The EU and ASEAN – In Search of a New Regional Paradigm? EU Centre Singapore Working Paper No. 15, August 2013

The European Union (EU) has been hailed as the most successful model of regional integration thus far, while the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), despite its fair share of critics and doomsayers, has been seen as a relatively successful regional organisation in the developing world. However, both seemed to have arrived at a critical juncture in their respective regional projects. Challenged by recent events, internal and external, and faced with increasing uncertainties and complexities, the EU and ASEAN are forced to re-examine the journey they have taken so far and ponder the road ahead. This paper seeks first to provide an overview of the two parallel processes of regionalism in Europe and Southeast Asia by focusing on the developments of the EU and ASEAN, and dissecting both the external forces and internal dynamics that shape the respective regional processes. It then sketches out some of the global trends likely to impact regional developments in Europe and Asia, and questions if the EU and ASEAN would need a new regional approach or paradigm if they are to maintain their salience and relevance as regional actors.

Learning from the Nordic welfare model: what and how? EU Centre Singapore Working Paper No. 16, September 2013

This paper posits that the Nordic countries were able to ensure good standards of equality for its citizens, while at the same time maintaining decent levels of economic growth. This can be attributed to the Nordic countries’ more holistic approach towards social spending and their focus on uplifting the skill levels of its workforce. Thus, the notion that there must be a trade-off between economic performance and a more aggressive welfare regime should be examined more thoroughly. The debate for policy makers should perhaps be framed with regard to where the balance should be between growth and equity rather than a trade-off. Firstly, the paper will elaborate on what exactly the “Nordic model” is, based on a broad literature review. Next, the paper will unpack the key characteristics of the Nordic model and analyse if indeed expansive welfare provided through state support erodes work ethic and impact the economic competitiveness of countries. Next, the paper will provide an explanation for how the balance between economic and social objectives is maintained, in some of the Nordic countries. Lastly, the paper discusses whether the same balance can be achieved in Singapore.

Developing an Analytical Framework on Social Cohesion in Singapore. Reflections from the framing of social cohesion debates in the OECD and Europe. EU Centre Singapore Working Paper No. 17, November 2013

Official discourse in Singapore on social cohesion is often framed along the broad parameters of achieving racial and religious harmony. Many policies – formal and informal – and several laws evolved to manage these two aspects of society. Yet, as Singapore developed and with a much more complex socioeconomic environment both domestically and externally, there is perhaps a need to re-look the discourse and framework for discussing social cohesion. This paper takes a critical look at how the issue of social cohesion is framed in academic literature and policy discussions in Europe and the OECD, and tries to develop a broader analytical framework that could be useful in the Singapore context as it struggles with the multiple fault lines in society (beyond race and religion) that have emerged in the last decade or so.

The EU's Group-to-Group Dialogue with the Southern Mediterranean and ASEAN – How much have they achieved? A Comparative Analysis. EU Centre Singapore Working Paper No, 18, December 2013

Four decades of the EU's group-to-group dialogues with the Southern Mediterranean grouping of countries and with ASEAN have produced different dynamics and outcomes, despite the EU’s common strategy to use economic soft power to achieve their goals for the partnerships. Diverging conditions in the two regions created inconsistency in the EU's application of the common approach. The EU's neighbourhood security concerns forced it to relax its political stand with their Southern Mediterranean partners. For ASEAN, geographical distance dilutes the EU’s security concerns it that region and has afforded the EU to be more ideological and assertive on democracy and human rights practices. These issues have provoked disagreements in EU-ASEAN dialogues, but both sides have also tried to remain pragmatic in order to achieve some progress in the partnership. In contrast, the protracted the Arab-Israeli conflict continues to hamper the Euro-Mediterranean dialogue, resulting in little progress. Social upheavals in the Southern Mediterranean also brought their partnership to a standstill. The EU's cooperation with former authoritarian regimes like Libya and Syria have only caused damage to its credibility in the Southern Mediterranean, and future Euro-Mediterranean dialogues are likely to be affected by it.

The EU’s online gambling regulatory approach and the crisis of legal modernity. EU Centre Singapore Working Paper No. 19, January 2014

Online gambling is a fast growing service activity in the world - its economic significance is clearly shown by the high level of innovation by gambling operators all over the world, as well as by the increasing amount of tax revenues generated in those States that allow this activity. Nevertheless, states face many difficulties in controlling and regulating online gambling, given the specific nature of the Internet, and the never-ending quest by gamblers for new gaming websites that offer superior odds, a wider gaming variety, and greater bets combination. In this working paper, Dr Salvatore Casabona examines the legality of online gambling in the context of the European Union (EU), and discusses the Union's regulatory approach to online gambling, the lack of harmonisation and the issue of member state sovereignty at the crossroad of European Law on online gambling, and the potential for a new regulatory paradigm to emerge.

EU citizenship, Citizenship and identity beyond national borders. EU Centre Singapore Background Brief No. 10, October 2013

The 1992 Maastricht Treaty introduced the concept of European Union citizenship. All citizens of the 28 EU member states are also EU citizens through the very fact that their countries are members of the EU. Acquired EU citizenship gives them the right to free movement, settlement and employment across the EU, the right to vote in European elections, and also on paper the right to consular protection from other EU states' embassies when abroad. The concept of citizenship in Europe – and indeed anywhere in the world – has been evolving over the years, and continues to evolve. Against this time scale, the concept of modern citizenship as attached to the nation-state would seem ephemeral. The idea of EU citizenship therefore does not need to be regarded as a revolutionary phenomenon that is bound to mitigate against the natural inclination of European citizens towards national identities, especially in times of economic and financial crises. In fact, the idea of EU citizenship has even been criticised by some scholars as being of little substantive value in addition to whatever rights and freedoms European citizens already have. Nonetheless the ‘constitutional moment’ that the Maastricht Treaty achieved for the idea of EU citizenship has served more than just symbolic value – the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights is now legally binding, for instance. The idea of EU citizenship also put pressure on the Union and its leaders to address the perceived democratic deficit that the EU is often accused of. In attempts to cement the political rights of EU citizens, the citizens’ initiative was included in Lisbon Treaty allowing citizens to directly lobby the European Commission for new policy initiatives or changes.

The European Union and global security: is the EU becoming the indispensable partner? EU Centre Singapore Background Brief No. 11, April 2014

The European Union has developed new capacity as a security actor in third countries, in particular in the area of crisis management. Over the past two decades the EU has deployed numerous missions, both of a civilian and military nature. Moreover the EU has defined its ability to intervene all along the ‘crisis cycle’, (from prevention to mediation, from peace-keeping to post-conflict reconstruction) and using all tools at its disposal (taking a ‘comprehensive approach’). However the EU is still not perceived as a major security provider globally and interventions remain limited to some geographic areas, mostly in its neighbourhood and Africa, with just a few examples further afield. The EU also tends to avoid taking direct action and seems to prefer partnership arrangements with other players. How can we explain the growing activism and number of EU’s intervention with the low impact and lack of visibility? Can we expect the EU to become more active in the future, taking on more responsibility and leading roles in addressing conflict situations? This paper will argue that the main reason for the EU’s hesitant role in crisis management is to be found in the weak decision-making provisions for EU’s security interventions, as one of the few policy areas still subject to consensus amongst 28 European Union Member States. Lack of a clearer delegation of competence or stronger coordination structures is closely linked to low legitimacy for the EU to take more robust action as a security actor. In order to overcome this legitimacy problem, and in order to facilitate consensus amongst Member States, the EU thus privileges partnership arrangements with other actors who can provide legitimacy and know-how, such as the UN or the African Union. As there is no political desire in the EU for tighter decision-making in this area, we can expect that the EU will continue to play a supporting rather than leading role in crisis management, becoming the partner of choice as it deepens its experience. However this does not mean that the EU is playing just a secondary role in the wider area of security, in particular when looking at nontraditional security. Looking at the role of the EU in Asia, where the EU has deployed just two missions, this paper will offer a broader assessment of the EU as a partner in the area of security taking into account different types of actions. The paper will argue that in order to strengthen cooperation with Asian partners in the area of crisis management, the EU will need to define better what it is able to offer, present its actions as part of an overall strategy rather than ad-hoc and piecemeal, and enter into partnership arrangements with different players in the region.