ASEAN Peoples’ Forum (APF)

“Advancing a Peoples’ ASEAN”

“Responding to the Key Challenges Faced by Southeast Asian Peoples

Today – Human Rights and Peace”

Chea Vannath

Member of the Board of Directors

Star Kampuchea

Cambodia

Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

20-22 February 2009

I. INTRODUCTION

Year 2008 marks the 40th anniversary of the founding of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). While starting as a loose coalition of
developing countries, ASEAN is now recognized as an increasingly capable
regional and international player.

II. THE ASEAN CHARTER & ASEAN HUMAN RIGHTS BODY

(AHRB)

The ASEAN Charter became legally binding and has entered into force in
December 15, 2008. The Charter seeks to build a more effective mechanism for
cooperation and coordination among Southeast Asian countries to address the
pressures of globalization and the build-up of larger, non-ASEAN neighbors.

The ASEAN Charter defines it as a legal entity and inter-governmental

organization that has authority over its members. Underlying the move towards
unity and integration is its new motto: “one vision, one identity, one
community.”

The Charter improves ASEAN’s system of decision-making and enforcement.

In the past, the absence of such authority led to instability and a lack of
cohesiveness and efficiency.

The Article 14 of the Charter provides the establishment of an ASEAN Human

Rights Body (AHRB). To materialize this, the ASEAN governments established
a High Level Panel (HLP) consisted of representatives from 10 ASEAN
members countries to draft the terms of reference (TOR) of the body.

In preparation for the upcoming ASEAN summit, the members of the high-
level panel have yet to agree on the official name of the human rights body.
Some reports suggest that many countries in ASEAN are more interested in the
"promotion" rather than the "protection" of human rights.

Thus, member countries do not expect too much on the protection of human
rights from within ASEAN, let alone its ability to maintain peace and security
in the region. Myanmar will be the biggest offender, and the crimes committed
by the junta will go unpunished.

ASEAN has recognized that its constructive engagement has not produced any
tangible results. But sanctions and pressures by western countries have also
failed.

III. THE HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS IN ASEAN COUNTRIES

Among the ASEAN countries today, the democracy and human rights are
present in different degrees, reflecting not only the heterogeneous nature of
existing political systems in the region, but also the varying levels in which
societies face up the challenges of political modernity.

Based on the “Perceptions on Institutional Quality of ASEAN Member

Countries”, we can see a big gap between the well-advanced and the ill-
equipped countries, in terms of government effectiveness, quality of the
government and the rule of law.

• The Philippines

The Freedom House Rating classified the Philippines as “Free”, but still, it does
not spare the Philippines from a record of human rights violation and abuses.
The 2005 US State Department country report on human rights practices
reported that the Commission on Human Rights suspected Philippine National
Police members in a majority of the human rights violations.

The Philippines is also plagues by the insurgency. The anti-insurgency is a

major rationale offered by government for continued militarization and the
continued labeling of political movements.

• Thailand

Thailand recently got international criticism about the migrants. The Rohingya,
a Muslim minority from Myanmar's Rakhine state who are refused citizenship
in Myanmar and are also the target of discrimination by the military junta, have
in recent weeks turned up in Thailand and Indonesia after arduous life-
threatening journeys on rickety boats.

Thai security forces have been accused of beating before pushing the Rohingya
back out to sea and leaving them adrift. Hundreds of Rohingya are said to have
died, while others were rescued in a state of severe dehydration and near death
by the Indian coast guard and Indonesian authorities.

Also, when Thaksin Shinawatra came to power in 2001, the relationship

between authorities and people in the three most southern provinces
deteriorated. In one instance, on 25 October 2004, approximately 3,000 Muslim
gathered in front of a police station were dispersed by military forces. The
police arrested 1,300 victims and transported them with their hand tied behind
their backs, piled one on the top of the other in six layers, to the holding center
in the next province military trucks. As a result of this inhuman condition, 79
died due to crowdedness and lack of air. Many more suffered permanent injury.

Freedom rating for ASEAN countries 2005

Country Political rights Civil liberties Classification

Brunei 6 5 Not free

Cambodia 6 5 Not free

Indonesia 3 4 Partly free

Laos 7 6 Not free

Malaysia 4 4 Partly free

Myanmar 7 7 Not free

Philippines 2 3 Free

Singapore 5 4 Partly free

Thailand 2 3 Free

Vietnam 7 6 Not free

Source: Freedom House 2005, quoted from Ulrich Volz (2005), Table 1.
 Perceptions on Institutional Quality of ASEAN Member Countries
Government Regulatory quality Corruption
Rule of law
effectiveness of government Perception Index

1996 2002 1996 2002 1996 2002 2006 rank

Country

Brunei 1.00 0.955 2.200 1.053 0.669 0.645 NA NA

Cambodia - -
- 0.69 - 0.560 - 0.428 - 0.860 2.1 151
0.340 0.864

Indonesia -
0.07 - 0.558 0.186 - 0.682 - 0.802 2.4 130
0.338

Laos - - -
- 0.796 - 1.238 - 1.050 2.6 111
0.127 1.075 1.292

Malaysia 0.80 0.924 0.696 0.576 0.800 0.577 5.5 44

Myanmar - -
- 0.90 -1.285 - 1.855 - 1.620 1.9 160
1.031 1.253

Philippines -
0.094 - 0.064 0.342 0.096 - 0.498 2.5 121
0.109

Singapore 2.03 2.26 1.950 1.894 2.015 1.751 9.4 5

Thailand 0.31 0.280 0.377 0.340 0.464 0.300 3.6 63

Vietnam - - -
- 0.267 - 0.090 - 0.393 2.6 111
0.182 0.545 0.472

Average -
0.243 0.010 0.280 - 0.200 - 0.279 NA NA
0.038

Source : IWEP (2005), Table II.25, page 57; and Transparency International (2006)

• Vietnam
In January, 2009, the Human Rights Watch released a report appealing to the
Vietnamese government to free Khmer Krom Buddhist monks and land rights
activists in prison or under house arrest for the peaceful expression of their
political and religious beliefs. The Khmer Krom is a large ethnic group in the
Mekong delta in which it used to belong to Cambodia.

The Human Rights Watch also called on the Vietnamese government to address
the cause of the refugee flow and cease its repression of the indigenous
Montagnards. On-going Repression in February 2001, the Vietnamese
government launched a harsh crackdown on Montagnards in the Central
Highlands after thousands joined largely peaceful protests for land rights,
religious freedom, and independence.

• The two of the ASEAN members: Indonesia and Malaysia are societies
that have emerged from long periods of authoritarian rule and are now in
various stages of democratization, and they are besieged by recurrent
political instability.

• Singapore

Based on the Perceptions on Institutional quality of ASEAN Member Countries

Table, Singapore is by far the most affluent country in ASEAN, governed
tightly and efficiently by a dominant ruling party, and its elections have
remained controlled rituals.
• Laos
Laos is a nation that still covering from the trauma of the Vietnam War, but now
following a model of development that is market-friendly, while maintaining
tight rein on political activity.

• Cambodia

Because of the joined border with Vietnam, Cambodia also shares

responsibility on the issues of Khmer Krom.
The Cambodian government often react harshly when Khmer Krom in
Cambodia become too critical of the Vietnamese government, a close ally of
the Cambodian government. In 2007, the police forcefully dispersed a series of
protests in Phnom Penh by the Khmer Krom Monks denouncing the rights
abuses they had experienced in Vietnam.

Furthermore, recovering from the trauma of long lasting decades of civil war
and Killing Fields, Cambodia now enjoys a development progress, but, at the
same time, experiencing the human rights violations and abuses resulted from
land grabbing. In the city of Phnom Penh, some residents faced forced eviction
with no proper compensation or appropriate facilities such as housing, schools
for children and health clinics, etc.

• Last, but not least, the extreme case is Myanmar.

Almost a year ago, some members urged the ASEAN states to freeze
Myanmar's membership from the 10-member grouping since there had been no
serious political will to implement democracy and protect human rights, such as
by releasing its jailed political opponents -- especially Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
from her house detention.

Last year's 2008, the violent crackdown and the junta's brutality against the
peaceful demonstrations of the Buddhist monks -- who were supported by the
Myanmarese people -- were well documented and widely known throughout
the international community, yet the junta recently announced a so-called
general election.

Some ASEAN leaders have expressed their readiness to cooperate with the
junta, and welcomed the last referendum and the planned election as "real"
progress. Cambodia was one of the ASEAN countries that did not support the
freeze of Myanmar membership, because Cambodia used to be under the US
embargo for more than 10 years, and the logics given by the government was
that any sanctions would only harm the people of Myanmar, and not the junta.
Furthermore, the Cambodia leaders are proud about their win-win negotiation
skills, and claimed to use its friendly approach to discretely convince Myanmar
to give more space to democracy and human rights, rather than using ASEAN’s
styles of confrontation and sanctions.

IV. AHRB TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR)

On Monday, February 16, 2009, in Phnom Penh, at a “National Workshop on

Term of Reference for the ASEAN Human Rights Body”, Ms. Yuyun
Wahynningrum, from Forum-Asia, presented an interesting “Some Notes”
about the dynamism of the 10 members:

• The Philippines - support “two Human Rights body” and push for the
civil society organization (CSO) participation.

• Thailand - support the “two Human Rights body” and push the civil
society participation.

• Singapore – support one body for financial reason

• Indonesia – support one body, push for CSO participation

• Malaysia – concern on migrant worker issues, suggest that TOR is not

too open

• Brunei – concern for ASEAN commission on women and children, very

supportive, constructive, good initiative and bring international norm to
TOR
 • Laos – concern abut definition of human rights, Asian values

• Laos and Vietnam are the most difficult block, strong input from MFA
and country, very well prepared before the meeting, support mandate on
promotion, put few protections in TOR. Pushing for ASEAN definition
on human rights

• Cambodia and Myanmar – do not talk much, no role.

The attitudes of the Cambodian representative reflected the Cambodian’s

people little understanding of and knowledge about ASEAN. What few people
know about ASEAN is speculation of the price of the land along the so-called
ASEAN Rail Road, and Highway. There is skepticism about “what impact the
AHRB has on the protection of Human Rights in Cambodia?” Maybe people of
some other countries in ASEAN feel the same way too.

The HLP needs to agree on the TOR on several issues, such as, but not limited
to:

• Advisory or consultative

The name of the body, whether to call the ASEAN Human Rights Body
(AHRB) an ''advisory body'' or a ''consultative body.'' Most panel members
think it should be an ''advisory body,'' while others prefer it to have a
consultative role only.

The argument revolves around the contention that an advisory group can make
independent recommendations to ASEAN and its individual members, while a
''consultative body'' would be reactive only, apparently unable to make
recommendations unless asked.

• Composition

As to the composition of the body, most panel members think it should be made
up of 10 people, appointed by their respective ASEAN governments. But one
member apparently wants the ''ASEAN member states'' to be members so that
an AHRB member would be unable to make decisions or recommendations
outside those approved by his or her government.

• Mandate and functions

On the mandate and functions of the body, the report says many support the
idea that functions of the body must include assisting national efforts on
matters related to human rights.

There is also debate on whether the AHRB would be able to accede to

international human rights conventions or agreement, with some panel
members arguing that should be left up to individual ASEAN member, not to
the AHRB.

V. CONCLUSION

We, the Peoples of the ASEAN Member States applaud the six ASEAN
founding members who took initiative to discuss about establishing an
ASEAN Human Rights Body (AHRB) in 1993. We also applaud the current
ten members who are pioneers for their commitment and efforts to install an
effective AHRB, despite many internal and international challenges.
One of the purposes mentioned in the Article 1 of the ASEAN Chapter, is “to
ensure that the peoples and member States of ASEAN live in peace with the
world at large in a just, democratic and harmonious environment”.

Therefore, the recent Myanmar tragedy and the Killing Fields in the 1970s in
Cambodia, causing much suffering and misery of the people, shall not be
repeated. To prevent that to happen again, the body needs to develop ''ASEAN
human rights instruments'' as well as an ''early warning system'' that would
come into play separately to help prevent gross violations of human rights.

The leaders at the upcoming summit need to work towards a credible and
realistic human rights body, move towards a more rule-based and effective
community of nations, and enhance the group’s resilience to shocks like the
global recession, food security and natural disaster.

• All ASEAN States members should take a ''constructive and positive

approach rather than a defensive approach...so that the AHRB could
become a force for the public good for the ASEAN member states and
(its) peoples.''
• AHRB shall have an advisory group that can make independent
recommendations to ASEAN and its individual members;
• ASEAN shall support the efforts of democratization and reconciliation
within the framework of the United Nations. Those aspects must be
advocated in Myanmar are not only related to democracy and human
rights, but also to security and stability as potential threats to Myanmar's
disintegration. This is the way to handle Myanmar's psychological
issues, especially with the sense of insecurity and inconvenience of the
ruling government in the context of the new Myanmar;
• ASEAN shall ensure that the issue remains on the UN Security Council's
agenda, and to convince Myanmar to fulfill its promise to embrace
democracy;
• Last, but not least, the civil society organizations shall play an engaging
and active role with their respective government, and to widely share
 information with the people to promote public awareness about the
ASEAN Human Rights Body.

The ASEAN members are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia,

Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

THANK YOU!