Vague frameworks on funding

Realism with funding accessibility and transparency is crucial. Many ASEAN countries face

financial constraints with sports management, such as appropriate infrastructure, which must be addressed in greater detail.

Editorial board (The Jakarta Post)

AMMS

● Mon, June 16, 2025

Businessman shaking hands giving dollar bills stock image. (Freepik/jomnichapa 1.)

Funds, funds, funds, where is the accountability? In the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Sports, money rains down from a myriad of countries, with no regard for accountability or dissemination.  

To start, there have been three funding clauses proposed to the committee. Malaysia has been a vocal leader of an ASEAN centralized bank for grassroot and coach development and funding, supported by USA, Singapore, and Timor Leste. Similarly, Russia and China are the main collaborators with some other countries, namely South Korea, promoting a centralized bank initiative based on UN funding concepts. 

The EU seems to have more varied ideas, working with other ASEAN countries like, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines and the Oceanics on improving existing grants such as, Erasmus+ grants, and use of funds from EU-ASEAN Dialogue Instrument and co-funding by ASEAN members. 

Despite Malaysia noting the importance of auditing clarity, only the Philippines attempted to address this pressing issue on how this clarification would be carried out or the funds provided, imploring for Malaysia to answer this as the main contributor of this “fund”. 

Malaysia did not respond, potentially dodging yet another corruption scandal. Indonesia hopes for its neighbour to keep to its promises of being committed to fighting corruption, as Malaysia’s PM Anwar had pledged last year.

In a confusing change of heart, the delegate of USA insisted that their “funding is not from funding, but professionals”. However, they have proposed to fund ASEAN in sports (presumably in monetary value) in a solution jointed by Malaysia and Singapore. This statement is shakily claimed, while admitting that there has been the trend of funding cuts by the Trump Administration. Indeed, over 250 academics, including scientists and researchers at the U.S. National Institutes of Health, has synonymously criticised the USA’s massive funding cuts in health programmes. 

A bold move for the Trump Administration to provide funding for ASEAN’s sports, when they have already withdrawn (or attempted to withdraw) from arguably more important organisations such as UNHCR, WHO, even UN itself. Is sports more important than health and human rights? 

Furthermore, blustering on about the delegate of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to “reflect on herself”, when the GCC asked a valid question on how the arrangement would benefit GCC was not a good look, especially with GCC’s propensity to invest in sports, with over 65 billion invested so far.

The other delegate of USA (AMMSWD) adds to the turmoil Washington brings to the table, claiming that “if they (children) earn money, then they should continue working”. This unfortunately aligns with the USA’s current increase in child labour and the lack, or rather, decrease of regulations causing it.

Not only have the council been unable to settle on funding issues, topics such as sports diversification, traditionalism, and exchange programmes have been constantly brought up just to die down again. 

The discussions in AMMS appear disjointed, with the scope of debates being shifted bewilderingly and without pattern. With many questioning their purpose in the committee, Indonesia expresses their hopes and wishes that they can keep focus on the essential discussions at hand. Indonesia also recognises Malaysia’s promise that accountability of funds will be discussed in further detail tomorrow and holds Malaysia to it. 

One fact remains clear. The ministers are collaborative and always willing to help, echoing the kindred spirit of ASEAN.