Thayer Consultancy Background Briefing:

ABN # 65 648 097 123

Survey of Southeast Asian
Stakeholders Pans U.S. and
China
Carlyle A. Thayer
January 8, 2019
We request your analysis of the recent survey by the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. The
results show that ASEAN countries believe Japan rather than the U.S. or China is a
reliable provider of regional security and prosperity.
Q1. What is your assessment?
ANSWER: The ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore carried out an online survey of
1,008 Southeast Asians representing the policy, research, business, civil society and
media communities. The survey was entitled, “The State of Southeast Asia: 2019.”
The Survey comprised thirty-two questions divided into five sections: Background of
Respondents (2 questions), Regional Outlook and Developments (11 questions),
Major Powers and Their Engagement in the Region (11 questions), Perception of
Trust (5 questions) and Soft Power and Regional Influence (3 questions).
Several limitations of this survey should be noted. For example, respondents were
asked multiple-choice questions but were not given the opportunity to elaborate on
their views. Any generalisations must be carefully qualified.
The survey did not indicate the number of respondents from each country. The
1,008 respondents were drawn from ten ASEAN member states or an average of 100
per country. But the sample from small states such Brunei, Cambodia and Laos are
likely to have been only a small fraction of the average. Percentages derived from
small samples may be misleading and, when aggregated, may distort findings.
Finally, although Japan was included in the survey it was not given the same
attention as the United States and China. More questions were asked about these
two countries than Japan.
Did the respondents view Japan as contributing more to regional security than the
United States or China?
There was only one question in the survey that specifically focused on Japan. This
question came in Section IV (Regional Perceptions of Trust). Respondents were asked
the same question about China, the European Union (EU), India, Japan and the
United States. The questions read, “How confident are you that [Japan] will ‘do the
right thing’ in contributing to global peace, security, prosperity and governance?’
 2

On this single measure (perceptions of trust), respondents felt most confident or

very confident that Japan would “to do the right thing” globally (65.9%), followed by
the EU (41.3%). In contrast, respondents had little or no confidence that India
(46.5%), the United States (50.6%) or China (51.5%) would ”do the right thing.”
It is my assessment that it would be misleading to conclude that Southeast Asian
viewed Japan as contributing more to regional security than the United States or
China on the basis of this question.
However, two questions in Section III are pertinent. Respondents were asked “In
your view, which country/regional organisation has the most influence economically
in Southeast Asia.” China was identified by 73.3% of respondents as having the most
economic influence, followed by the United States (7.9%) and Japan (6.2%). At the
same time, respondents ranked ASEAN (10.7%) higher than the U.S. or Japan in
terms of regional economic influence.
The second pertinent question asked, “In your view, which country/regional
organisation has the more influence politically and strategically in Southeast Asia?”
Here too China was identified as most influential by 45.2% of respondents, higher
than 30.5% of respondents who identified the United States as most influential
politically and strategically.
On the basis of these survey results (and see below) it would be premature to view
Japan as the future main provider of regional security.
Q2. Is there a “power transition” taking place in the region?
ANSWER: Quite clearly, on the basis of the results discussed above, China is viewed
as the most influential major power in Southeast Asia economically, politically and
strategically at present and in the future.
Evidence for a power transition may be found in responses to question 22 in Section
III. This question asked, “Which country do you think would most likely [vie] for
regional leadership in response to the perceived growing indifference of the US
towards Southeast Asia and ASEAN?” China was identified as the top contender by
74.1% of respondents. As noted by the authors of the survey:
The region does not see any viable leadership other than China to replace the US
among other possible contenders – the European Union (EU), India, Japan, or
Russia. The closest major power that could possibly contest for regional
leadership is Japan but its prospects appears dim with support from only 9.5% of
the respondents.
Q3. The survey results show that ASEAN countries are increasingly sceptical of
China’s intentions and growing more concerned about U.S. reliability in the region.
What is your assessment of these trends?
ANSWER: The major findings of the survey were deep concern across the region
about China’s rise and future intentions as well as deep scepticism of U.S. reliability.
This conclusion can be documented in responses to other questions posed in the
survey. For example, Section III contained the following three questions:
Q17. How do you view China’s re-emergence as a major power with respect to
Southeast Asia? Respondents were asked to pick from a list. A plurality of
 3

respondents (45.5%) selected “China will become a revisionist power with an intent
to turn Southeast Asia into its sphere of influence” as their first choice. The runner
up view, selected by 35.3% of respondents, was that “China will provide alternative
regional leadership in the wake of perceived US disengagement.” However, only
8.9% of respondents viewed China as “a benign and benevolent power.”
Q18. What is your perception of the Chinese-led Belt and road Initiative (BRI)?
Respondents were asked to pick from a list. A plurality of respondents (47%) felt that
the BRI “will bring ASEAN member states closer into China’s orbit. The second choice
from the list, held by 35% of respondents, was that Chian would provide loans for
“much needed infrastructure funding for countries in the region.” The third choice,
selected by 30.7% of respondents, was that it was “too early to analyse BRI’s impact
due to the lack of sufficient information.” Finally, only 15.7% of respondents judged
that the BRI “will not succeed as most of its projects provide little benefit to local
communities.”
Q19. In light of the experience in Sri Lanka (Hambantota Port) and Malaysia (East
Coast Rail Link), what is your view of BRI proposals in your country? Responses were
sought from nine countries that had or were considering BRI projects (Singapore was
omitted). An overwhelming majority (70%) felt that their government “should be
cautious in negotiating BRI projects, to avoid getting into unstainable financial debts
with China.” But only 6.6%) of respondents felt that their country should “avoid
participating in BRI projects.”
In Section IV, respondents were asked “How confident are you that China will ‘do the
right thing’ in contributing to global peace, security, prosperity and governance?’ A
slim majority of 51.5% of the respondents had either little or no confidence that
China would “do the right thing” globally. Only 19.6% of respondents had confidence
or high confidence that China would “do the right thing.”
The issue of U.S. reliability was raised in three questions in Section III:
Q14. How do you view he US’ global power and influence today compared to one
year ago? As noted by the survey’s authors, “the general view of the US is
overwhelmingly negative.” A majority of respondents (59.1%) thought U.S. power
and influence had deteriorated or deteriorated substantially over the last year, while
only 19.7% of respondents felt that U.S. power and influence had increased or
increased substantially; 21.2% viewed the U.S. position as unchanged.
Q15. The level of US engagement with Southeast Asia under the Trump
Administration has…? An overwhelming majority of respondents (68%) assessed that
U.S. engagement had decreased or decreased substantially. Only 13.3% of
respondents felt U.S. engagement under Trump had increased.
Q16. How confident are you of the US as a strategic partner and provider of regional
security? The results were mixed. Just over a third of respondents (34.6%) had little
or no confidence in the reliability of the United States as a provider of regional
security. At the same time, 26.9% of respondents had confidence or full confidence
in the United States.
In Section IV, respondents were asked “How confident are you that the United States
will ‘do the right thing’ in contributing to global peace, security, prosperity and
 4

governance? A slim majority of respondents (50.6%) had little or no confidence that

the U.S. would “do the right thing” globally. Respondents from Brunei, Malaysia,
Indonesia and Thailand held he most pessimistic views (higher than 60%).
Finally, the survey posed three questions on measures of soft power – first choice for
overseas education for children if offered a scholarship, favourite tourist destination
abroad, and preferred foreign language. China scored poorly on two of three
measures. Only 2.7% of respondents chose China as their first choice to educate
their children; 4.1% picked China as their favoured tourist destination; while 44.7%
considered Mandarin language as “the most useful and beneficial for their work and
professional development.”
In contrast, 31.5% of respondents chose education in the United States as their top
choice; 91.3% preferred English language as “the most useful and beneficial for their
work and professional development;” but only 11.4% selected the U.S as their
favoured tourist destination. Europe was the most popular tourist destination
chosen respondents in this survey (34%).

Suggested citation: Carlyle A. Thayer, “Survey of Southeast Asian Stakeholders Pans

U.S. and China,” Thayer Consultancy Background Brief, January 8, 2019. All
background briefs are posted on Scribd.com (search for Thayer). To remove yourself
from the mailing list type, UNSUBSCRIBE in the Subject heading and hit the Reply
key.

Thayer Consultancy provides political analysis of current regional security issues and
other research support to selected clients. Thayer Consultancy was officially
registered as a small business in Australia in 2002.