'Inclusivity and Sustainability', reflecting the country's aspirations to build a united and prosperous ASEAN.
This marks the fifth time Malaysia has held the ASEAN Chair after assuming the role in 1977, 1997, 2005 and 2015.
Established on Aug 8, 1967, ASEAN currently consists of 10 Southeast Asian countries, namely Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, while Timor-Leste's full membership is still in process. — BERNAMA
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
29 minutes ago
- The Star
Editorial: Asean diplomacy delivers triumphantly
Working towards peace: Anwar with Malaysia's Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan (left) at the ceasefire meeting. The groundwork for that had already been laid by a closed door gathering among foreign ministers last month arranged by Mohamad. — IZZUDIN ABD RAZAK/Prime Minister's Office THE ceasefire between Thailand and Cambodia, brokered by Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim after nearly a week of armed hostilities along their shared border, is a welcome development for a region desperate to hold onto its stability. We commend Anwar, this year's Asean Chair, for acting swiftly to bring the two sides together to reach an agreement in Putrajaya last Monday. Hundreds of thousands had fled their homes and dozens had died. That the guns have now fallen silent is no small achievement. It was, in Anwar's own words in Jakarta a day later, a 'triumph for all of Asean'. Indeed, the outcome is a reminder of what personal diplomacy can accomplish where institutional mechanisms fall short. No Asean conflict resolution frameworks were invoked; there was no shuttle diplomacy by the Asean Chair's special envoy; no invocation of the High Council under the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. Instead, it was Anwar's relationships, including longstanding ties to both Hun Sen in Cambodia and Thaksin Shinawatra's faction in Thailand, that made the difference. As Chair of Asean, it was within his prerogative to act, and act he did. We do not view this as a failure of Asean, but rather as an opportunity to reflect on the limits of our current instruments. As a community, Asean must not let its cohesion depend solely on interpersonal familiarity among elites. The next crisis may not afford us such good fortune. It is our hope that Asean leaders take stock of this episode and commit to strengthening the region's formal dispute settlement architecture; not merely to avoid conflict, but to deepen our sense of shared responsibility. Asean's credibility depends on peace among its members. When neighbours go to war, even briefly, the region's attractiveness to investors suffers, and our centrality in the Indo-Pacific order is thrown into question. Yet even as we mark this diplomatic breakthrough, the challenges ahead remain daunting. Reports emerged barely 24 hours after the ceasefire went into effect that both sides had already accused each other of fresh violations. This is, sadly, to be expected. Armies act according to their own logic. It is precisely why we should not entrust the burden of peace to soldiers alone. What we need is a lasting political commitment, supported by trusted civilian institutions, to make peace not just possible, but permanent. The fragility of the current truce speaks to a broader global trend. As one analyst noted in a recent commentary in The Diplomat, we appear to be living in an 'age of ceasefires', a time when conflicts are paused, not resolved, and diplomacy seeks to contain rather than to transform. The war in Ukraine, the unfathomable violence in Gaza, and now the clashes in our own backyard, have all fallen into this pattern. The Financial Times, writing on the neighbourly conflict, described it as a symptom of structural failure: A lack of shared norms, functional forums, and enforceable rules. Certainly, the structures are there; they are merely left unenforced. If we in Asean accept this trend as inevitable, we will only ever reach for the lowest common denominator in moments of crisis. We will settle for fragile pauses instead of forging durable peace. This would be a disservice to the generations who built Asean on the promise of mutual respect, non-violence, and shared prosperity. Let us not squander that legacy. Let us use this ceasefire, not as an endpoint, but as a chance to recommit to a regional order anchored in principles, not personalities. Only then can Asean truly claim to be a community, not just of governments, but of peoples. — The Jakarta Post/ANN
The Star
34 minutes ago
- The Star
Diplomacy and the honest broker
IT was a triumphant moment for Malaysia on Monday after a ceasefire deal between Cambodia and Thailand was reached. Accolades came from all over the world as Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim announced the deal before clasping the hands of his Cambodian and Thai counterparts in front of the world's press and on live TV. What many are unaware of is that there had been a behind-the-scenes and very hush-hush meeting that took place a few weeks before this diplomatic breakthrough hosted by Anwar. Looking back, this incident reflects the Asean way of dealing with issues: with a lot of respect and much tact among all parties involved. The meeting would not have taken place if the two countries had not trusted Malaysia. At one point, cold feet could have derailed everything had it not been for Malaysia treating the matter with a lot of sensitivity and understanding. It was during the 58th Asean Ministerial Meeting in Kuala Lumpur in early July that Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan, concerned by developments at Thai-Cambodian borders, decided to approach his two counterparts, Thailand's Maris Sangiampongsa and Cambodia's Prak Sokhonn. The simmering dispute had already killed dozens of people and displaced more than 270,000 from both sides of the border. 'As a neighbour and Chair of Asean, I don't want to see my two good friends not talking to each other and felt it was my duty to put them together in the same room. It is as simple as that,' Mohamad told this columnist. 'I told them, let's have coffee in my room and put our heads together. They came and left through different doors. 'Such a meeting needs to be conducted away from others, we had to keep it quiet because we had to be really sensitive about a very fragile situation. 'They needed to inform their leaders afterwards. Both of them expressed their appreciation for our initiative. 'That started the ball rolling for the leaders' meeting in Malaysia on Monday,' Mohamad added. Anwar was briefed every step of the way. Following the foreign ministers' meeting, it was Anwar's turn to convince Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet and acting Thai Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai to come to Malaysia, urging them to find a peaceful solution and agree to a ceasefire. One officer said the diplomatic effort is best described as Malaysia being an honest broker: 'Malaysia has no hidden agenda in doing this work. Both parties know this. 'Tok Mat is a blunt and straight-talking person. He met them privately and made them feel comfortable. There is trust, and protecting the trust in the whole process. 'This is the way we deal with issues. It is like you deal with your family members. You don't shame them out there, you deal with the issues in the privacy and comfort of your own environment, behind closed doors. 'The most important thing is to make everybody feel comfortable so that they have trust in Malay-sia. This is our strength. They want to keep it within the family because they trust us and we can be an honest broker unlike any other parties,' said the official. Anwar also made full use of his own channel of communications with the two leaders and consulted other Asean leaders in the past weeks. 'Malaysia is close to Cambodia and Thailand. The Prime Minister has a direct communications advantage and, of course, Malay-sia is the current Asean Chair. 'Without his personal intervention and his leadership, the meeting might not have taken place. He did his homework and also did not sideline other Asean leaders,' said another diplomat. Wisma Putra and other agencies were working behind closed doors in preparation for last Monday's meeting at the Prime Minister's official residence, Seri Perdana. The Cambodian and Thai leaders were ushered into the meeting room. China and the US sent representatives too. The presence of the envoys from the two superpowers called for a delicate diplomatic balancing act in managing relations. Malaysia and Asean could not ignore US President Donald Trump's role in calling for the two sides to end the conflict – Trump said he told the two leaders that negotiations to reduce tariffs would not proceed until 'the fighting stops'. And China was there because it is Asean's immediate neighbour and plays an important role in this region where Asean needs to be neutral. Initially the US wanted to co-host the meeting but the Malaysian government was firm in only allowing the US to be the co-organiser instead. The official joint statement clearly indicated the meeting was co-organised by the US with the active participation of China 'to promote a peaceful resolution to the ongoing situation'. Their representatives were invited to speak and gave short statements. The mood at the meeting was conciliatory. Everybody was on the same page. Through their statements it was obvious the Cambodian and Thai leaders wanted the conflict to end. Both countries were losing economically as tourism numbers and border trade declined. 'They had the desire to end it, and those were the vibes as they entered the room. The whole world was watching them and they knew they needed to show some positive development,' said an observer. What's next? The General Border Committee (GBC) meeting, initially to take place in Phnom Penh, is set to convene in Kuala Lumpur tomorrow. Mohamad said the ceasefire modality must be decided quickly. Brunei, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Singapore have agreed to participate as military observers. 'This will be Asean-led. We are not sending troops but we will have observers at the borders,' he explained. The Malaysian Armed Forces issued a statement yesterday saying that the GBC meeting will take place between Aug 4 and 7. 'Malaysia is the neutral venue chosen mutually by Thailand and Cambodia. The terms of reference for the deployment of defence attaches as the interim team and the deployment of an Asean monitoring group will be part of the GBC's agenda,' said the statement. Malaysia, of course, wants this meeting to be successful, bearing in mind its responsibility as Asean Chair. It will be a long-drawn out process as mediating a protracted border dispute is always a delicate matter. Malaysia is recognised as a good broker and has experience in resolving and mediating conflicts in the past, such as in the southern regions of the Philippines and Thailand. It is now leveraging its diplomatic ties to facilitate dialogues to ensure the region remains peaceful. This is not about who gets nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. It is about achieving peace in the region and saving the lives of innocent people.
The Star
8 hours ago
- The Star
Asean's parallel diplomacy on Myanmar: Creativity sans coordination
AT the 58th Asean Foreign Ministers' Meeting on July 9, the regional bloc reiterated its commitment to the Five-Point Consensus (5PC) as the central political reference for addressing the deepening crisis in Myanmar, which was also stated in the 2025 Asean Leaders' Statement on a Ceasefire in Myanmar Extended and Expanded. Yet more than four years since the military coup, with escalating violence, deepening displacement and widespread human rights violations, one must ask: How effective has this approach truly been? What has become increasingly clear is the growing disconnect between Asean's rhetoric and its actions. Far from being a roadmap to peace, the 5PC has become a diplomatic placeholder, invoked ritually in communiqués yet divorced from realities on the ground. What has emerged in its place is a fragmented and contradictory set of responses has emerged, exposing Asean to what is described as the trap of "parallel diplomacy". This trap reveals both institutional stagnation and growing division among Asean member states. Rather than forging a cohesive and principled regional strategy, Asean has allowed individual member states to pursue uncoordinated and improvised national initiatives. These fragmented actions, often detached from Asean's formal mechanisms, have bred confusion, diluted collective pressure on the junta and eroded public confidence in the bloc's credibility. Parallel diplomacy, by nature, is not inherently flawed. Informal channels, Track 1.5 dialogues and backchannel negotiations can play crucial roles in complex conflict contexts. However, when these efforts unfold without coordination or a shared strategic vision, they risk undermining peace building efforts. Fragmented diplomacy, in such a case, becomes a symptom of disunity, not a strategy for flexibility. Thailand's approach to the Myanmar crisis exemplifies the consequences of this incoherence. Often operating outside Asean frameworks, Thailand has spearheaded what has come to be known as the 'Bangkok Process', a series of direct engagements with Myanmar's military regime. This began with then-foreign minister Don Pramudwinai's visit to Naypyidaw in 2021 and continued with the appointment of a Thai special envoy to Myanmar. Several informal consultations followed, including meetings involving the junta and its closest allies. In December 2022, Thailand hosted a closed-door meeting that included junta representatives and the foreign ministers of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore boycotted the meeting, citing their commitment to the 5PC and objected to the junta's inclusion. Similar meetings followed in June 2023 and December 2024, often framed around humanitarian engagement. The latter was attended by ministers from Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore, with the rest sending lower-level delegates. These moves signalled improvisation over unity, diplomacy over strategy. Indonesia as Asean chair in 2023, meanwhile, held consultations with over 145 stakeholders, including resistance groups, by September that year. These engagements evolved into an informal Joint Coordination Body known as the "Jakarta Club", which remains active today. The January 2025 Asean Foreign Ministers' Retreat further highlighted the region's growing fragmentation over Myanmar. The Philippines proposed a new political framework, while Vietnam called for the inclusion of ethnic armed organisations in future dialogue. These diverging positions do not signal healthy pluralism, they reflect deepening strategic incoherence within Asean. In April, Malaysia initiated direct engagement with the National Unity Government Myanmar's civilian-led opposition. However, diplomatic courtesies and technical cooperation with the junta continue in parallel, lending de facto legitimacy to the military regime while reducing pro-democracy actors to symbolic participants. The emergence of multiple informal mechanisms, such as Indonesia's Jakarta Club, Thailand's Bangkok Process and Malaysia's dual-track diplomacy, reflects both innovation and disarray in Asean's approach. These ad-hoc efforts, in the absence of a unified strategy, illustrate Asean's drift: engaging both the junta and the opposition without a coherent political roadmap risks perpetuating stalemate rather than resolving the crisis. Part of this incoherence stems from Asean's institutional structure. The rotating nature of the Special Envoy, changing with each Asean Chair, undermines continuity and long-term strategy. Compounding this, minister-level envoy is no longer on the table. While some of these adjustments are framed as strategic, they also reflect the bloc's limited political will and uneven commitment to addressing the crisis. Another structural flaw lies in Asean's lack of a clear, enforceable mechanism to address unconstitutional changes of government. This institutional gap not only enables impunity but makes the bloc complicit in democratic backsliding. Without the courage to confront member states that violate core democratic norms, the bloc merely adds strain to its already fragile regionalism project. Another disunity has been revealed in member states' responses to Myanmar's planned 2025 elections, to be held later this year. Malaysia and Singapore have rightly questioned the vote's legitimacy, while Thailand remains neutral and Cambodia has even offered to send observers. These divergent positions highlight Asean's chronic inability to speak with one voice on fundamental democratic principles, undermining its credibility and emboldening authoritarian actors within and beyond Myanmar. Asean stands at a critical juncture shaped by crisis, centrality and conscience. This photo taken on December 10, 2023 shows members of the Mandalay People's Defense Forces (MDY-PDF) heading to the frontline amid clashes with the Myanmar military in northern Shan State. Myanmar's junta ended the country's state of emergency on July 31, 2025, ramping up preparations for a December election being boycotted by opposition groups and criticised by international monitors. — AFP The humanitarian catastrophe in Myanmar, marked by mass killings, displacement and aid blockades, has spilled across borders, fuelling instability and transnational crime. Some advocate for using all diplomatic tools, including parallel tracks, but innovation without principled leadership and a unified strategy risks becoming a smokescreen for inaction rather than a path to peace. The true test of Asean's centrality is no longer its ability to speak in uniformity, but to harmonise many voices without losing the plot. Centrality must mean more than procedural prominence, it must signal strategic coherence and moral leadership. The Myanmar crisis has revealed troubling signs of institutional drift, and unless corrected, Asean's foundational claims to unity and purpose will ring increasingly empty. Above all, Asean must summon moral clarity. Leading with conscience means naming the perpetrators, supporting the victims and rejecting impunity masquerading as diplomacy. — The Jakarta Post/ANN Yuyun Wahyuningrum is executive director of Asean Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR).
