Southeast Asian Studies in Times of Cascading Crises

I come from Aceh, which lost more than 160,000 lives in the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. When I received a scholarship to study in Germany, the mega-disaster was on my mind. How could the people of Aceh recover from the massive loss and destruction? The University of Passau’s MA program in Southeast Asian Studies attracted me because it offered multidisciplinary perspectives through four specializations (I had to choose two), namely: 1) Development Policy and Economic Change in Southeast Asia; 2) Gender, Religion and Culture in Southeast Asia; 3) Conflicts, Disasters, Processes of State Formation in Southeast Asia; and 4) Urbanism in Southeast Asia. I realized at that time that this was the kind of study I needed. You can’t learn disaster studies per se, but you have to comprehensively understand many things—the society, its culture, the region—in order to understand disaster.

Today the world does not appear to have a better future. The number of disaster events worldwide in 2021-2030 is projected to increase (UNDRR, 2022). In 2021 alone, 10,492 people were killed by natural disasters, 104 million people were affected, and direct economic losses amounted to USD 252 billion. Southeast Asian countries are vulnerable to risks of disaster, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam being among the most affected countries in the world (Academy of Disaster Reduction and Emergency Management et al., 2022).

Thus I developed a research interest in cascading crises in the Southeast Asian region, such as the stranded Rohingya refugees in Aceh in 2020, disaster recovery in the aftermath of the 2013 earthquake in Central Aceh, the 2014 Mt. Kelud eruptions in East Java, the 2018 cascading disasters (earthquake, tsunami, liquefaction and Covid-19) in Central Sulawesi, and the management of Covid-19 in Southeast Asia.

I found, however, that my research interests do not jibe with those in the Department of Southeast Asian Studies at the University of Malaya, which focuses primarily on the history, language, religion, culture, politics, and institutionalization (ASEAN) of the region. Contemporary issues, like the cascading crises, are not yet reflected in the curriculum of Southeast Asian Studies, in contrast to some other majors like Geography, Social Work, Security Studies, and (International) Development Studies, which take these up in their courses.

Disciplinal specialization offers one reason for the neglect of contemporary issues in the Southeast Asian studies curriculum. Such issues require an interdisciplinary approach, a broad outlook, and a regional, even global, perspective. And this is precisely why I have maintained my research focus on cascading crises in Southeast Asia. It is my way of “mainstreaming” the topic  in Southeast Asian studies until, in time, it becomes part of the formal academic courses.

Despite this challenge, I have benefited from my academic training and focus on Southeast Asia. It opened the door to employment (remotely) at the Asia-Japan Research Institute of Ritsumeikan University, Japan, in a project entitled “Locally-led Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance in Asia.” The project includes Indonesia and the Philippines as the case studies, along with Nepal, China and Japan. I also found a place at Think Next, Act Next — The Next Gen EU-ASEAN Think Tank Dialogue, funded by the European Union. As one of 90 researchers from Southeast Asia and Europe, I worked with researchers from Malaysia, the Philippines, and Germany on vaccine diplomacy in Southeast Asia. In sum, notwithstanding the limitations of Southeast Asian studies, the field has enabled me to engage in opportunities for academic achievement and career enhancement. What is interesting is that the opportunities concern not just the region but the region as part of a larger global concern. My experience shows that students graduating from Southeast Asian Studies have career prospects in the world of diplomacy, international humanitarian work, and development agencies.

To address the constraint posed by exclusive disciplinal emphasis, I believe that universities should approach strategic organizations based in the region, such as the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA Centre), United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC), and the Southeast Asia Regional Office of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Through formal cooperation agreements, universities can engage in collaborative research and attract practitioners to study Southeast Asia.

Finally, I believe that scholars and institutions outside the region also contribute to the development of Southeast Asian Studies in Southeast Asia. Our universities can host crises experts from other countries as visiting professors or fellows. These experts can, in turn, expand multidisciplinary studies and develop Southeast Asian specialists. Institutionally and individually, Southeast Asian Studies in the region will benefit. But the partnership must be mutual. Let us learn  from Aceh’s experience in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and the peace agreement that ended the civil conflict. As a “social laboratory,” Aceh attracted scholars from different parts of the world to come and study the region. Missbach (2011) reveals, however, that there was a power divide between local and foreign researchers. Local researchers struggled to do research on a limited budget, while overseas scholars came with sufficient funds. To avoid what Missbach calls “ransacking the field,” collaboration between Southeast Asian-based scholars and those outside must be fair and mutual. Then global partnerships will have a positive impact on Southeast Asian studies in Southeast Asia.