Complications arising from overlapping state laws with religion are never-ending, particularly with Islam. Much of Borneo and the former British colonies on the island were Christian before what is now the state of Sabah and Sarawak (aka East Malaysia) entered a federation with Muslim Malaysia.

As Malaysia evolved so did internal migration and cross-culture absurdities inevitably came about. This reality was highlighted this week by a case involving a Muslim man who raped a 12-year-old girl and was able to obtain permission to marry her under Sharia law – avoiding prosecution in the process.

Thankfully, local prosecutors are pursuing a statutory rape charge against 40-year-old restaurant manager Riduan Masmud, who allegedly had sex with the girl in a parked car outside the Sabah state capital Kota Kinabalu in February. The girl is now 13 and his defense is that he married her.

State officials in Sabah want the marriage annulled. The girl is known to be from a very poor family and in one interview Riduan said the rape was a case of “suka sama suka” (“mutual consent”).

He was quoted in a report as saying that he would let her finish her studies and “maybe later take up a cosmetic course with my first wife,” who he added was a make-up artist.

The father of the girl apparently accepted the marriage saying, “What else could I do?” Her case only came to light following complaints from an aunt.

Riduan is currently free after posting bail of about U.S. $2,600.

Earlier this week a court told the prosecution it had until June 6 to decide whether or not to proceed with rape charges against Riduan after legal moves were made in April to have the case withdrawn following the marriage.

Welfare groups were outraged that Riduan was allowed to marry the girl, although the Sharia Court that allowed the nuptials has apparently said it could be annulled because Riduan did not tell the court that this was his second marriage when he applied for a certificate to marry the girl.

Gerakan Wanita’s deputy chief, Ng Siew Lai, said Riduan should not be allowed to walk free.

“I am really disgusted with the action of the rapist, whose name I cannot even bear to say out,” Ng said. “The girl is just a child who has a future, but due to the action of the rapist, it has gone up in smoke.”

She added that all children and in particular girls must be protected until they reach maturity.

“Simply marrying the victim will be seen as seeking the back-door attempt to escape punishment,” Ng continued. “We can never allow a rapist to go scot-free after raping a victim by marrying her. Gerakan Wanita firmly believes that prosecution should be mandatory in statutory rape cases and marriage can never be a solution.”

If ASEAN wants economic integration by the end of 2015, it will have to do something about its internal development gap. The bloc’s 10 member states range from less-developed Myanmar to advanced city-state Singapore and emerging Indonesia. While important progress has been made, over a quarter of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) initiatives covering services liberalization and customs modernization, due to be implemented in 2008-2011, remain pending.

The AEC Blueprint is ASEAN’s vision for regional economic integration to transform the region with the free movement of goods, services, investment, and skilled labor, along with a freer flow of capital. Regional integration, via both market and government driven processes, will leave no ASEAN member state untouched as it drives the evolution of economic structures and policies spanning across the region.

To achieve that, ASEAN will need to overcome its greatest challenge; the one it faces from within. The development gap within ASEAN will likely emerge as the top non-traditional security issue in the coming decade. Regional policymakers need to find ways to leverage growth opportunities and strengthen competitive advantages to move their states further up the value chain, while mitigating perceptions that the AEC will create winners and losers.

As Tan Sri Dr. Zeti Akhtar Aziz, Governor of Bank Negara Malaysia, argued, “If the AEC vision was aspirational when it was first conceived, it is now clearly an imperative.” Integration represents a real chance for ASEAN to achieve economies of scale, attract further foreign investment, drive global growth, and develop the institutional and structural tools to achieve economic development goals.

But integration is not without its risks. If policies deliver an unequal distribution of opportunities, then a widening development gap and growing perceptions of unequal access to gains could undermine regional solidarity and create misguided perceptions of both political and economic opportunity costs to further ASEAN cooperation. These challenges and doubts should not be underestimated in the grand scheme of pursuing “one vision, one identity, and one community.”

To be fair, development gaps always exist, and are not always obstacles to integration. In ASEAN’s case, however, the development gap is detrimental to the adoption of a regional identity. Abdul Khalik captured the divide vividly, describing how Laotians forlornly view their inability to partake in Thailand’s prosperity from across the Mekong riverbank in Vientiane. Forming a regional identity is already difficult in Southeast Asia, because unlike other regions, it has no common religion, no common language, and not even a single land mass.

As the 1 percent vs. 99 percent debate sparked by the Occupy movement of summer 2012 in the U.S. demonstrated, these fault lines can be exacerbated when economic regional integration and growth initiatives, in their purest sense, do not take into consideration a people-centered or even pro-poor approach, leaving growth and development outcomes exclusively to the determination of the market’s “invisible hand.” As the world looks to ASEAN for a renaissance in international leadership in the Asian Century, ASEAN cannot afford fragmentation of the regional spirit.

The most important principle to minimizing the development gap is not to insist on regional redistribution policies, but instead to focus on strengthening domestic capacity to identify and harness competitive advantages for sustainable growth and development. Economic growth is not an end in itself, but rather a tool for achieving development goals.

If news reports correctly reflect public sentiment, it seems fair to deduce that worry and frustration are rising in the Philippines amid diplomatic tension with Taiwan, triggered by the tragic killing of a 65-year-old Taiwanese fisherman by members of the Philippine Coast Guard on May 9 in Balintang Channel.

Angered by the incident, Taiwan has made four demands: a formal apology, compensation, punishment for the guilty officers, and fishing talks. Taiwan has since stopped issuing work visas to Filipinos and has conducted military exercises near Philippine waters.

To make matters worse, Filipinos, especially politicians, did not immediately recognize the political and subsequent economic blowback of the May 9 shooting as their attention was focused on the May 13 midterm elections.

Taiwan’s military drill did not bother many people, but the economic sanctions alarmed Filipinos eager to work or do business in Taiwan, which is the Philippines’ ninth biggest trading partner. There are 87,000 Filipinos working in Taiwan, mainly in the manufacturing sector. 

Accurate or not, news reports about Filipinos being harassed or harmed by angry Taiwanese has caused further anxiety, prompting some to ask if the government has a contingency plan or reintegration program for migrant workers who will be forced to return if the tension escalates. Further, Taiwanese tourists were reportedly leaving the Philippines in large numbers, hurting travel operators. The Taiwanese are among the top foreign visitors to the Philippines. 

President Benigno Aquino III was quick to issue an apology on behalf of Filipinos, but this was rejected by the Taiwanese government as insincere. Taiwan failed to appreciate that Aquino extended the apology even before a formal probe of the incident began.

A delegation sent by the Taiwanese government to conduct an investigation in the Philippines released a report describing the May 9 shooting as an act of murder, further inflaming public opinion in Taiwan. Naturally, the Philippine government dismissed the conclusion and insisted that the investigation of the incident is not yet finished. 

Further complicating matters, the Philippines cannot accede to a joint investigation due to its adherence to the “One China” policy. It is hoped, nonetheless, that the recent announcement of a “cooperative probe” between the two countries could help to break the diplomatic impasse.

So far, the Philippine Coast Guard is sticking to its story that the shooting was an act of self-defense after the Taiwanese fishing boat allegedly tried to cause its patrol boat to crash. But if reports are true that the shots fired were excessive, Coast Guard officials must then adequately explain this course of action.

Without prejudging the probe, perhaps the officials involved in the tragic shooting hoped to erase public doubt about the Coast Guard’s readiness to assert the country’s sovereignty in its territorial waters. In recent months, the Coast Guard was criticized for failing to prevent a Chinese fishing boat and a U.S. naval ship from entering and damaging Tubbataha Reef, a protected marine habitat. Consequently, many Filipinos view the Coast Guard as ineffective at patrolling the country’s waters and keeping the nation safe from smugglers, traffickers, poachers, and illegal fishers.

Was the alleged excessive force used against the Taiwanese fishing boat a deliberate act meant to prove that the Coast Guard can ward off illegal intruders from entering Philippine waters?

Hopefully, the probe will lead to justice for the slain Taiwanese fisherman. Filipinos also hope that the nation’s damaged relations with Taiwan can soon be repaired so that economic cooperation can resume.

Meanwhile, the Philippine Coast Guard must ask itself why it has utterly failed to prevent intruders from entering its waters-- or successfully arrest them—and further, why it has failed to protect the country's territorial integrity without igniting a diplomatic row. 

Concern in Southeast Asia about the formation of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) by the end of 2015 is mounting. Members of the ten-member Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) have in recent years been big on rhetoric but evasive on details for such an enormous undertaking.

Brunei has attempted to change that after taking over as ASEAN host from Cambodia and added a sense of urgency to plans for establishing an economic model loosely based on the European Union. The AEC, however, will not include a single parliament or currency, nor will workers be able to travel across borders at will.

Delegates at the latest conference in Brunei are calling for a more united approach and an increased role for the region’s youth, whose unemployment is emerging as a key issue for ASEAN.

ASEAN has been plagued by violent differences in recent months. The bloody oppression of Muslim Rohingyas in Burma has rattled Muslim nations Brunei, Malaysia, and in particular the region’s powerhouse, Indonesia. The Sabah Insurgency, launched by mercenaries and prompted by an ancient land claim from a little known sultan in the Philippines, left more than 70 people dead.

The damming of the Mekong River has proved divisive for Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos. Meanwhile, in the South China Sea overlapping claims by China have led to diplomatic and military standoffs with members of ASEAN and caused political brinkmanship to challenge ASEAN’s boisterous claim that its members are working as one.

“We do admittedly face some challenges to achieve the target for establishing the ASEAN Community in 2015,” Hamid Jaafar, a senior Brunei politician and ASEAN delegate, said ahead of an ASEAN ministerial meeting in Brunei. He went on to stress the strong collaboration among ASEAN states, adding: “We are confident that we can address those challenges together as one.”

Brunei is sending steady reminders that more needs to be done if deadlines are to be met. This follows claims by ASEAN that 77 percent of its work is done and negotiations could begin on a vast new trade agreement between ASEAN and its major dialogue and trading partners.

Pehin Hazair, current chair of the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Council, said ASEAN has prioritized 12 industry sectors for full integration within the AEC. Of these, five were identified as ideal launching pads for young entrepreneurs: information technology, tourism, textiles, food processing and automotive parts.

Regional socio-cultural cooperation is one of the three pillars of the ASEAN Community, with the other two being political-security cooperation and economic cooperation between members.

“In addition to these priority sectors, young people should also be adventurous enough to explore other potential growth areas and emerging sectors such as creative industries and green businesses which have huge regional and global market potential,” Hazair said.

Youth unemployment in the region reached 13.1 percent in 2012, on a par with the global average, but of ASEAN’s 603 million people about a third are young. With numbers like this, the AEC will require a sharp, youthful focus if it is to make any practical sense.

A historic and deeply contentious event for the U.S.-Burmese bilateral relationship occurs this week. For the first time since hosting Burmese dictator Ne Win nearly fifty years ago, Washington hosts Burma’s head of state on Monday. President Thein Sein’s visit commemorates Burma’s relatively speedy transition from a largely isolated, pariah state to a welcomed member of the international community—and controversial partner with the United States.

Amidst this week’s photo ops between President Obama and President Thein Sein and praise for Burma’s surprising reform, a looming question remains: are Burma’s recent reforms merely a cosmetic gesture to win favor with the West or is the country truly on the path to democracy? Targeted ethnic cleansing continues throughout Burma, but this fact has done remarkably little to tarnish the growing international prestige and reformist image of President Thein Sein and the Burmese. Indeed, the actions of the United States certainly give the impression that we are more concerned about investment, trade, and quickly rebalancing other Southeast Asian countries to China rather than democracy and human rights.

Burma’s recent reform is modest, and yet, this week the United States essentially rolled out the red carpet for this former high ranking junta member. Any celebration of reform is highly premature after a closer look at the dire situation on the ground. 

The critical test of the new government’s long-term stability will be how the government engages with growing violent ethnic divisions that continually plague their country. Although ethnic groups comprise 40% of Burma’s population, they are largely the forgotten people of Burma. Burma’s minorities face a campaign of ethnic violence and what Human Rights Watch recently called “ethnic cleansing” towards Rohingya Muslims, but discussion about these critical issues is remarkably absent by the Obama Administration. 

After the transfer of power to a quasi-civilian government in April 2011, Burma’s government took modest steps toward democratization by releasing hundreds of political prisoners, relaxing media censorship, and permitting Aung San Suu Kyi, chairperson of the National League for Democracy, to participate in the political process. The Obama Administration responded by lifting, relaxing or suspending almost all sanctions on Burma after the U.S. enforced increasingly strict sanctions on the ruling military junta for over twenty years.

Burma undoubtedly has made recent strides towards reform but, if it intends to be a democratic and stable country, the path ahead will come with many challenges. If its ethnic violence is not immediately addressed, the targeted ethnic conflicts will be the root cause of Burma’s reversion to a pariah state and could cause civil war, enforcement of a “state of emergency,” and military rule.

Communal violence between Buddhists and Muslims in Rakine state last June 2012 spread rampant anti-Muslim violence in central Burma. Attacks against the Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine state were carried out with impunity and the Burmese government failed to end a campaign to forcibly displace thousands of Rohingya Muslims. Now, thousands of homes in Rakhine state are destroyed, hundreds of people slaughtered, and over 130,000 people displaced. 

The plight of the Kachin ethnic and Christian minority is often overlooked by those who craft U.S. policy. Humanitarian conditions are seriously deteriorating in Kachin state and Kachin internal displacement camps. Over the last five years, the Burmese military expanded to over 150 battalions in Kachin state and largely isolates many Kachin internally displaced people from humanitarian aid. Since the Burmese military broke the ceasefire agreement in Kachin state in June 2011, at least 100,000 civilians have been displaced from their villages. The Burmese military’s ongoing war against the Kachin has resulted in undetermined civilian casualties, the systematic use of rape as a weapon of war, and forced labor. The atrocities committed against the Kachin could amount to war crimes or “crimes against humanity” and should be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted as the evidence warrants. 

President Thein Sein himself was a general in Burma’s brutal military and was appointed by the Burmese military junta to head the Burmese state well before recent reforms. Although there is much speculation about the impetus behind President Thein Sein’s willingness to engage with the international community and support modest reform, whether or not he continues reform—and negotiates lasting ceasefires in the ethnic areas—will be a telling indicator of his country’s direction. Moreover, the Burmese military will closely determine Burma’s future and whether they permit major reform in the ethnic states and progression of democratic development and peace talks.

As President Obama meets with President Thein Sein this week, the U.S. must condemn Burma’s continued human rights abuses and ethnic violence and make sure the people of Burma, particularly ethnic communities, hear the message. A cautious approach to the U.S.-Burmese bilateral relationship continues to be necessary as we determine the extent and endurance of Burma’s reforms. 

After the aura surrounding President Thein Sein’s first meeting with President Obama at the White House begins to fade and Washington evaluates its policy towards Burma, the narrative of its campaign of ethnic cleansing should come to the forefront of our negotiations with the Burmese government. As U.S. policy rebalances towards Asia, we should establish firm benchmarks to give pro-reform forces within Burma, including ethnic and religious minority leaders, the needed leverage to foster democracy and lasting rule in Burma. These benchmarks should include progress of rule of law and constitutional reform, the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners, efforts at justice and accountability, prevention of forced labor and child soldiers by the military, and withdrawal of the military from ethnic areas. Any contact with the Burmese military should be the last piece of our engagement with Burma and only occur once these benchmarks are met.

In the battle for regional power with China and effort to counterbalance other regional powers to China, the U.S. must not be shortsighted in its Southeast Asia policy. Real counterbalance and American influence will come with a truly peaceful, democratic Burma. The U.S. should not ignore the ethnic cleansing and human rights atrocities in Burma or blindly support President Thein Sein’s regime. The U.S. will forever be on the wrong side of history if we continue down this path.

Stephanie Hammond is the foreign affairs advisor for Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ). The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Congressman Trent Franks.