Entries by aseansc

Developing Halal Tourism within IMT-GT Sub-regional Cooperation

/in /by

Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand held the 10th Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle in Manila, Philippines. Represented by the presence of Indonesian President Joko Widodo, Malaysian Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Najib Razak, and Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-O-Cha, these three contiguous countries addressed many potential economic field for cooperation, such as trade and investment, infrastructure and transportation, tourism, halal products and services, human resources development and agriculture, and agro-industry and environment.

While the meeting has likely focused on infrastructure cooperation reflecting from the attendance of Ministry of Transport from the respective countries, Halal tourism as the new agenda can serve as a push-factor for both national and sub-regional economic growth.

Growth triangles are a unique form of international cooperation, which takes advantage of hitherto cross-border complementarities within geographical propinquity. Like Special Economic Zones (SEZs), they receive additional policy focus as a designated geographical area with the goal of accelerating economic activity.

However, they differ because growth triangles straddling two or three state borders, and exploiting economic complementarity between a metropole and periphery. The metropoles have strong industrial sectors, financial markets and infrastructure, and highly skilled labor. At the same time, it suffers from a shortage of unskilled labor and land, where periphery grabs this supportive role.

Looking specifically on the issue of Halal tourism provides a view that these three countries have adequately put its concern to this issue as one of many potential economic field for national economic growth.

Committed to establish itself as a center of Islamic civilization, Malaysia has enacted the “Halal Master Plan” program. The program is organized into three phases, namely establishing Malaysia as a world center for Halal integrity and prepares for industrial development (2008-2010), establishing Malaysia as one of the favorite locations associated with Halal business (2011-2015), and expanding the geographic footprint of Malaysia as the center of Halal development companies (2016-2020).

Furthermore, there is also an instrument of standardization of services in Malaysia, the MS2610: 2015—Muslims Friendly Hospitality Services—Requirements. The regulation contains three important components related to the supply chain of Halal travel, namely the principle of providing accommodation, tour packages, and tour guides based on Islamic principles.

In addition, the establishment of standardization rules is not initiated by the Malaysian government. Rather, it comes from the voluntary actions of actors in the tourism sector.

Actors involved in the drafting process of standardization include Islamic Tourism Centre (ITC), Malaysian Association of Hotel Owners (MAHO), Malaysian Association of Hotels (MAH), Malaysian Association of Tour and Travel Agents (MATTA), Bumiputera Travel and Tour Agents Association of Malaysia (Bumitra), and the Malaysian Tourist Guides Council (MTGC).

For Thailand, up to 2015 there are some 3,600 companies in Thailand hold the overall Halal certification, which covers 120,000 kinds of products, with export volume increase of 10 % per year in order to maintain Thailand’s position as world’s fifth biggest exporter of Halal products.

The Halal industry in Thailand is predominantly controlled by the Central Islamic Committee of Thailand (CICOT), which is supported by several institutions, such as the Halal Science Center (HSC) Chulalongkorn University and the Institute of Food Research and Product Development (IFRPD) Kasersart University.

Up to this time, CICOT has issued three regulations related to Halal products, namely National Halal Standard THS 24000: 2552, Halal Products Standard Certification Process, and Regulation of the Central Islamic Committee of Thailand Regarding Halal Affair Operation of B.E. 2552.

In contrast, Indonesia does not show any significance in its Halal tourism. Although it has achieved prestigious awards in 2015 and 2016 for the nomination of the Best Halal Tourism Destination Awards through the initiative implemented by West Nusa Tenggara province, Indonesia possesses minor practical development.

Having Asnawi Bahar the Head of Association of Indonesian Tours and Travel Agencies, he mentioned that the winning of such international awards do not represent any practice for the development of Halal tourism. Rather, it works to frame that Indonesia is a country with major population of Islam.

In fact, RI Ministry of Tourism has repealed the only one regulation related to Halal tourism last year, namely Regulation of the Minister of Tourism and Creative Economy No. 2/2014 on Administration Guidelines of Sharia Hotel.

In this sense, the question thus dwells in whether Halal tourism can be institutionalized at the sub-regional level for the sake of ‘shared’ economic cooperation for Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand.

Having Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand put serious concern on the development of Halal tourism the cooperation between these three countries will promote Southeast Asia as a ‘halal hub’ for the global Halal market.

However, in our forthcoming chapter in book, my Malaysian colleague Ho Yi Jian and I perceived that the asymmetric relations between Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand are unlikely to advance the trilateral economic cooperation.

In general, we argue that the Malaysian approach towards this sub-regional cooperation is a specific synthesis between establishing a political project for its own capacity building domestically, and as a way to create regional ties, but remains resolute to maintaining the centrality of the sovereign, unitary state.

In fact, Indonesia should be more ready to develop its Halal tourism if only Malaysia and Thailand are unlikely to disperse the potential of this new niche markets.

Dedi Dinarto, Researcher at ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Book Review: ASEAN in 2017, Regional Integration in an Age of Uncertainty

/in /by

Studying ASEAN as a region, its policy, relations among member countries, and geopolitical situations has attracted many scholars to inscribe their ideas and analysis. ASEAN in 2017: Regional Integration in an Age of Uncertainty, an outstanding monograph recently published by ASEAN Studies Center Faculty of Social and Political Sciences Universitas Gadjah Mada is one of them.

This monograph offers numerous important points about uneven regional development, which I shall address in this part. One of the example is trade regime, which serves as the core of ASEAN economic integration. Since the beginning, I strongly believe that a trade agreement is a political alliance. Either it is bilateral or multilateral to see ASEAN trade agreement as a product of political negotiation, which represents national interest remains important. In these circumstances, we know that ASEAN+6 (Australia, New Zealand, India, Republic of Korea, Japan, and China) has on-going negotiations on RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) at hands. The RCEP already failed twice to meet its deadline, which is due to the end of this year.

Dr Jeffrey Wilson once noted on his paper then at his public lecture (21 March 2017) that RCEP is like a ‘noodle bowl problems’. Unlike TPP, RCEP has standard issues on environment, labour workers, intellectual properties, etc. However, Shane Preuss offers clear ideas about how to deal with, for example, the labour workers issue. Even if the sending labour states made a consensus with the receiving labour states, the government (with or without aid from NGOs) must promote it in the most efficient and effective mechanisms. It nevertheless would be a good starting point if each nation fully aware about what their most potential resource and start cooperating from that aspect. Once they realize what it is, then give the most attention on it.

I shall start with lessons from European Union on work labour. Would it work in ASEAN? Consider, for example, cultural different between both entities. The European society already passed a long journey from functional cooperation, which I doubt would go immediately in Southeast region. However, the author already put some attention that we could not just apply the exact policy in ASEAN and yet the EU’s experience would still beneficial for us to learn.

What I shall disagree with the arguments made in the book is that if the only things we should do is to provoke socio-cultural purpose with people-oriented and people-centred approaches. In the age of anthropocentrism, I argue that we should not pay attention with merely human-made problems, but also in a wider environmental perspective. We should lead ASEAN to put more attention on environmental issues, rather than merely focusing on ‘people-oriented’ and ‘people-centred’ ASEAN.

Paul J. Crutzen, an atmospheric chemist, is the person who popularise the ‘Anthropocene’ term. In 2000, Crutzen stated that anthropogenic activity (every human behaviour) in 21st century affects the atmosphere. It could be related to recent condition as the time when anthropogenic activity has a significant effect to the ecosystem. Probably, it started since the 18th century, right after the Industrial Revolution.

Consider, for example, haze issues in the region. Remember when the peatland in Borneo (Kalimantan) and Sumatra were burned down because the El Ninocyclic in 2015. Neighbour states such as Singapore, Brunei, and Malaysia spoke up to press the government to take a quick and efficient action. However, environmental problems have its own characteristics. It needs integration and commitment from every nation in the region, since the excess will affects not only one country, but also the whole region. The effect was devastating. If you would not to inhale smoky air in the morning, you have to track where the fresh air is coming.

There is a real-time satellite imageries from Global Forest Watch about the burning events, actually when its peak on 14 October and its downfall on 14 December 2015. That is a reason why Carbon-tax regulation is important and we need to struggle for this from now on.


Carbon dioxide gas was produced naturally in three ways. First, from volcanic mountains both on earth surface and on deep below ocean. Second, as the result of deep ocean organism metabolic process, which would float to the sea surface in summer. Third, from fossil fuel or coal burning from anthropogenic activity (economic activity).

We could not (or less) doing anything to control carbon dioxide gas from the first and second producers. Yet, we absolutely could do something to produce less carbon dioxide gas from our activity, and carbon-tax regulation could be a solution to the problem.

Carbon-tax regulation is a set of rules to control the price of carbon dioxide emission (as a fee) produced from a certain party. Private corporations and state-owned corporations, especially in industrial and transportation, every goods from export-import activities, also every Indonesia citizen needs to be taxed. Precisely, with different charge. The regulation would give most impact to the export-import trade. Goods could not be imported from a country that does not apply the regulation unless they pay a high tariff or they could apply the same regulation in their own country to pass the goods.

However, the addition fee would raise up the price of goods or service. However, the good news is, money from the tax would be shared (as a dividend) to every citizen on the same amount. Everyone would receive it in a certain period and does not depend to one’s carbon dioxide emission produced. The government, along with every state-owned enterprises does not receive any rupiah of it. Generally, the people would be helped in transition from fossil fuel and coal dependence.

The RCEP negotiations include reducing export-import tariff, which could means a good thing since it would increase corporations and factories to produce more goods, and stimulating economic growth. We should also consider the contribution of increased economic growth to environment. More goods produced (with recent technologies) means more waste produced too, if we still use fossil fuel or coal as two main energy sources.

I do not say that the government needs to ban all economic activity that includes fossil fuel or coal as the energy sources, since the effect would be economically damaging. However, we should start to consider not just our future, but our next generations too. Would they live in a world when they have to fighting with others just to drink a glass of water? An age when they have to wear a gas mask all the time because the contaminated air to be inhaled?

Implementing the regulation should be accompanied with more research on renewable energy sources, and in the same time, we could raise campaign to using less plastic and using more eco-friendly stuff in our daily life. We have to raise environmental awareness not just in Indonesia, but also in the whole region. This is the problem that we should work together to solve.

Here I am not arguing that socio-cultural purpose with people-oriented and people-centred approaches is unnecessary. Nevertheless, I shall say that it is not the only important thing to be consider of. If we pursue a premise ‘to fulfil basic rights’ in the last article by Ahmad Umar with a more philosophical thought, I wonder if we could achieve it in the near future. If one could not get what he or she needs, would it be ASEAN member-states’ duty to provide it for the people?

Viny Alfiyah is an Undergraduate Student at Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada

 

Bincang ASEAN: ASEAN in 2017, Regional Integration in an Age of Uncertainty

/in /by

Earlier this year, four researchers from ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada, namely Ahmad Rizky M. Umar, Dedi Dinarto, Dio Herdiawan Tobing, and Shane Preuss have offered policy recommendations for ASEAN in a brief monograph entitled “ASEAN in 2017: Regional Integration in an Age of Uncertainty.”

The fourth Bincang ASEAN put effort to disseminate the monograph. Generally, the publication informs readers on how ASEAN should react towards geopolitical crisis. This discussion was a response on the failure of ASEAN to overcome the regional issues.

Three topics were discussed. Firstly, Dinarto reviewed the political issue on how Rodrigo Duterte dealt with maritime security and overcome the on-going crisis in South China Sea. He found out that Duterte remains unclear on how he will pursue maritime security, despite Duterte’s attention in maritime domain.

Regarding to this stance, Dinarto offered three recommendation: 1) ASEAN under Philippines should engage more with China, 2) ASEAN should be adaptive and fluid; and 3) ASEAN should reconsider its core principles and values.

The second issue was economic. Preuss discussed how ASEAN has fallen short to overcome low-skilled labour migration referred to Thailand – Cambodia Momerandum of Understanding (MoU).

As the solution, Preuss outlined the following recommendations: 1) identify sectors and industries with labour shortfalls; 2) develop and integrated regional framework for ensuring affordable and safe migration; 3) lower the costs of sending remittances by improving low-skilled worker access to financial institutions in their host state; and 4) facilitate integration policies for temporary low-skilled migrants.

The third was socio-cultural issue. Discussing the issue of refugee diplomacy, Tobing argued that the current state-centric approach has failed to solve Rohingya. Therefore, he proposed several recommendations under socio-cultural banner: 1) make use of ASEAN’s strategic measure to reduce barriers in multicultural community; 2) promoting multi-stake holders and community-based approaches; and 3) ASEAN must keep on engaging with Myanmar through its members.

Another serious part that still lagged far behind was social integration. Umar reviewed the social purpose of ASEAN regarding two key principles of ASEAN regional integration: “people oriented” and “people-centred”. If only this principle had been applied, ASEAN would have face a bright future. “It is not too late to start. Acknowledging and embracing the difference is the most important thing,” he ensured.

Capital Drugs Law in Southeast Asia: A Homicide against Humanity

/in /by

Southeast Asia is one of the world’s largest markets for synthetic drugs and capital drugs law is highly practiced by retentionist states in the region. ASEAN largest member states: Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines, often make international headline for execution against drugs traffickers. In fact, a 2016 report submitted by International Federation of Human Rights pointed out that Asia has the highest number of retentionist states in the world. It is in contrast to European and Central European states that have nullified capital punishment from their laws.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has been actively calling the UN member states to follow the international standards concerning prohibition of the death penalty for drug-related crimes. Their argument is based on the view that capital drugs laws violates international law . However, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), or any other UN Bill of Rights, does not prohibit the imposition of capital punishment. But the treaty did arrange numerous restrictions on the enforcement.

The ICCPR article 6(2) stated, “In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes.” This underlines that capital punishment should only be applied to the most serious crimes. However, there is no clear definition nor agreement for the term   most serious crimes at the international level. With its lack of clarity, the most serious crimes definition can be interpreted differently, thus exposes another non-binding weaknesses of International law.

States retaining capital punishment for drug offenses often times use protecting the nation from the potential effects of drugs as a reason to justify their laws. Many cases found in Indonesia and Singapore pointed out that those who are sentenced to dead are hardly major players in the drug cartel. Most of them were poor and vulnerable people, who accidentally found themselves being set up by trafficking gangs.

Consider the case of Nigerian, Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi, a young man who left his country to pursue a career as a football player. He was stranded without enough money to get to a team try-out in Dubai, when a man that he met while living in Pakistan offered him US$ 200 to deliver a package of medicine to Singapore.

After his arrival at the Changi airport, Tochi got arrested. A summary submitted by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial observes that the trial judge seems to have believed that Tochi could have been unaware that he was carrying heroin, saying that, there was no direct evidence that he knew the capsules contained diamorphine, or that he had found out on his own. But, the judge observation did not save his life apart pleas from UN Human Rights monitors and the Nigerian President, Olesegun Obasanjo. The Singapore government carried out the execution on January 2007, two years after Tochi‘s arrest.    

Singapore Law Minister stated, “If he escapes the death penalty, drug barons will think the signal is that young and vulnerable traffickers will be spared and can be used as drug mules.” The Singapore case serves as an evidence that capital punishment within the context of a draconian drugs law would be a pillar of simplification. Capital drugs law based on the generalization that all people are evil while the government kept stating that: ”It is a state’s sovereign right to defend its citizens from lethal threats such as drugs.”

Another thing about criminal justice system is, it is prone to human-made error. Execution sometimes being proceeded purposely for sending a strong message without regard to the human life it costs.

A report by Human Rights Programme of Harm Reduction International in 2007 found there was discrepancy on application of capital drug laws. This puts into attention the discriminatory law enforcement practices and sentence, including  failures to honour due process norms and provide access to consular assistance.

In 2010, during the Bali Nine Chan and Sukumaran trial, a human rights scholar Professor William Schabas submitted to the court that drug offenses do not meet the standard of the most serious crimes, hence a violation of international law.

Meanwhile, Indonesia is a signatory of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and should have been obeyed the treaty it made. The court, however, rejected Schabas s appeal.

ASEAN member states view drugs offences as such a profound threat to the society, and thusly have zero-tolerance approach to drugs. But the punitive measures on drugs applied by Southeast Asian states have been proven as not effective in overcoming the problem. Their claims that death penalty deters drugs crimes and prevent re-offences cannot be supported by any recognised studies. A report from International Bar Association states similar findings, of which many countries that adopt a moratorium prior to the final abolition of the death penalty find that the death penalty does not have a deterrent effect in practice

Capital drugs law is nothing but a form of murder, and an arrogant way to justify state’s crime. ASEAN member states with capital drugs law should consider a more humanistic approaches such as public policy reforms to handle their drugs problem.

On the other hand, the lack of clarity and open interpretation of the most serious crimes definition exposed another weaknesses of international law.

Given ASEAN is famous for its pragmatism approaches towards human rights, the organization’s member states would arguably find ways to expose the weaknesses of international law to justify their policies and place their own national interest above humanity.

 

Frida is an Alumnae of Department of International Relations, Webster University, Leiden.

Why Southeast Asia is Prone to North Korea’s Crisis

/in /by

Regional instability remains one of the serious concerns for Southeast Asian countries. ASEAN itself is facing unresolved conflicts and disputes that push the regional institution into stalemate position. Rohingya Refugees’ crisis, Pattani insurgency in Southern Thailand, and extremist terrorism in the Southern part of the Philippines are just a glimpse among many causes to regional instability. Disputes also occurred because of the pursuit of interest, such as the current South China Sea dispute.

Along with these numbers of issues, Southeast Asia remains prone to the growing threats, and much related to the changing regional and global political landscape.

Meanwhile, North Korea has been becoming a new plausible threat to the stability of Southeast Asian security.  North Korea has already caught global attention by a series controversial event, such as the killing of Kim Jong-Nam, Jong-Il first son, by the Indonesian and Vietnamese citizens at Kuala Lumpur International Airport, which strained the bilateral relationship between Pyongyang and Kuala Lumpur.

Moreover, a series of the missile launches and testing had caused earthquakes and starting to grow panic among surrounding states. North Korea also tried to launch its missile towards the territorial Sea of Japan.

This unfriendly act lured condemnation from the United Nations, and the latest invitation for press release had led the United States to send its naval army towards the Western Pacific due to the probability of missile launching.

From all the incidents and event, North Korea is trying to send a simple message to the world: they are getting ready for another massive turn, which absolutely not a good contribution for the stability of international politics. It could be the nuke warheads that is small enough to fit onto a missile in reference on their statement at September 2016, or another type of weapon mass destruction (WMD) that clearly could cause a new regional instability for ASEAN.

This threats are not only limited in a form of direct attack from North Korea, but also its implication if the war initiated. On the one hand, problems like refugee crisis could also occur. Southeast Asia will inevitably serves as the ‘limbo’ for Asian refugees.

On the other hand, war also could cause the damage towards the environment, since North Korea is predicted to use its weapon of mass destruction including nuclear missile, if necessary. The chemical radiation could possibly disperse across Asia through the sea and air.

Despite  the stagnation in some territorial disputes and conflict, as well as ASEAN’s inability to solve the problem, Southeast Asia should not overlook this circumstance and should prepare for the other upcoming threat from North Korea. Only with the concern to break current stalemate and finally producing output through cooperation, ASEAN could fix the current regional instability in the region.

Although the war is not happening yet, ASEAN should pay much attention to the conflict nearby its territory and practically put some measurement to avoid the worst scenario.

Diaz Kurniawan is a research intern at ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada, and an undergraduate student at Department of International Relations, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta.

 

 

New Visiting Research Fellow at ASEAN Studies Center

/in /by

We welcome our New Visiting Fellow, Mr Suraj Shah from International Development Institute, King’s College London. Mr Shah will be working on his Dissertation research, which will discuss “The Political Economy of Trade Liberalisation and Industrial Strategy in ASEAN”. His research is very timely with the upcoming negotiations related to Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in ASEAN, which will face its deadline this year.

In addition to completing his research, Mr Shah will also involve in various academic activities at ASEAN Studies Center. He will be scheduled to present some of his research findings, as well as to contribute a Working Paper to ASEAN Studies Center.

Mr Suraj Shah completes his BA (Hons) in History from Royal Holloway, University of London and is now undertaking MSc in Politics in Emerging Market Economies at King’s College London. His work is supervised by Dr Andy Sumner, a leading expert on Indonesian and Southeast Asian Studies at the United Kingdom and Co-Director of King’s International Development Institute.

ASEAN at 50: Has the Philippines Enhanced the Power of ASEAN’s People?

/in /by

ASEAN agreed to put its concern on the importance of its people through the pillar of ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC). Among the three pillars, ASCC is conceivably the one given least attention. The critics have risen along the establishment of ASEAN as an elite-centered institusion where the policies outcome is not relevant for its people. Enhancing the people centrality of ASEAN will create more inclusive institution within the ASEAN to narrow the inequality between the elite and the society. In this sense, ASEAN must ensure in its 50th year of its establishment, to benefit its people and to become more inclusive.

The celebration of 50th anniversary for ASEAN is going to be under the chairmanship of Philippines. President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines has officially accepted the chairmanship of the ASEAN during the closing ceremony of ASEAN Summit in September 2016. He declared his priorities, one of them is People-oriented and People-centered ASEAN. The commitment dwells in the Philippines’ initiative to hold the 17th ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Council Meeting on March 2017. The ASCC meeting resulted a Joint Communique, which aims to enhance the power of people by eliminating the causes of grassroots problem, such as poverty, inequality, unemployment, and lack of address to education and healthcare. Moreover, under Manila’s watch, ASEAN would like to finalize the Cebu Declaration on protecting the migrant worker.

However, the Philippines is unlikely able to progress in enhancing the power of its people.

This is evident as this year becomes the 50th ASEAN celebration, the Philippines’ chairmanship is facing some challenges. Firstly, the Philippines is disturbed by the stagnancy of resettlement towards territorial disputes in South China Sea together with Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, and Vietnam. The tension more or less influences the relations among member states. Secondly, regarding the step taken by the Philippines to place the realization of “people-oriented and people-centered” as its first priority of this year’s chairmanship, I argue that newly inaugurated President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines is unfit to promote this agenda as chairman. As the recent allegations towards human rights violation of killing over 2,000 people in his anti-drugs policies and the request from the United Nations to conduct investigation on the extrajudicial killings in his administration. These skeptical perspectives see that ASEAN will not be able to solve the human rights issue in its member states. In this sense, the Philippines’ burden is the assurance that ASEAN will be able to strive for improvement.

In order to create the solid integration among its member states, the awareness of ASEAN identity is measured important. I believe to create more inclusive organization, ASEAN should embrace the roles of non-state actors. Marguerite Afra Sapiie argued that the role of Civil Society Organization can push ASEAN to accommodate peoples’ needs. The inclusiveness of this intra-governmental organization will invite the participation of people. Then, I believe it could create more transparency in the process of decision making process in the ASEAN and lead to the awareness of people.

To create this solid integration of ASEAN, the Philippines needs to emphasize the notion of people-centered and people-oriented is not only as a thematic priority under its chairmanship, but it should bring ASEAN to progress forward. Responding towards the Philippines priority on enhancing the power of people, ASEAN Secretary General stated that ASEAN needs to sustain a positive impact among its people especially the poor and underprivileged people.

In conclusion, the Philippines’s priority to put “people-oriented and people-centered” agenda in its chairmanship must be able to attain the enhancement of ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community amidst the stagnancy of ASEAN Member States’ cooperation. Along with the burden for commemoration of ASEAN 50 Year, Philippines’ chairmanship should be able to prove in this period of chairmanship.

 

Siti Widyastuti Noor is a research intern at ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada and a Student at International Program of International Relations, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta.

Is Single-sex Education Promoting Education Equality?

/in /by

Seeking to promote the education equality for boys and girls, ‘Single-sex Education’ has become a growing trend. Sex segregated education, which separates boys and girls, or commonly known as Single-sex Education, has become a question of considerable value in both developed and developing countries. In ASEAN, some member countries, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand have a number of primary schools operating as the single-sex school, in which Indonesia has already established the first all-girl school since 1857.

However, I argue that the single-sex education is unlikely to promote education equality.

Single-sex school legitimized their status based on the common value that boys and girls have different interest. Proponent of single sex education extended the reason to some ideological beliefs, including: a) male crisis, b) biological differences, c) achievement gaps, and d) distractions. In the case of male crisis, The National Assessment of Educational Progress had proved that male reached lower achievement (National Centre for Educational Statistics, 2005). It is evident that a rate of male being dropout from school is higher than female. The problem of biological differences dwells in the brain capacity, where each respective sex needs different educational treatment. Another reason to uphold single-sex education is the achievement gap. Jimeneez and Lockheed on their study about student’s achievement in single-sex and co-educational school in Thailand found that girls accomplished higher score for mathematics in single-sex school than in co-educational school. Single-sex education was also effective to control male’s behaviour and lessen the distraction in interaction between male and female. It also proved that girl is likely developing their self-esteem, confidence and leadership skill in an all-female school.

However, another perspective argued that single-sex education is creating disparity and greater polarization of gender stereotype. A survey from National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that gender differences in personality were undeniably vigorous across all cultures studied including Malaysia, India, the Philippines, and Indonesia. Segregating male and female will clearly portray gender differences. It will strengthen the hegemony in society about the differences between male and female. The tendency of sexism will get higher along the practice.

While one believes that “learning preferences” and “brain processing” categorizes the difference between male and female, it cannot significantly point out the gender-specific. The learning process is influenced by many factors including socio-cultural and environmental factors. Additional concern deal with impaired social skill. It potentially happens since single – sex school provides limited opportunity for male and female students to socialize. It may cause problems in adult relationship as children get older. Single-sex education can also foster the sensitivity awareness. As in Indonesia, single sex school mostly operated due to religion, in similar with Malaysia that it mostly operated due to ethnicity, and religion.

Therefore, it is viable to assure that segregation based on the merit of socioeconomic status, race or culture, sex or gender is unacceptable. Students also deserve an opportunity to interact and engage with each other, regardless of the perceived ‘differences’. Enhancing the quality of teachers and education system while triggered by parent’s support are the solution to treat the difference in learning process. In order to embody the respect for gender difference and encounter the gender stereotype, students should be involved in the process of creating ‘learning space’ consisting both male and female.

Farieda Ilhami Zulaikha is a research intern at ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada and a Graduate Student at Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Cultural Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada.

ASC Researchers Partake in Roundtable Discussion with U.S. Embassy and National War College

/in /by

 

Today (07/4), two ASEAN Studies Center’s Researchers, Dedi Dinarto and Dio Herdiawan Tobing took part in Roundtable discussion with delegates from the U.S. Embassy and National War College. The meeting aimed to overview the development of current Indonesia’s foreign policy and its impact towards the South China Sea, contemporary issues in Indonesia’s domestic politics, and the rise of religious extremism and political Islam in Indonesia.

The meeting was opened by debating whether U.S. loses its hegemonic control over the world or other hegemonic powers are rising to shape a new global order. Dr. Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro, Head of the Department of International Relations UGM stated that, “The U.S. remains as the world’s hegemony and not losing its influence. However, it should be noted that more countries like China, Russia, India, Indonesia, and Brazil are rising in terms of economy and military.”

Afterwards, the Head of Office of International Affairs UGM, I Made Andi Arsana, Ph.D, explored the international law approaches towards the South China Sea dispute. He argued that it is very difficult for the international community to find solution towards this issue when China rebels towards UNCLOS. For him, an alternative method to understand China’s logic is necessary to engage with them.

The session was then followed by discussing Indonesia’s foreign policy to the South China Sea dispute. Dio Herdiawan Tobing, ASC’s Research Manager addressed, “It is a very difficult moment for Indonesia because ASEAN is still the cornerstone of Indonesia’s foreign policy, and yet the regional organization could not produce any solution for the South China Sea issue”. For him, the fragmentation of ASEAN’s member states’ stance and consensus-building preference in the decision-making process led to stagnation, not only in the case of South China Sea but also in other cases such as the Rohingya.

Commander Timothy Barelli, U.S. Coast Guard and student at the National War College responded, “Then what is Indonesia’s practical solution in time of ASEAN’s stagnation?”

Dio argued further, “It seems like Indonesia prefers more on bilateralism and is moving away from ASEAN. It can be seen from the establishment of a new directorate for Southeast Asian affairs in Indonesia’s Foreign Ministry while it already has Directorate-General for ASEAN Cooperation.”

ASC’s Researcher, Dedi Dinarto, expressed then, “It seems that Indonesia plays a kind of hedging-style diplomacy, where it did not pose any active role in ASEAN, but remains to consider ASEAN as important for its foreign policy.” He argued that Indonesia lacks initiative after the failure of joint communique on the case of South China Sea in ASEAN Summit 2016 hosted by Lao PDR. In contrast, back to the foremost failure of ASEAN Summit in Cambodia, former Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa conducted a shuttle diplomacy to ensure extra-institutional approach working on the South China Sea crisis. In the era of President Joko Widodo, his foreign policy approach is much more pragmatic, rather than seeking more either in bilateral or multilateral engagement. If certain political or security issues will exacerbate the stability of Indonesian national sovereignty, thus it is unlikely to be discussed and prioritized.

Lastly, the discussion was closed by handing over the souvenirs from the representatives of U.S. embassy, Mr. Taylor Fincher and National War College, Dr. Bradley McAllister and Ambassador Piper Campbell to Dr. Paripurna P. Sugarda, LL.M, UGM’s Vice Rector of Cooperation and Alumni.

Socialising Human Rights in ASEAN

/in /by

 

U Ko Ni, a legal advisor of National League for Democracy (NLD), was shot in Rangoon  Airport on February. He was returning from an official visit to Indonesia addressing crisis in Rakhine State. Mr Ko Ni has been an outspoken lawyer, who has always committed to political reform and democracy, and a notable defender of minority rights in the country.

His death was undoubtedly a huge loss, both for Burmese Human Rights activists and Burmese Muslim Community.

What is worrying from his murder is not only that U Ko Ni was shot in the midst of Rohingya crisis in Myanmar, but also the fact that there has been a rising hate crimes and intolerance in the country. This is, however, not only the case in Myanmar, but also in several other countries in Southeast Asia, for example with rising anti-Chinese sentiments in Indonesia or political turbulence in Malaysia.

This rising problem of intolerance and hate crimes –along with the murder of Mr U Ko Ni— is therefore a regional problem that must be taken seriously by ASEAN.

It has, therefore, posed some serious concerns over the future of Human Righs in ASEAN. Can Human Rights and Democracy stand against the rising hate crimes and sectarian violence in the region? What could ASEAN do to tackle these problems?

ASEAN has followed a dynamic path to embrace Human Rights and Democracy in the region. It dated back to 1993, when ASEAN Foreign Ministers agreed to coordinate a common approach on human rights and actively provide some institutional venues for the promotion and the protection of Human Rights in the region. A decade later, under the new ASEAN Charter, the member states have stepped forward to establish ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) in 2009.

It was then followed by the establishment of ASEAN Human Rights Declaration in 2013, although being considered by Human Rights activists as a controversial declaration.

Despite of some controversies regarding the declaration or lack of AICHR role in its Terms of Reference, it should be noted that ASEAN had taken a progressive path to institutionalise Human Rights in the region. However, with the rising hate crimes, intolerance, or some accusations of Human Rights abuse conducted by state officials in some countries, it is evident that ASEAN’s constructive role in promoting Human Rights is insufficient.

We need a more progressive effort to promote Human Rights to broader elements of Southeast Asian society.

What is at stake? The problem of Human Rights in ASEAN is not merely related to the lack of role that AICHR owns in dealing with Human Rights issues in the region, but also with the lack of understanding over Human Rights among people in ASEAN. So far, Human Rights is often associated with Western norms that is unsuitable with the so-called ‘Asian Values’ or state sovereign jurisdictions to rule their own people.

This misunderstanding has also been related to ASEAN’s non-intervention’ principle that has been the core of decision-making process in ASEAN since its establishement. State obligation to tackle Human Rights problem is often obscured with this principle, even though the problem has been widespread over the region, such as the Rohingya crisis.

I shall argue that this should be not the case in ASEAN if we could re-understand Human Rights not as a ‘value’ that should be imposed in particular subject (or state) through international law or regional politics, but as the ‘duty’ to treat other people as a part of ‘community’.

This obligation is enrooted in the often neglected pillar of ASEAN community, namely ‘ASEAN Social and Cultural Community’ (ASCC). The blueprint of ASEAN Social and Cultural Community, described in the newly-adopted ASEAN Vision 2015-2025, has provided some new understanding of Human Rights that is based upon the human development and the fulfillment of social and economic rights of the people.

The blueprint of ASEAN Social and Cultural Community also infers the need for ‘ASEAN single identity’, which thus implies the need for a ‘multi-cultural understanding’ among Southeast Asian people. Through this concept, ‘Human Rights’ should not be understood merely as a value to be imposed through state or regional authority, but instead as obligation to be fulfilled by both states and society.

The murder of U Ko Ni should then be the case for reconstructing Human Rights in ASEAN beyond legal perspective. Two aspects needs to be addressed.

First, ASEAN needs to strengthen the promotion of Human Rights not only to state elites or civil society organisations, but also to broader elements of society such as business entities, small and medium enterprises, or social organisations. It means that the promotion of Human Rights should not be spared with the socialisation of ASEAN in grass-root level.

Second, we need to develop ASEAN not only as a matter of state-related business, but also as a part of broader discourse of citizenship. We could begin with understanding the citizens of ASEAN member states as a part of our community that encompasses different cultural and social background as one community of people. The murder of U Ko Ni reflects the failure to acknowledge difference within the country, which needs to be addressed by ASEAN through its grass-root socialisation.

Finally, the rising hate speeches, intolerance, racism, or the failure to treat different should not be the case to dissolve Human Rights in the region. Rather, by taking into account the importance of ASEAN’s social and cultural community, ASEAN could bring Human Rights as the case for building a more prosperous and stable region in the future.

Ahmad Rizky Mardhatillah Umar, Executive Secretary at ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada