Press Release Bincang ASEAN “What Can ASEAN Do For Rohingya?”

December 18, 2018/in News/by aseansc

Yogyakarta, Friday, November 24th, 2018

The series of Bincang ASEAN was concluded with a very problematic discussion over the humanitarian crisis situation in Myanmar’s Rakhine state. This Bincang ASEAN was commenced on 24 November 2018 with Diah Triceseria as the speaker. The alleged ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya Muslim minority still continues after today. These people who are predominantly lived in Arakan now known as Rakhine State or Western Burma are forced out of the area. Citizenship Act 1982 does not include Rohingya as one of its eight recognized ethnicities. Due to its implementation, they are denied citizenship status by the government. Under this act, they are excluded from eight recognized ethnicities, which include Bamar, Chin, Kachin, Kayin, Kayah, Mon, Rakhine, and Shan.

According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center (2017), there are 146,500 internally displaced people in Rakhine state[1]. The allegedly ethnic cleansing done by the Burmese security forces resulted in other mass atrocities and humanitarian violence such as raping, torture, killing, as well as more than 480,000 Rohingya fleeing to Bangladesh in the search of a more secured living. Human Rights Watch reports that there has been a massive destruction of more than 210 villages in Rakhine State. This issue has attracted international attention, oftentimes generating people’s sympathy calling to help their distant strangers. Human Rights Watch called for an urgent response to address the crisis in the Human Rights Council last September 19, 2017. This issue also appeals U.S. Senators to ask U.S. Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, and Administrator Green to give a diplomatic influence against Myanmar’s government for not resolving the crisis. There has also been a call for the United Nations Security Council to come up with a resolution by imposing sanctions and an arms embargo on the Burmese military and remain seized in the matter. However, no resolution has been made and no states has been seen willing to intervene directly in Myanmar to address this humanitarian issue.

Recent the Development of the Issue

The International Criminal Court’s pre-trial chamber’s statement made recently this month, says that the leaders of Myanmar could still be investigated for the alleged crimes against humanity- in this case, a forcible transfer of a population. Nonetheless, it is never easy to bring this case before the ICC. Although it seems to us that the ICC could help solve the crisis, the way to get there is still afar from

nearly possible. Myanmar is not a signatory to the court, meaning that the ICC does not have its jurisdiction in the country. The only way to get there is to wait until the refugees enter Bangladesh, a state party to the Rome statute governing the court. Until then, the investigation would be completed.

Diah Triceseria contends that Indonesia has never been a place for the Rohingya refugees to seek shelters. Nonetheless, most of the refugees that transit in Indonesia come from Afganistan and Pakistan; usually they are refugees who want to go to Australia, but stranded in the Indonesian waters because of the ‘turn back the boat’ policy of the Australian government. As a regional intergovernmental organization, ASEAN does not seem to offer much in solving this issue. Through the ASEAN Coordinating Center for Humanitarian Assistance, ASEAN delivered some assistances to the Rohingya.

The ‘non-interference’ principle of ASEAN does not allow the organization to talk about the issue if it relates to the domestic politics of its member state, as what is exactly going on in Myanmar. Thus, the Rohingya are also helpless per se because they could live up their expectation to ASEAN. Many of them decide to go to India as the country has a big Islamic community, aside from the fact that they could also work there. The working permit is also possible to be granted in Malaysia, hence why some go to Malaysia. ASEAN is expected to play larger contribution to this issue regardless.

The situation in Myanmar politics is so muddy to the point that we could not blame Aung San Suu Kyi for not taking action. The situation in which she is put with no choice also worsens the scenario. As the people in Myanmar do not want to acknowledge the Rohingya as part of their people, Aung San Suu Kyi decided to remain silent as she knows that by saying something wrong would risk the country to be controlled again, in a greater scale, by the military who is now still dominating the vital ministries in Myanmar. What is worse is that they have the seats as much as one third of the parliament. Changing the constitution would not be likely too, as it requires simple majority- not possible until the military loses grips on the parliament.

Efforts to repatriate the Rohingya people since mid 2018 has been made by ASEAN, and was discussed (briefly) on ASEAN Summit with the conclusion of “sending a regional task force to assist in the repatriation of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar”. It is scheduled that the transfer of the first batch of 2,260 Rohingya from camps in Bangladesh to temporary detention facilities across the border in

Myanmar’s Rakhine State would be done before the end of 2018 nobody is willing to return. This shows that hopes are still small for the Rohingya to feel secure again to go back there. In this case, the solidarity among ASEAN Member States would not be sufficient to change the course of politics in Myanmar, I would argue, but still hold firm that it would alleviate the human sufferings for the Rohingya minority by giving them aids and assistance in our best capacity.

[1] Council, Internal. 2017. “IDMC » Myanmar IDP Figure Analysis”. Internal-Displacement.Org. http://www.internal-displacement.org/south-and-south-east-asia/myanmar/figures-analysis.

Written by Kevin Iskandar Putra, research intern at the ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada

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.

Press Release Bincang ASEAN “What Can ASEAN Do For Rohingya?”

ASEAN STUDIES CENTER UGM

CONTACT US