According to a report published by C40, a network of the world’s megacities committed to addressing climate change, over 800 million people will live in cities where sea levels could rise by more than half a meter, or approximately five feet, by the year 2050. Despite President Donald Trump’s contrary claims, climate change is real, and the global challenges we collectively face are daunting.

In Southeast Asia, the intense challenges of climate change have disproportionately affected its major urban centers. As a result, citizens in Southeast Asia’s megalopolises are finding themselves on the front lines of a changing planet. Home to approximately over 650 million people, the region houses major financial centers, such as Singapore, major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, such as Indonesia, and places of immense ecological diversity across Borneo, Cambodia, and Burma just to name a few. Southeast Asia is also home to one of the world’s fastest growing populations, making climate change a very real and urgent threat. Three cities in particular, Singapore, Jakarta and Metro Manila have experienced the effects of and are coming up with new innovative solutions to best tackle climate change.

Singapore – Making Green to Become Green

As both a city and a nation-state, Singapore has been more aggressive in addressing climate change than most other cities and countries in the region. Part of its push may lie in the immediate concerns for the city-state, with most of its land mass lying only 15 meters above sea level. Additionally, the infrastructure that the city’s intense urbanization requires has decimated the mangroves and forests around the city, which has lead to major challenges for future planning.

With the mounting challenges, Singapore is poised to take massive strides in addressing climate change through direct government initiatives. Since its establishment in 2010, the National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) has been instrumental in shaping policies that will allow Singapore to adapt to the effects of climate change and develop new economic and green growth opportunities that arise. From a carbon tax to investments in natural gas and renewable energy, Singapore has implemented a wide variety of policy initiatives and is continuing to update its infrastructure to reach its target greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Government of Singapore’s projections, the city aims to save 15 percent of its 2013 electricity consumption in 2020. As a result, Singapore will have saved $44 Million USD.  

Singapore is also uniquely situated to use its financial strength to develop new fields in finance. For instance, the city has an ambition plan to be a hub for green finance. Green finance, according to the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), is the use of financial flows from public, private, and non-profit sectors for sustainable development priorities. In June 2017, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) kick-started its plan to develop a green bond market with the “Green Bond Grant” that will be reimbursable of additional costs of up to $100,000 USD obtained through external reviews of a green bond. While this will be a useful tool to help spur green investment in the region, it is clear that there is still a lot of work to do; DBS Bank estimates that ASEAN countries require around 3 trillion USD of green investment until 2030.

Jakarta – That Sinking Feeling

North Jakarta, part of the sprawling megalopolis of metro Jakarta and home to 1.7 million people, could be 90 percent underwater by 2050. Indonesia is a major contributor to climate change and could see major consequences from its actions. Similar to Singapore, Jakarta faces infrastructural problems related to climate change. However, Jakarta’s main issue comes not from sea level rise, but rather from land level sinking. Sinking at an average rate of 1-15 centimeters a year, some of Jakarta’s neighborhoods and buildings have disappeared underground, and dirty brown, sewage-laden rivers have suddenly appeared, flooding major business and financial areas.

Jakarta’s precarious situation comes from a variety of factors related to location, rapid urban growth and, most importantly, an overuse of groundwater. According to a report produced by the Urban Climate Change Research Network, close to 90 precent of the Jakarta Metropolitan area lies below sea level, with around 50 percent of the population living in informal settlements known as Kampungs that are vulnerable to flooding. In fact, since its historical roots of haphazard land reclamation projects initiated by Dutch colonial authorities, the city has grown faster than infrastructure has been able to catch up or be maintained. Additionally, currently around 65 percent of Jakarta residents rely on groundwater. Due to demand, the groundwater is becoming more scarce, and wells have to be dug deeper and deeper, leading to a very unstable situation.

In order to alleviate these issues, Jakarta’s main project has been the “Giant Sea Wall,” or “Great Garuda,” which is a USD $40 billion undertaking that both strengthens existing onshore barriers and constructs a 15-mile outer sea wall with artificial islands to reclaim land from the ocean. However, there are major concerns from experts who argue that the project doesn’t address land subsidence or groundwater use and cuts access to the oceans that many Jakartans depend on. Local community efforts and community organizations may offer alternatives to better address climate change, but the verdict is still unknown.

Quezon City and Metro Manila – On the Front Lines and Paving the Way

Quezon City, the largest city both in the Philippines and in the Metro Manila area, has embraced a leadership role in spearheading climate change initiatives in the country. Like in Singapore and Jakarta, rising sea levels, along with its frequent typhoons, have caused major concerns in the Metro Manila area.

As the biggest city in the Philippines, Quezon has made it a point of civic pride to become a leader in sustainability. Led by its current mayor Herbert M. Bautista, Quezon City has placed sustainability at the forefront of civic policy by reducing Quezon City’s carbon footprint, altering  the city’s infrastructure to become more sustainable and restricting the use of non-biodegradable materials such as plastic bags. Mayor Bautista and the Quezon City Council have been aggressive in addressing climate change policy as part of its  “Quezon City Local Climate Change Action Plan,” a systematic blueprint for the city to follow as it embarks on climate change policy.

Following Quezon’s lead, Manila and the Philippines as a whole have become aggressive in addressing climate change. During the 2015 Paris Climate talks, Manila issued a call to action on climate change, requesting cooperation, justice, and solidarity when facing this issue. Even the populist President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, who found a common kinship with the climate-denying US President Donald Trump, has stated that climate change is real and is a top priority for his administration.

While the planet continues to warm and global political leadership continues to flounder around on how to best address it, cities across the globe and especially in Southeast Asia refuse to wait for policy solutions from above to direct change. They are taking the initiative to survive and even thrive in this new terrible normal.

Democracy dies in darkness. In the wake of several brutal crackdowns of environmentalists and human rights advocates, few places better exemplify this than Vietnam. While many Vietnamese and international observers had hoped that this one-party communist state was beginning to show signs of democratization, Vietnam is conversely becoming increasingly authoritarian and has cracked down even harder on environmentalists, human rights advocates, and trade unions in the process. With this increasingly fraught domestic background, Vietnam is quickly finding itself caught in the middle between Chinese and American ambitions and unsure which country Vietnam should strengthen ties with.

Inklings of Unrest

With an abysmal human rights record, as of 2018, Vietnam ranks 175 out of 180 countries for press freedom. Despite this, there was hope that Vietnam could begin a process of democratization due to the 2016 protests over a chemical spill at a Formosa Ha Tinh Steel plant. Due to plastic chemicals entering the waters, Vietnam’s $7 billion dollar seafood industry was greatly threatened by what has been considered Vietnam’s worst environmental disaster. As many of Vietnam’s rising factors are owned by Chinese firms, so too is Vietnam’s increasing environmental problems.

These anti-Chinese protests also feed Vietnamese geopolitical concerns as well. China’s rise in the South China Sea has made many Vietnamese nervous about the nation’s encroaching influence and has been a site of continued protest as well. For a large number of Vietnamese, rejecting China means rejecting anything Chinese. Although Formosa Ha Tinh incident in 2016 was caused by Taiwanese and not Chinese mismanagement, many in Vietnam are concerned about the increased involvement from mainland Chinese people in the country. For many in Vietnam, there is little distinction between Taiwan and China; during the Formosa Ha Tinh incident protesters stopped buses and pulled out Chinese passengers, who were then beaten.

Although there is a shared authoritarian commonality between the two countries and hardliners in the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) want to emulate China’s authoritarianism, many in Vietnam are not only skeptical, but they are downright sinophobic. With the Formosa Ha Tinh incident in 2016 and protests in 2014 and 2018 around the disputed South China Sea, many younger and more moderate Vietnamese are increasingly ambivalent or even outright hostile towards China compared to older generations.

The 2016 Formosa Ha Tinh incident placed the CPV in a precarious position. On one hand, the Party has tried to downplay the economic influence of China, while on the other hand, it has increasingly expressed concerns about China’s aggressive claims in the South China Sea. Both Politburo’s of these Asian communist nations work hard at maintaining some semblance of shared solidarity, yet both the CPV and the CCP are also finding each other in disagreement with each other. Additionally, a growing segment of the population finds Vietnam’s relation to its large neighbor a source of aggravation or even a reason to push for greater Vietnamese rights. As Vietnam found itself in this rather precarious position vis-a-vis China during this time, the CPV found a friend in the Obama administration.

Writing the Rules For a New Friendship

At the end of 2015, 12 Pacific Rim countries – including Vietnam – announced their intention of creating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), with the United States’ then-President Obama and Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe leading the charge. The goal was to reduce trade barriers across the Pacific, as well as ensure certain health and regulatory standards across the region. Although Vietnam was invited, it was very clear that China was not welcomed.

While many observers have acknowledged that the TPP was the Obama administration’s attempt to counter a rising China by allowing the United States “to write the rules” of trans-pacific trade, the TPP was also part of Obama’s Vietnam strategy. Beyond the now-famous video of Obama and Anthony Bourdain eating Bun Cha in Hanoi, the Obama administration worked hard in pushing for stronger American-Vietnamese ties during the final years of his administration. For example, in June 2015, the Obama administration signed an agreement with Vietnam to deepen “greater operational cooperation” in response to China’s actions in the South China Sea. Then in May 2016, the Obama administration agreed to lift an arms embargo for Vietnam and sent two US Navy ships into the strategic Cam Ranh bay as part of growing naval and military ties between the two nations.

The TPP was part-in-parcel with the Obama administration’s outreach to Vietnam, and the hope was that with increased military ties might come growing economic ties as well in order to pull the country away from China. The Obama administration’s goal was two-fold: tighten regional cooperation with Hanoi and pressure the CPV to adopt reforms around labor unions, human rights, and environmental protection. As part of the 2016 agreement on the arms embargo, Hanoi agreed to allow independent labor unions to form as part of a side letter to the TPP. For environmental and human rights activists, China-skeptics, and reform members of the Communist Party, the TPP represented the beginning of a new Vietnam emerging from the protests against Formosa Ha Tinh.

“The TPP could have been some wind in the sails of Vietnamese activists, trade unionists and environmentalists,” said Brad Adams, executive director of the Asia division at Human Rights Watch, to the South China Morning Post.  “Pulling out of the TPP has been a big setback.”

Make Vietnam Great Again

President Trump is no fan of trade deals, especially Obama-era trade deals. In fact, one of Trump’s first acts as President was to pull the U.S. out of the TPP. Yet despite its rhetoric, the Trump administration in many ways has continued the Obama strategy of courting Vietnam to counter China. However, the absence of the TPP has strengthened hardliners in the CPV and weakened moderates in both the party and the country.

“As soon as America withdrew from the TPP, you saw a radical change in the way [the Vietnamese]government treated workers, labor activists and unions,” said Do Thi Minh Hanh, in a statement to the Washington Post.

While crackdowns against activists began back in 2016 before the Obama summit, they dramatically increased in 2017. Approximately 27 activists were arrested and charged with “activities aimed at overthrowing the People’s Administration” according to Amnesty International. On April 5, 2017, Brotherhood of Democracy founder Nguyen Van Dai was sentenced to 15 years in prison, but due to health concerns and international pressure, Nguyen was able to go into exile in Germany. Additionally, approximately 100 “prisoners of conscious” are imprisoned in Vietnam for speaking out against the CPV’s mismanagement of environmental disasters, demanding democratic reforms, and practicing their faith.

The U.S. State Department has stated that it is “deeply troubled” by the increased crackdown yet continues to build ties with the CPV despite these concerns. Much like with North Korea, where President Trump has become silent on human rights abuses in the DPRK due in part to “falling in love” with Kim Jung-un, the Trump administration has moved away from traditional US foreign policy of promoting human rights to find new friends abroad. In October of this year, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis visited Vietnam to boost military ties between the two nations. Trump’s tough rhetoric on China has won fans across Vietnam, and though he is not quite as popular as Obama, support for the current US president is still quite high.

While deepening military and economic ties during the Obama administration led Vietnam to agree to some measures of liberalization, the Trump administration has fostered those same military ties at the expense of human rights. This change in stance has deeply affected Vietnam and may have effectively snuffed out Vietnam’s opportunity to peacefully transform from a dictatorship to a democracy like South Korea or Taiwan before it could take hold. There is every right to be skeptical of a “Vietnamese Spring” occurring because of the TPP. However, the Obama administration proves that strengthening military ties should not come at the expense of human rights, and the Trump administration’s relative silence is deeply troubling. Ultimately though, the problems that brought the Vietnamese out on the street back in 2014 and 2016 have not been addressed, and concerns around environmental degradation, a rising China, and Vietnam’s place in the global geopolitical world order will only continue to grow in the coming years.

The days of Uber as the innovative app that will change the way we think about transportation is over – or at least it being the sole source of innovation. Today, many firms across Asia are starting to push the limits of what a ride-hailing app can do.  Singapore’s Grab, China’s Didi Chuxing, South Korea’s Kakao Mobility, and Indonesia’s Go-Jek have all emerged as major tech innovators. While all of these companies are very different, they do have one similarity: they started off following Uber’s footsteps and eventually pushed Uber out of the market. Additionally, all of these companies are facing increasing public scrutiny and scandals.

Building the Brands, Building International Empires

Each one of these ride-hailing services started off as Uber imitators, figuring out ways to build their brand in local markets across East and Southeast Asia.

Founded in 2012, Singapore-based Grab began by carving a niche for itself in the Uber-dominated Southeast Asia market. The company started off copying Uber’s model, but quickly began to innovate with Grabbike, a motorcycle ride-hailing service, throughout 2014 and 2015. With congestion being a major problem in many cities across Southeast Asia, Grab riders were able to weave through traffic while Uber drivers were stuck. Uber eventually launched its competitor to Grabbike, UberMOTO, in 2016, almost 17 months after Grab started. UberMOTO never quite caught on, and in March 2018, Uber sold its Southeast Asian market to Grab and took a 27.5 percent stake in the merger.

Grab rival Go-Jek captured the Indonesian market in a similar fashion, providing motorcycle-hailing services in Jakarta in 2014, long before competitors Grab and Uber arrived. The service quickly exploded, and Go-Jek riders’ green-apple colored jackets and helmets became a symbol to Indonesians for the best way to get from here to there. Go-Jek’s convenient phone payment system also helped bring in customers, as many Indonesians do not have access to credit cards.

Now that Uber is essentially out of the Southeast Asian market, Grab and Go-Jek are building up a vast war chest to compete head-to-head with each other. Grab has successfully raised USD $2 Billion, which includes USD $1 Billion from Toyota in its increasingly costly battle with the Indonesia-based firm. Go-Jek in turn plans on raising USD $2 Billion in order to aggressively expand across Indonesia and Southeast Asia.  Go-Jek and Grab’s aims are to out-innovate the competition and dominate the market

Becoming the end all, be all.

In competing to become the indispensable “super-app” for consumers, companies have begun to integrate ride-hailing with other services like messaging, social media, and online retail. Grab currently provides services in eight Southeast Asian countries and offers ride-hailing, bike-sharing and food delivery services among others. Grab Co-Founder Hooi Ling Tan stated that she plans on expanding Grab into a variety of markets from healthcare to financial services. She is also planning to create a “super-app” messenger service like the wildly popular Chinese-based WeChat that incorporates everything into a single app. The aim for Grab is to give partners “access to a combination of core Grab assets that no one else in Southeast Asia can offer” and “information relevant to exactly what you need.”

Go-Jek is also getting into the game of integration. Last December, the company announced that it has acquired three fintech companies to help the ride-hailing app become a “multi-platform technology group that leads payment services” in Indonesia and beyond. This follows Go-Jek’s strategy of trying to integrate multiple services and going beyond being just a ride-hailing service.

Just this year, South Korea’s Kakao which owns Kakao Mobility and the extremely popular messaging service KakaoTalk, has announced plans to invest USD $13.40 Million into JapanTaxi, Japan’s largest taxi-hailing company. Currently, Kakao users are already able to buy gifts, message friends and find public transportation, and adding a ride-sharing service would only strengthen Kakao’s position in the market. Kakao Mobility currently has about 18 million subscribers or approximately 35 percent of the total population of South Korea. Although Uber once dominated the ride-hailing market, due to a 2014 court ruling by the Seoul city government that barred the company from entering the market, Kakao saw an opportunity to enter into the ride-hailing business even though it was relatively late to the game. However, while many of these companies are experiencing extraordinary growth, many of them face a growing amount of controversy.

Rising Public Scrutiny

With such rapid success, many of these companies have started to face major controversies that are all-too-similar to Uber’s scandals in 2016 and 2017.

Just this month, China’s Ministry of Transport ordered the indefinite suspension of Didi Chuxing’s carpool service after two female passengers were raped and killed. As a result, carpool general manager Huang Jieli and the vice president for customer services Huang Jinhong have been removed from their positions. However, this has not been enough to stifle the intense public backlash online. On the Chinese Twitter-equivalent Sina Weibo, actress Wang Xiaochen sent out a post showing her deleting Didi Chuxing from her phone with the caption “goodbye!” and received more than 290,000 likes in the past month.

Go-Jek drivers are also facing an uncertain future. Due to their employment status as “partners,” Go-Jek drivers experience many of the same issues that Uber and Lyft drivers face in the US, namely the lack of legal protection and benefits that full-time employees enjoy.

Grab has also faced scrutiny over its Uber merger, as both customers and drivers adjust to Grab’s takeover. Additionally, government officials are concerned that Grab has violated antitrust regulations. There are mounting concerns that Singapore’s Competition and Consumer Commision may try to break up the merger, and there are continued issues with the slow pace of Grab taking over Uber’s share in the market.

Even KakaoMobility, which has had a relatively clean public record, is starting to face protest from South Korea’s powerful taxi unions over Kakao’s plan to offer new carpool services.

The question for ride-hailing companies like Grab and Go Jek will be whether they can continue to innovate while addressing the major problems they face, or if they will fall prey to the controversies and scandals that plagued Uber. However, if these companies succeed in integrating healthcare, messaging, fintech, and ride-hailing into a single integrated system, one can only wonder what other advances might be coming down the pipeline. While all of these companies seem to have major aspirations to innovate beyond being just a ride-hailing tech unicorn, there are still questions as to whether they can overcome the intense scrutiny that the public is starting to place on them.