ASEAN After 50: Defending Human Rights in ASEAN

August 8, 2017/in ASEAN Notes/by aseansc

Jakkrit Chuamuangphan

As 2017, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) marks 50 years since first founded in 1967. To date, ASEAN has shown a huge success in realizing the regional economic integration as it became a single market in 2015 and maintaining international relations with other states by placed itself at the center of relations such as ASEAN+3, ASEAN+6 and ARF. However, when it comes to the issue of human rights, ASEAN still stumbling upon its inability to ensure the significant improvement of human right environment all across the Southeast Asia. The increase in human rights violations indicates a weakening of ASEAN human rights institutions.

One of the greatest international concern is the case of human rights violations against individual or groups of human right defenders, which according to the UN Declaration referred to as a person or group who concern about human rights have a right to address the concern on behalf of others by peaceful means.

The human rights defenders are in danger because they are often subjected to harassment and lawsuits to stop their activity.

If we trace back to the past ten years, there are many cases of harassment that befell the human rights defenders either by state or non-state actor, due to their activities. For example, Andy Hall, a human rights defender for migrant worker, was intimidated and sued by some of Thailand’s food industries for defamation and Computer Crimes Act charges, as he tried to expose the abuse of Myanmar forced labor. Sombath Somphone, who promoted civil society in Laos and awarded Magsaysay for Community Leadership, was one of the victims of enforced disappearance by uniformed police officers in Vientiane in 2012 but the Lao Government immediately denied the accusations for his disappearance. Naw Chit Pandaing had been a strong advocate against human right violations and the issue regarding land and environmental right. Before she was stabbed to death in November 2016, she has investigated the impacts of mining in Dawei, Myanmar.

The cases above are some of the predicaments of the human rights defenders who tried to expose the misconduct of the government and influential elite that were subjected to criminal lawsuits or injustices. This reality leads to the most fundamental problems in the understanding of human rights, the functioning of human rights institutions and in the end, a great challenge for human rights defenders in ASEAN.

First, the lack of understanding of human right in each ASEAN member states. Most of the states or non-states are deluding with the misconceptions and false beliefs about human rights, that human rights are a threat to national security and their business interests. They tend to see only one side of the mirror, that gives more benefits as desired by states for the sake of security and economic interest.

The misconceptions and false belief of human rights among the ASEAN member states can be overcome by interpreting the values of human rights in line with the values of economic growth and national security.

However, as it happensuman rights defenders can not depend entirely on the government to deal with the protection of human right, as in some cases, states are found to be on the opposite with human rights defenders. In result, the hope of human rights defenders to seek protection go to a broader level, regional for instances. Unfortunately, there are some challenges as well, especially in the case of ASEAN. First, the ASEAN mechanism on human rights heading to only promote, not protect, which makes ASEAN ineffective for the protection of human rights and human rights defenders — even after ASEAN showed a good sign of human right improvement through the establishment of ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Right (AIHCR) in 2009.

Let’s take a look at the Terms of Reference of the AICHR. Almost all of the point of reference refer to the provisions and mandate to promote human rights, but not for the protection of human rights. The only point of mandate that includes the word protection is stated in the article 4(10), “to obtain information from the ASEAN Member States on the promotion and protection of human rights.”

Why is this article becoming so important in the protection of human rights? Because of this is the channel that AICHR can obtain the information about human right violation from ASEAN member states. But, in fact, some of ASEAN member states that are part of AICHR consider this point as a form of violation to national sovereignty, therefore refuse to share or recognize any information regarding human right within their territory.

In spite of that fact that this article could be one strong basis to support the AIHCR gaining the information in regard to the human right violation from ASEAN member states.

In addition to that, the fruit of AICHR is also visible on the launching of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration in 2012. It seems to be an attempt of ASEAN member states to strengthen the human rights foundation in the region. However, it is a non-binding instrument which means it has no power to enforce any states in ASEAN. Moreover, in the eyes of ASEAN civil society, the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration is still considered as a “Still Window-dressing.” It simply means that it is for display only, it will never be used to protect human right and human right defenders.

The other reason is the lack of coordination with civil society organizations (CSOs) which, in fact, are very enthusiastic to work with ASEAN, yet ASEAN offers a very limited room for CSO activities. The Guidelines on the AICHR’s Relations with CSOs stated two important provisions in regard to that: First, “AICHR shall not have consultative relationships with CSOs that do not respect the principles and purposes of the ASEAN Charter”; Second, “Respect and comply with the national laws and regulations of the concerned ASEAN Member State where their activities take place”. These provisions imply that CSOs that joined the consultative relationships with AICHR cannot criticize the way ASEAN worked and if it does not comply with the guidelines, the AICHR can suspend consultative relationships with that CSOs.

In the end, there are many challenges faced by human right defenders in carrying out their duties and goals within the scope of ASEAN. This means that ASEAN should take human rights more seriously, consider the value of human dignity to be equal to the value of economic growth and prove that this region is a true society of “sharing and caring” especially for those people who are weak and voiceless, as embedded in ASEAN vision.

*) Jakkrit Chuamuangphan is an MA Student in ASEAN Studies, Pridi Banomyong International College, Thammasat University

Latest Articles

Public Lecture on “Navigating Contemporary Challenges: Indonesian Diplomacy in a Chanching Global Changes”September 15, 2024 - 8:54 am
Partnership Policy Review Kick Off – “Strengthening the ASEAN Charter: Review of Regional Mechanisms and Policy Recommendations”September 12, 2024 - 7:19 am
ASEAN Spice: The Connecting Culture of Southeast AsiansJune 1, 2024 - 3:49 am
RELIGION: BOON OR BANE FOR DEMOCRACY?December 20, 2023 - 12:32 am

Facebook

RELIGION: BOON OR BANE FOR DEMOCRACY?December 20, 2023 - 12:32 am
In December 2022, the Indonesian government passed a law that penalizes sex outside marriage. This is only one of the many changes in the criminal code that observers warn of the increasing conservatism in the country.

Indonesia houses the largest Muslim population in the world and is also a republic whose democratic experiences and milestones have been widely studied by scholars within and beyond the region. This makes Indonesia a compelling case for reflection on the nexus and tensions between religion and democracy. Is religion compatible with democracy? What opportunities and challenges does the “Islamic Renaissance” entail in the country? Democracy on Religion

Liberal democracy espouses secularism, the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion. In an “ideal” democratic system, the state must not endorse nor support any specific religion while guaranteeing the free exercise of religion among citizens. This is essential in a democracy for many reasons. Religious freedom is a crucial civil right that enhances citizens’ individuality and relations with others. It stops one religion from dominating society, hence promoting diversity and co-existence. At the same time, it prevents policies from being framed according to religious beliefs, which may result in discrimination and repression of fundamental human rights.

Religion and its Tensions with Democracy: The Case of Indonesia

This is particularly important for Indonesia. While the country is predominantly Muslim, Indonesia also has many ethnolinguistic groups with different cultures and practices. It is a challenge in itself to build one nation with an immensely heterogeneous society. The diversity in the country resulted in years of ethnic conflict and violence. Even a religious minority, the Ahmadiyya, faces intimidation and oppression in the exercise of their faith. Indonesia’s dilemma points to the longstanding debate in human rights discourse and practice – are human rights universal, or are they relative to culture and local customs? While I am more inclined to support the former, it is important to be aware and carefully consider the context of a country when designing human rights advocacy and interventions.

However imperfect, the democratization process in Indonesia has assisted in facilitating efforts for reconciliation and balancing competing interests in the country. Recently, the President stunned the world when he acknowledged past grave human rights abuses in the country, including an anti-communist purge in the ’60s and the arrest of democracy activists during the Suharto presidency.

Indonesia sits in between secularism and theocracy. The country’s fundamental law espouses Pancasila, which is the foundational political theory of Indonesia. Through its five principles, Indonesian society believes in one God and aspires to create a just and civilized humanity, unity, democracy, and social justice for all. This tells us that, by principle, Indonesia gives importance to pluralism and citizenship. Scholars and practitioners of the law also adopt legal pluralism and believe that different legal systems are complementary rather than contradictory. For example, community practices and customs are considered along with national and local regulations in settling disputes and conflicts at the village level.

However, in recent years, Indonesia has seen the expanding role of Islam in the country’s social and political life. Aside from Islam being a “source of ethical and cultural guidance”, many Islamic organizations have secured formal power, which allows them to easily introduce measures within the state apparatus that cement their own interests. Hardliner Islamic groups have also proliferated, and fundamentalist thought and practices are becoming more and more widespread. Islamic identity politics have also been evident since Widodo coalesced with conservative Islamic factions and appointed Amin, an influential Islamic figure, as his vice president. The new penal code tends to be more religious than secular. This has implications for Indonesia’s supposed secularism and diversity. How can the Indonesian government best represent the interests and aspirations of all?

As Indonesia continues to modernize and extend its economic and political ascendancy in the region, rapid changes in its social relations and dynamics are also expected. This demands a more careful look at the kind of laws and “social controls” that the government enforces. Suppose conservative forces are forwarding laws in the name of protecting tradition and keeping Indonesian values in check. In that case, it should not be at the expense of fundamental civil and political liberties, nor should it be to repress vulnerable groups even further, such as women, LGBT+, and ethnic communities. Admittedly, this is easier said than done. Hence, political representation must reflect the diversity and vibrance of Indonesian society. If only one group dominates political and policy discourse, it ultimately jeopardizes the general will.

When religion becomes the yardstick for crafting rules and policies, it creates biases, whether intended or not. Propositions that are credible and necessary but “contradictory” to a certain religion may be rejected simply because they do not fit the personal convictions of decision-makers. Integrating religion into politics usually leads to oppressive and harmful policymaking. Religion is also a form of heuristics or cognitive shortcut that devalues deliberation and discussion. Instead of scrutinizing issues, people may resort to using their religion as the sole basis for their position on a particular matter. Democracies ought to be deliberative and pluralistic.

Human rights activists and organizations in Indonesia have sounded the alarm on many changes in the criminal code that could stifle individual freedoms and lead to setbacks in the country’s democratic progress. Aside from banning sex outside marriage, the government also reinstated laws that criminalize insulting the President and other state officials and institutions. They also increased the punishment for blasphemy. These laws can be disproportionately used against individuals and groups with legitimate criticisms and concerns about the government. It may also render already marginalized communities even more vulnerable. Religion, Populism, and Repression

This trend is not only unique to Indonesia. Much of the world has seen the rise of “nationalist” movements, often within the pretext of religion and safeguarding culture. India’s Modi has exhibited Hindu nationalist tendencies, which have meant greater intolerance against the Muslim minority in the country. Myanmar’s Tatmadaw has weaponized Buddhism to rally support from the public and account for its atrocities.

The use of religion to justify repressive and oppressive regimes is apparent. Religion is an effective tool to unify a group of people and subject them to a specific set of beliefs and values, which may be highly prejudiced and absurd. Religion acts as a moral compass that defines what is right and what is wrong. Because religion is subjective, it can easily be manipulated to serve political objectives. Populists and autocrats can bastardize religion to create a public enemy, instill an “us vs them” mentality, and sow further polarization.

Failed democracies thrive out of fear, whether it is real or manufactured. Religion can be a potent force to ingrain this fear. This hysteria against change and modernization is easy to whip up when people already have preexisting beliefs. It is not too difficult to segregate people and label them as the “other”. When this distinction is entrenched, it is convenient to normalize discrimination and violence.

It is said that Indonesia is a model for “Moderate Islam” when compared to the Middle East; the “Indonesian way” can complement Western values and democracy. It also has the potential to correct Islamophobia and promote Islam as a religion of peace. On the other hand, if Indonesia cannot find its balance and condone fundamentalist and hardliner Islamic groups to flourish, Indonesia will certainly regress in its hard-won democratic gains.

Religion has inherent contradictions with democracy. Subscribing to a religion and structuring a supposedly diverse society using its tenets is monopolistic and can bring about intolerance. It is paramount for democracies to ensure that civil, political, and socioeconomic rights are not deprived based on religion and other forms of cleavages. The access and exercise of power should be as widely distributed as possible. Public office should not be limited to certain political clans or religious organizations. For instance, at the village level, cultural and socioeconomic elites must share power and administration with vulnerable and historically marginalized groups. There are more reasons and illustrative cases, present and past, to posit that religion is more of a bane than a boon to democracy. At the moment in world history when (dis)information is fast and instant, we must maintain vigilance in dealing with autocratic agendas in the guise of “respecting” values and tradition. It is easier to believe and conform than to reflect and deliberate. But democracy dies when we rely on shortcuts to define what is good for us. Democracy dies, slowly and deliberately, when we allow a few to sabotage our freedoms and liberties to increase their own. Demagogues and despots are usually cunning and do things “in the name of God”.

REFERENCES

Evans, M. S. (2014). Religion and political decision making. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 53(1), 145–163. http://doi:10.1111/jssr.12088

Evans, T. (2012). Separation of Mosque and State in Indonesia. Policy, 27(4), 35–39.

Głodek, A., & Grzywacz, A. (2020). Indonesia – between religion and democracy, Warsaw: Boym Institute. Retrieved from https://instytutboyma.org/en/indonesia-between-religion-and-democracy

Jaffrey, S. (2020). Is Indonesia Becoming a Two-Tier Democracy?, Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Jamaluddin, M., Chen, H. & Watson, A. (2022). Indonesia bans sex outside marriage as parliament passes sweeping new criminal code, Jakarta: CNN.

Klinken, G. v. (2019). Living in a Sacred Cosmos: Indonesia and the Future of Islam. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia, 175(1), 81–135. http://doi:10.1111/jssr.12088

McWilliams, E. (2018). Democracy in Indonesia: A Progress Report, Washington D.C.: The Foreign Service Journal.

Nagda, A. (2020). The Diplomat. [Online] Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/the-islamization-of-indonesias-foreign-policy/

Omelicheva, M. & Ahmed, R. (2018). Religion and politics: examining the impact of faith on political participation. Religion, State, and Society, 46(1), 4–25.

The World Factbook. (2023). Indonesia, s.l.: Central Intelligence Agency.

Wieringa, S. E. (2006). Islamization in Indonesia: Women Activists’ Discourses. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 32 (1), 40–27.

Short Biography:

Kay Conales is a student of the Asia Pacific-Master of Arts in Human Rights and Democratization of the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies (IHRP) of Mahidol University (Thailand). She also studied in the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences (FISIPOL) of APMA’s partner-university Universitas Gadjah Mada (Indonesia). She can be reached through e-mail at ksconales@gmail.com.

ASEAN After 50: Defending Human Rights in ASEAN

ASEAN STUDIES CENTER UGM

CONTACT US