This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on May 4, 2026 - May 10, 2026

What keeps Asean government leaders awake at night is the twin challenge of avoiding Gen Z protests and, as society ages, ensuring that their people get rich before they get old. The median age in Singapore and Thailand is 43 and 40 respectively; in Vietnam and Brunei, it is 32; Malaysia 31; Indonesia 30; Myanmar 29; Cambodia 27; the Philippines 26; Laos 24; and Timor Leste 21. In short, apart from Singapore and Thailand, most Asean countries have relatively younger populations, especially when juxtaposed with Northeast Asian nations.

Gen Z protests are inevitably about jobs, pay, upward social mobility and the pursuit of a sense of justice. While these relatively younger Asean societies have to worry about Gen Z, they should also have another concern in mind, which is Asean becoming an ageing society in 20 years.

At the core of Asean societies is the precarious economic condition of the many. “Precarity” is not exclusively an Asean or Asian phenomenon but a common condition of our time, and a predictable consequence of half a century of neoliberal economic ideas. Precarity is the source of economic anxiety and economic insecurity, and it shows up in times of economic crisis, like the one we are in now.

If I may generalise, in most Asean and even Asian societies, labour protection is generally poor and wages are low, with a sizeable informal sector not protected by formal labour laws, especially for women. This is made worse by the widespread gig work opportunities mushrooming in recent years, which are rarely protected, though the Malaysian parliament passed a Gig Workers Act last year.

There is also a significant number of migrant workers who are even more vulnerable while causing race-to-the-bottom wage stagnation across Asian societies. There are around a million documented Bangladeshi workers in Malaysia, as well as half a million each of documented Indonesian and Nepalese workers. There is also a sizeable number of undocumented foreign workers.

Let me add a twist to this. While Malaysia hires millions of foreign workers, there are 1.1 million Malaysians working as migrant workers in Singapore. Some are professionals, but many are low-wage, unskilled workers.

There are up to 10 million Bangladeshi migrant workers in West Asia, and with their jobs likely hanging in the balance, they are the least-noticed victims of the war of choice by the US and Israel against Iran. I cannot imagine what would happen to Bangladesh if all these workers were repatriated all at once. Of course, on the bright side, if the war ends soon, there may be reconstruction jobs available. Anyhow, life is never going to be the same for the West Asia states, and foreign workers working there are likely to suffer.

In fact, in my constituencies of Iskandar Puteri and Perling in Johor, there are a number of veteran Malaysians who worked in Singapore and got retrenched in global economic crises of different eras. Many of them are not Johoreans but are from different parts of Malaysia, and they never found it viable to return to their home states after a stint in Singapore.

Another global crisis at hand means another potential retrenchment and repatriation that we will have to be prepared for.

History is littered with examples of globally-originated crises causing protests and upheavals in Asean and Asia, or what I would call the butterfly effect of global crisis.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was a youth leader when he was detained under the draconian Internal Security Act 1960 in December 1974 after leading protests against extreme poverty in Baling, Kedah. The food and fuel twin crisis in the remote Kedah town can be traced back to the global oil crisis during and after the October 1973 Arab-Israeli war. The war was short but the energy crunch, food crisis and subsequent stagflation caused sufferings, harm and upheavals across the globe for years.

On May 4, 1998, 10 months after the Asian financial crisis (AFC) started in Thailand in July 1997, President Suharto, pressured by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), raised fuel prices by 71%, immediately triggering riots in Medan and Jakarta. Suharto, a military strongman turned authoritarian ruler, was gone by May 21.

The AFC also resulted in elite disintegration in Malaysia, which saw Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad sacking his deputy Anwar on Sept 2, 1998, triggering the Reformasi movement and realigning Malaysian politics forever.

There are at least four reasons why Asean and Asian societies are so precarious and especially dangerous during any global crisis.

First, the elite are often extractive and more corrupt than developmental compared to those in Northeast Asia, with very little concern for inequality among their people.

Second, the 1960s saw the radicalisation of the left globally, influenced by Maoism, and Asian societies were directly affected by Mao Zedong’s attempt to export China’s revolution. And, in the context of the Cold War, the confrontation between the conservatives and the progressives often ended up with the lumping together of the centre/moderate left or social democrats with the communists, and they were either thrown into jail or murdered, often with the encouragement of the US’ Central Intelligence Agency.

With the delegitimising and demise of the centre/moderate left or social democrats, there is no alternative discourse to how resources should be allocated in a society, resulting in a one-dimensional and one-sided embrace of the ethos of capital owners.

Third, the last 50 years saw neoliberal ideas prevail over other economic ideas, especially in the Anglo-Saxon societies and in Asia. Milton Friedman’s portrayal of Hong Kong as the ultimate ideal free market society continues to affect Hong Kong, Singapore, China and many other economies in Asia. To this day, Singapore is still very much in competition with Hong Kong to ensure a low tax environment for the rich, when both their societies are now ageing and actually require substantial tax revenue to provide adequate healthcare for their population.

Fourth, as these societies mostly grow through export-oriented industrialisation, the idea that foreign investors should be given all sorts of tax incentives and assistance, including labour union busting and suppression of wages as a policy, is also widespread.

When we discuss disruptors and disruptions in Asia, there are three concerns that come to mind.

First, what the disruptors tell their supporters in rallying support. At various times when crises result in strains in society and when protests and uprisings take place, the rallying points or issues that mobilise those who oppose the establishment will have long-term consequences on the paths these societies take after the furore subsides. Identity markers such as race, religion or region are easy handles to mobilise groups of people but leave permanent scars which, post-rupture, societies may have to pay the price for when these cleavages flare up in new conflicts.

Second, what the disruptors do if they win and have to govern. In 2023, Anwar made a pertinent remark when asked why he wasn’t pushing some of the stronger yet divisive aspects of the reform agenda. He pointed out that the failure of the short-stint Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt after the Arab Spring was an example of rushing things without first building public support and a broader societal coalition for such an agenda.

There are endless stories of revolutionaries failing to govern and falling by the wayside. In government, it is important to build societal coalitions, to be able to get the bureaucracy to accept and implement the governing agenda, to govern for all and not for sectional interests and, at the minimum, to hold things together and not to allow the government to fall apart. Stabilising the ship is a crucial part of healing post-disruption societies.

I am a witness to the collapse of the Pakatan Harapan government caused by the Sheraton coup in 2020. It was a case of race and religion dominating the headlines while the new administration struggled to convey a singular and coordinated message.

Third, a progressive government must articulate a solidarity agenda to deal with precarity, economic anxiety and economic insecurity, and how to build a better society. It is easy for post-rupture governments to focus on the anti-corruption drive, given that corruption of the past administrations is likely to be the main cause of the rupture. For instance, researchers Dr Rajni Gamage and Preeti Chandrakumar Patil argued that Sri Lankan President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s first year in office was remembered for anti-corruption actions but these acts are generating diminishing political returns as time goes by.

Any progressive government must have a clear policy agenda to create jobs, uplift wages and ensure upward social mobility, which are what Gen Z cares most about. Jobs have to come from growth and equitable distribution happening at once, but growth is a must for sure.

Dynamic growth with the potential of leapfrogging the economy can only happen if there are widespread productivity gains and technological upgrade across the board. Countries may need to acquire and own more technologies in the hope of capturing technological rents, which will then help nations to grow exponentially.

Dani Rodrik in his book Shared Prosperity in a Fractured World: A New Economics for the Middle Class, the Global Poor, and Our Climate makes an interesting point that as technology develops so quickly with the potential of replacing humans in manufacturing jobs, the idea that growth has to come from making physical goods may not be exactly true. He thinks a strong service sector is important when it comes to the creation of decent jobs for the many.

Fourth, the provision of public goods is the foundation of a people that feels less insecure and anxious. Housing, public transportation, healthcare/care in general, and education are part of livelihoods — which would cause economic insecurity if their provision is in question.

Not all of these can be provided by the state, given the fiscal constraints of these societies. However, neither should all of these be fully privatised and be in the realm of profit-making ventures.

Some form of social market in which private capital can be involved in the provision of these public goods in a guided manner to ensure that housing, public transportation, healthcare/care and education do not cost the aspiring middle class a bomb is something that post-rupture governments have to keep in mind.

In conclusion, as the current crisis in West Asia develops, Asean and Asian societies will have to be prepared for disruption. But more importantly, leaders and aspiring leaders should also prepare a more robust agenda to govern and rebuild societies through solidarity and a social market economy, post-crisis.

Liew Chin Tong is deputy minister of finance

Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.

P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's App Store and Android's Google Play.