Daily Express Subscriber
Sign in to your account.

THE recent directive by the Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to assign Filipino names to 131 maritime features in the Kalayaan Island Group comes at a sensitive moment for regional diplomacy.

While such actions fall within sovereign prerogatives, their broader strategic implications, particularly with the Philippines serving as Asean Chair, warrant careful reflection.

In the increasingly contested South China Sea, even technical measures can carry signalling effects. Naming is not merely administrative; it embeds claims into governance, education and national identity.

Many of the features involved are undersea, where naming is guided by established international processes through the Sub-Committee on Undersea Feature Names (SCUFN), under the International Hydrographic Organisation and Unesco’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission.

These mechanisms promote consistency and broad acceptance. Initiatives undertaken outside such processes may, over time, affect the coherence underpinning global marine naming practices.

From Malaysia’s perspective, the issue is less about legality than strategic effect. The cumulative impact of nationally driven measures in contested spaces may gradually strain regional cohesion.

Asean’s value lies in its role as a stabilising platform anchored in dialogue, restraint and consensus. In this context, the Philippines’ role as Chair carries added expectations in shaping a constructive regional tone.

Malaysia’s approach, as outlined in the Malaysia Defence White Paper, emphasises a rules-based order, peaceful dispute resolution, and Asean centrality. It affirms resolving disputes in accordance with international law while avoiding actions that may heighten tensions. 

This has guided Malaysia’s posture in the South China Sea by being firm in safeguarding national interests, yet measured in avoiding provocation.

A broader question arises. How can Asean maintain unity if member states increasingly pursue distinct national approaches in contested domains?

The concern is less immediate escalation than gradual fragmentation, where parallel strategies may dilute Asean’s collective weight, including in negotiations on a Code of Conduct.

For Malaysians, this is not a distant issue. The South China Sea is central to national security, economic resilience and sovereignty. It is a key trade route, a resource base, and a space where international law is actively tested. Even subtle shifts may carry direct implications for national stability.

At the same time, the strategic landscape is shaped not only by military dynamics but also by “grey-zone” measures involving administrative and symbolic actions that reinforce claims without triggering conflict. Naming initiatives fall within this spectrum (being low-cost, visible, and cumulative).

This is not to suggest that such actions are unlawful. Rather, it underscores the importance of timing, context and leadership amid growing geopolitical complexity. Ultimately, the challenge is to manage disputes in a manner that preserves trust and collective agency.

For Malaysia, the path remains clear in that it is defending national interests while safeguarding regional stability.

Rear Admiral Datuk Yusne Mokhtar

Chief Executive,

Malaysian Institute of Defence and 

Security (MiDAS)

The views expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of the Daily Express. If you have something to share, write to us at: Forum@dailyexpress.com.my