KUALA LUMPUR - Human migration and cross-border mobility across Asia are increasingly reflecting structural weaknesses in the international system, with experts warning that weakening multilateral norms and fragmented regional coordination are reshaping labour flows and border governance.

Speaking at the 39th Asia-Pacific Roundtable (39APR) today, speakers examined how geopolitical fragmentation is affecting cooperation on mobility, economic integration and regional stability, particularly in Southeast Asia where labour migration remains extensive but unevenly governed.

Dr Chong Ja Ian, Associate Professor of Political Science at the National University of Singapore, questioned whether decades of calls for global reform have translated into meaningful change.

“You know, since I'm old enough to remember the 1990s, countries in Southeast Asia have been calling for a revamping of the global order, have been complaining about an overbearing United States,” he said.

He said the current moment reflects a contradiction between long-standing demands for change and present-day uncertainty.

“Why are you worried? You should be cheering. Why are we not seizing the opportunity?” he said.

Dr Chong said similar gaps are visible in regional governance, particularly within ASEAN, where institutional reform efforts have remained limited despite repeated discussion.

“Who’s talking about institutional reform in ASEAN? Who’s paying for institutional reform in ASEAN? Who is talking about increasing ASEAN’s budget?” he asked.

He argued that these governance gaps have direct implications for regional mobility, where labour migration continues to expand but remains managed largely through fragmented bilateral arrangements rather than coordinated regional frameworks.

He also said that what is often described as “middle power agency” is frequently weakened in practice by coordination failures.

“So much for middle power agency,” he said, adding that “agency can also mean not doing anything,” particularly when states fail to act collectively despite shared interests.

Angeline Tan, analyst at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia, said the international system is increasingly shaped by selective adherence to rules and norms.

“At the very best, when these rules become optional, whenever it is convenient, it will be used. And of late, it has been evident, and most evident, in unilateral behaviour,” she said.

She warned that such behaviour is not limited to major powers, but reflects a broader structural shift affecting both global and regional governance systems.

“Trust, accountability, even political will, is at stake, and there are a few, if there are any at all, that are willing to really step up to the challenge,” she said.

She added that migration governance is particularly exposed to these pressures as states increasingly prioritise sovereignty and domestic considerations over shared rules and coordinated frameworks.

The speakers noted that while labour migration continues to expand due to structural economic demand across Southeast Asia, governance continues to rely heavily on bilateral arrangements, resulting in uneven protections for migrant workers across sectors such as domestic work, construction and agriculture.

Migration issues, they added, are increasingly framed through sovereignty-based narratives, limiting space for regional coordination and reducing incentives for binding multilateral approaches.

ASEAN remains central to regional stability but continues to face structural constraints, including limited institutional capacity, uneven political commitment and insufficient financial and administrative resources.

Speakers also linked these governance challenges to broader geopolitical shifts, noting that the rise of multiple power centres has made consensus-building more difficult in both regional and global institutions.

Migration was described as a key indicator of international order resilience, reflecting both continued economic interdependence and growing strain on shared governance systems.

The discussion concluded that future mobility governance in Southeast Asia will depend on whether states are able to strengthen coordination mechanisms while balancing sovereignty, economic needs and regional stability.