From High Seas to Higher Stakes
Issue 18 — Key Developments Across Brunei, Indonesia, and Malaysia
Editor’s Note
by Haniva Sekar Deanty, Lead Editor - Maritime Crescent Desk
This October marks a significant moment for the Maritime Crescent countries as they navigate moments that test their strategy.
Edrina Lisa Ozaidi in Malaysia explores the country’s foreign policy trial when the Global Sumud Flotilla interception placed Malaysia at the center of an international humanitarian crisis. With two dozen Malaysians detained, including prominent civil society figures, the government responded with swift and layered diplomacy. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim mobilized Middle Eastern networks, bypassed traditional channels, and worked closely with allies to secure their release. The crisis became more than a rescue, it was a demonstration of how principled diplomacy, when backed by strategic agility, can yield tangible results.
Our Indonesian correspondent, Hree Putri Samudra, examines the cracks between ambition and execution. Behind the grandeur displays of military modernization lies a troubling pattern of dependency: on Chinese nickel processing, Western arms procurement, and fragmented strategic alignments. Prabowo Subianto’s defense modernization plan, though grand in scale, has created logistical chaos and entrenched reliance rather than building real autonomy. The contrast with Turkey’s disciplined defense transformation makes Indonesia’s lack of strategic coherence all the more stark.
Meanwhile, Syimah Johari, presents Brunei in a different kind of lens. Its model of development, deeply rooted in the Melayu Islam Beraja (MIB) philosophy, shows how governance, religion, and identity can be tightly interwoven. While this integration fosters stability and cultural continuity, it also shapes the pace and nature of economic and technological modernization. Rather than rejecting modernity, Brunei adapts it through the lens of its values, pursuing innovation “the Islamic way” to ensure progress does not come at the expense of identity.
Together, these developments highlight the varied strategies Southeast Asian countries use to secure their place on the regional and global stage. Their responses offer a clear view of the opportunities and limits that define ASEAN today.
Malaysia 🇲🇾
How did Malaysia Respond to the Global Flotilla Crisis?
by Edrina Lisa Ozaidi, in WP Kuala Lumpur
In early October 2025, the Global Sumud Flotilla (GSF) interception had not just turned into a humanitarian crisis, but pulled Malaysia into a high-stakes diplomatic emergency. Among the aid crew, two dozen Malaysian citizens have been detained, including prominent civil society figures. Despite being plunged on the global stage, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim successfully demonstrated Malaysia’s diplomatic agility and commitment with a principled foreign policy.
The GSF was a civilian maritime mission aimed at delivering aid while challenging the Gaza blockade. Over 40 vessels and 500 participants were involved in the mission, coordinated locally by the Sumud Nusantara coalition, showing a cohesive commitment from Southeast Asians. The mission still holds a large symbolism for the Malaysian public, rooted in the nation’s long-established support for the Palestinian cause.
With the public eyeing the mission development closely, the government faced intense pressure to act as soon as the news of the interception broke. This further highlights the challenge; how can Malaysia secure the safe release of its citizens while upholding its principled stance on international law, without resorting to ineffective rhetoric?
The Prime Minister was quick to respond with a multi-faceted approach. Instead of relying on the Ministry of Foreign Affair channels, he leveraged his extensive network with leaders in the Middle East, mobilising a diplomatic firebreak. With a quick issuance, he strongly condemned the actions of the Israeli forces as an unlawful act against unarmed civilians.
In the meantime, his team also bypassed traditional diplomatic ways to engage with other counterparts. Direct communications with Turkey, Qatar and Egypt was vital for logistical access, leveraging the diplomatic ties required to negotiate on the hostage release and deportation, and the necessary position as an operational hub for the relief mission.
Combined with the international pressure, this coordinated approach became the hallmark of Global South solidarity. Within days, the situation moved beyond political posturing, achieving a breakthrough by ensuring that the detainees were not subjected to lengthy legal proceedings.
All twenty three Malaysians have successfully returned via Istanbul. Engineered through a rapid response network of Global South allies, this has proven that principled diplomacy works. Moreover, the successful return also reinforces Malaysia’s moral authority and strategic autonomy. With the right approach, Malaysia demonstrates that a nation of its size is capable of managing and coordinating a diplomatic crisis, setting an example.
In the volatile world of international affairs, the Global Sumud Flotilla was a sharp, unexpected crisis. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s personal intervention, however, managed to transform the potential disaster into a defining moment, solidifying Malaysia’s position as an active and principled global player.
Edrina is a communications professional with a background in international relations. She holds a degree from the University of Nottingham Malaysia and has worked across public relations and social media for organizations in the development, education, and corporate sectors. Her work focuses on crafting narratives around regional affairs and strengthening media engagement across Southeast Asia.
Indonesia 🇮🇩
Indonesia’s 0.2% Solution?
by Hree Putri Samudra, in Jakarta
President Prabowo Subianto’s theatrical ride in a Maung vehicle on October 5 perfectly captured Indonesia’s defense delusions. The almost 74-year-old former general lecturing about merit over seniority while commanding from the apex of a hierarchy he helped ossify for decades isn’t institutional reform. It’s an expensive irony disguised as military modernization.
But the real scandal isn’t Prabowo’s hypocrisy. It’s Indonesia’s systematic surrender of strategic leverage to multiple great powers while marketing it as sophisticated hedging. Jakarta didn’t build strategic autonomy. It built dependencies disguised as partnerships.
The numbers expose China’s resource colonization. Indonesia produces 51% of global nickel and dominates reserves with 42% of known deposits which should provide significant strategic leverage. Instead, Chinese companies control 75% of Indonesian nickel smelting capacity, while 98% of processed nickel exports go to China. Jakarta banned raw ore exports in 2020 claiming resource sovereignty, then handed processing control to Beijing.
Western powers prove equally predatory. France sells Indonesia 66 Rafale jets worth $11 billion at $115 million per unit while refusing technology transfer. America provides only “medium level maneuver access” and “low level logistical access” despite “strategic partnership” rhetoric. Only 13% of Indonesians see Australia as preferred partner versus 46% for Japan.
Indonesia’s celebrated ASEAN leadership delivers systematic humiliation. Despite chairmanship and shuttle diplomacy, Myanmar’s junta ignored special envoy visits and zero humanitarian aid reached civilians through ASEAN channels. Jakarta’s response was excluding Myanmar leaders from photo opportunities, achieving precisely nothing except symbolic gestures.
Prabowo’s $125 billion defense modernization plan epitomizes this strategic incoherence. Turkish KAAN fighters, French Rafales, and potential Chinese J-10s require separate pilot certification programs, incompatible maintenance systems, and fragmented logistics chains. Indonesia’s military faces an operational nightmare: 80% import dependency for defense needs while calling it strategic autonomy.
Indonesia’s tragedy becomes stark when contrasted with Turkey’s disciplined transformation. Under Erdoğan, Ankara reduced foreign dependency from 80% to 20% through determined efforts, not procurement diversification. Turkey made technology transfers and local production mandatory for all major defense deals. The result: Turkish defense exports exploded from $248 million in 2002 to $7.15 billion in 2024 while Indonesia remains a captive market spending $10.6 billion annually with 51% wasted on personnel costs.
Turkey’s defense industry active projects grew from 62 in 2002 to over 1,100 in 2024, while Indonesia’s TNI anniversary showcased 1,047 pieces of equipment: German Leopards, French Rafales, American F-16s and Apaches, Russian Sukhois, and Brazilian MLRS systems. Among this foreign arsenal, only the Maung tactical vehicle and KSOT-008 submarine represented genuine Indonesian innovation. This reveals a devastating 0.2% domestic development ratio.
The brutal prescription for Indonesian strategic autonomy demands abandoning diversification theater for strategic discipline. Turkey achieved this transformation in two decades under sustained political commitment. Indonesia has neither the time nor political discipline for gradual transformation. Until Jakarta embraces the uncomfortable reality that strategic autonomy requires sacrificing procurement diversity for technological sovereignty, Indonesia will remain a market for others rather than a power in its own right.
Hree serves as Project Associate for Asia and the Pacific at the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders (GNWP), where she leads multi-country initiatives integrating Women, Peace and Security (WPS), and Youth, Peace and Security (YPS) frameworks into security policies across ASEAN and South Asia. She is also a Non-Resident Fellow at the University of Glasgow’s Atomic Anxiety in the New Nuclear Age program. Previously, she served as Chair of the Humanitarian Disarmament and Inclusive Governance Working Group at the British American Security Information Council (BASIC), advocating for more accountable and inclusive nuclear policy frameworks.
Brunei Darussalam 🇧🇳
Brunei’s Distinct Path in ASEAN
by Syimah Johari, in Bandar Seri Begawan
Brunei Darussalam stands out in ASEAN as a nation where Islam is not only a moral compass but a structural framework guiding governance, policy and social order – shaped through the MIB (Melayu, Islam, Beraja) philosophy. This integration sustains national identity and stability, yet may also influence pace and nature of development.
Over the past few weeks, Brunei has recently held numerous religious ceremonies, from nationwide prayers, talks, workshops and conferences – reflecting the nation’s strong Islamic integration. As one of the core national values under the MIB, Islam continues to foster unity among Muslim citizens, providing moral governance and a shared sense of identity.
MIB, which translates to Malay, Islamic, Monarchy, reflects Brunei’s emphasis on Malay ethnicity, Islam as a way of life, and the monarchy as the core of national identity. It is deeply institutionalised through policies such as the Syariah Penal Code Order 2013, Vision 2035, and taught as an obligatory subject across schools.
It’s no surprise that when asked what defines Brunei, most Bruneians point to MIB. Beyond governance, the philosophy guides how citizens carry themselves—Bruneians are encouraged to uphold its values and observe Malay customs and Islamic practices, even abroad. This sense of identity has prompted ongoing discussions on strengthening MIB’s presence in education, not just as a subject, but as a way of life, ensuring its principles remain deeply rooted in the next generation.
While Brunei is not the only Muslim-majority country in ASEAN—neighbouring Malaysia and Indonesia are as well—its approach to integrating Islam into national life is distinct. Malaysia, for instance, holds Islam as an official religion, but the country operates under a parliamentary democracy, where religion and policy often function side by side rather than fully intertwined. Indonesia, on the other hand, follows Pancasila, a national philosophy built on five different principles that uphold belief in God while embracing religious diversity. Brunei’s model, however, is more holistic and guided from the top down. Rather than a limitation, this integration reflects a conscious choice to prioritize social harmony, cultural continuity, and a shared identity.
This close integration of faith and governance has naturally shaped Brunei’s development path. By anchoring progress within the values of MIB, Brunei tends to approach changes with caution, ensuring that the new policies align with cultural identity and religious principles. Some see this as a factor behind the nation’s slower economic diversification and modernization compared to its neighbors. Others view it as a deliberate approach that prioritizes social cohesion, moral integrity, and long-term stability over rapid change.
Brunei’s development model reflects the belief that progress is not just about growth, but about preserving the values that define the nation. Recently, this balance has fostered new forms of innovation that blend faith with modernity. Dialogues on AI and entrepreneurship “the Islamic way” highlight Brunei’s efforts to pursue technological and economic growth while staying true to its religious and cultural foundations. In many ways, Brunei’s approach is neither strictly religious nor purely modern, but rather, unique.
Syimah is a graduate of King’s College London with a BA in International Relations. With a strong focus on diplomacy, regional cooperation, and development policy, she is passionate about contributing to meaningful change through public service. Currently, she is involved in poverty alleviation work through a local NGO.
Editorial Deadline 05/10/2025 11:59 PM (UTC +8)
