A dangerous trend is emerging in chatrooms and digital communities across Asia. Young people — mainly men and boys — are being exposed to a volatile mix of nationalist grievances, misogyny and nihilistic violence. Governments are far from equipped to confront this rising threat; often they do not even know what they are looking for. Yet the longer this goes undetected, the greater the risk that it spills into real-world violence.
Online radicalization is not new. For years, groups such as the Islamic State have used social media platforms, slick digital propaganda magazines and even artificial intelligence to recruit fighters and supporters. This globalized jihad had a clear aim: the establishment of a caliphate.
However, today’s threat is different and more elusive. The Singaporean Internal Security Department has described it as “salad bar” extremism, a phenomenon where people cherry-pick from a range of hardline influences rather than subscribing to a single doctrine.
These issues are not unique to Asia. This month’s mass shooting in Canada, which left several people dead and many more injured, previous school shootings in the US, and the Southport attack in the UK have also been potentially linked to nihilistic online movements. The pattern is global, but ignoring it locally would be a mistake.
Young men are particularly vulnerable. The reasons are complex and include social isolation, economic pessimism and a perceived erosion of male status in rapidly modernizing societies. The incel subculture — involuntarily celibate men who resent their inability to find romantic or sexual partners — has become part of this troubling mix. These grievances are amplified online, spreading through digital forums, social media and even seeping into gaming communities.
Authorities are beginning to recognize this trend as an emerging concern, says Saddiq Basha, senior analyst at the Singapore-based S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University.
“This is creating a fertile environment for a nihilistic worldview to take root,” he said.
Singapore — a small but multiracial and multireligious society deeply conscious of the risk of terrorism and disharmony — has detained several young people over the past decade for plotting violence after being radicalized online. Among them were teens influenced by the ideology of Brenton Tarrant, the perpetrator of the 2019 Christchurch massacre in New Zealand who killed 51 people at two mosques. Singaporean officials say that some of those radicalized in the past few years had consumed a mix of this extremist propaganda, racist conspiracy narratives and violent manifestos.
Indonesia offers another warning. In November last year, the bombing of a high school in Jakarta was described by police as “memetic violence” — an attack shaped by the desire to imitate, rather than allegiance to an organization. The perpetrator also drew inspiration from Tarrant, as well as the 2017 Quebec City mosque attacker Alexandre Bissonnette and other school shooters, said the Washington-based think tank Jamestown Foundation.
Authorities also believe he was radicalized by the online “true crime community” forums that glorify mass killers, rather than following any specific ideology.
A related but distinct trend has emerged in South Korea. Online groups such as New Men’s Solidarity have become a hub for anti-feminist rhetoric, attracting hundreds of thousands of views and subscribers on YouTube. Their messaging blames women’s progress for young men’s struggles, and describes feminism as a “social evil.” These platforms do not necessarily advocate violence directly, but they normalize male victimhood and provide overly simple explanations for complex frustrations.
Prevention must start young. Given the nature of how these ideas are spread — online and through algorithm-driven feeds — governments might be tempted to follow Australia’s lead and impose nationwide curbs on social media for minors. This could reduce exposure at the margins.
However, platform controls alone cannot address deeper drivers. Tackling this generation’s identity anxiety and social isolation requires a whole-of-society response — from governments and schools to families. Expanding digital literacy education from primary school, strengthening early intervention programs and investing in youth mental health services are essential steps.
At the regional level, coordination must improve. Asian counterterror forces — such as Indonesia’s Densus-88 — have become adept at dismantling extremist networks. However, this is a different kind of threat, so they need to adapt to track how these ideas spread and turn into digital ecosystems.
The greatest challenge might lie closer to home. Conservative societies would need to confront narratives that frame female success as national decline. Where economic and educational gaps between men and women are widening, governments should address this directly by creating forums for open discussion while simultaneously regulating and monitoring sites where grievances can spread.
None of this would be easy, but failing to act now risks allowing a new generation to be shaped by insidious ideas, spreading quietly through feeds and forums — hiding in plain sight.
Karishma Vaswani is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia politics with a special focus on China. Previously, she was the BBC’s lead Asia presenter and worked for the BBC across Asia and South Asia for two decades. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
On Feb. 7, the New York Times ran a column by Nicholas Kristof (“What if the valedictorians were America’s cool kids?”) that blindly and lavishly praised education in Taiwan and in Asia more broadly. We are used to this kind of Orientalist admiration for what is, at the end of the day, paradoxically very Anglo-centered. They could have praised Europeans for valuing education, too, but one rarely sees an American praising Europe, right? It immediately made me think of something I have observed. If Taiwanese education looks so wonderful through the eyes of the archetypal expat, gazing from an ivory tower, how
China has apparently emerged as one of the clearest and most predictable beneficiaries of US President Donald Trump’s “America First” and “Make America Great Again” approach. Many countries are scrambling to defend their interests and reputation regarding an increasingly unpredictable and self-seeking US. There is a growing consensus among foreign policy pundits that the world has already entered the beginning of the end of Pax Americana, the US-led international order. Consequently, a number of countries are reversing their foreign policy preferences. The result has been an accelerating turn toward China as an alternative economic partner, with Beijing hosting Western leaders, albeit
During the long Lunar New Year’s holiday, Taiwan has shown several positive developments in different aspects of society, hinting at a hopeful outlook for the Year of the Horse, but there are also significant challenges that the country must cautiously navigate with strength, wisdom and resilience. Before the holiday break, Taiwan’s stock market closed at a record 10,080.3 points and the TAIEX wrapped up at a record-high 33,605.71 points, while Taipei and Washington formally signed the Taiwan-US Agreement on Reciprocal Trade that caps US tariffs on Taiwanese goods at 15 percent and secures Taiwan preferential tariff treatment. President William Lai (賴清德) in
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Deputy Chairman Hsiao Hsu-tsen (蕭旭岑) earlier this month led a delegation to Beijing to attend a think tank forum between the KMT and Chinese Communist Party (CCP). After returning to Taiwan, Hsiao spoke at length about “accumulating mutual trust” and letting matters “fall into place,” portraying the forum as a series of discussions focused on cooperation in tourism, renewable energy, disaster prevention, emerging industries, health and medicine, and artificial intelligence (AI). However, when the entire dialogue presupposes the so-called “1992 consensus — the idea that there is only “one China,” with each side of the Taiwan
RSS