Entries by aseansc

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

 

ASC Researcher Joins Worldwide Debate on IORA and ASEAN

/in /by

Our Researcher Dedi Dinarto engaged in a debate on whether Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) will undermine ASEAN centrality in Indonesia’s foreign policy.

Earlier this month, Dedi published an article at The Diplomat which discuss whether Indonesia shifts its foreign policy focus towards IORA rather than maintaining ASEAN Centrality. He argues that Indonesia’s active participation in organising IORA should not put aside ASEAN in foreign policy, since it could undermine regional environment.

Dedi’s article was written as a response from an idea brought by Ibrahim Almuttaqi, the Head of ASEAN Studies Programme at The Habibie Center. He previously wrote at The Jakarta Post that IORA is Indonesia’s initiative to fill the ‘vacuum of governance’ in the Indian Ocean as a part of Jakarta’s new foreign policy under Jokowi.

Dedi’s responses to Ibrahim’s article was responded by two separate articles from David Willis, a PhD Candidate at Flinders University, Australia, and Ibrahim Almuttaqi himself. Responding to Dedi’s argument, David wrote at the Diplomat that Indonesia is neither shifting from ASEAN nor filling the “vacuum of governance” in IORA, but rather promote a form of pragmatic bilateralism.

Ibrahim sets in a rejoinder at the Jakarta Post by noting that “ASEAN is still the cornerstone of Indonesia’s foreign policy”,

Dedi presented his article at bi-weekly Bincang ASEAN at ASEAN Studies Center UGM in Friday (31/3). At the forum, several ASC colleagues raised some questions and comments over Dedi’s arguments over IORA and ASEAN.

Dio H. Tobing, ASC Research Manager, commented that whilst Jakarta seems to promote IORA in a global level, the Association still lacks institutional basis as a global governance institution. In the same vein, Ahmad Rizky M. Umar (ASC Executive Secretary) also mentioned that Indonesia’s foreign policy should also be seen as driven by larger geopolitical contestation rather than merely a product of decision-maker’s choice.

ASEAN Studies Center Holds Research Workshop

/in /by

On Friday (31/3), ASEAN Studies Center (ASC) Faculty of Social and Political Sciences Universitas Gadjah Mada had successfully organized our first research workshop at Jogjakarta Plaza Hotel. The workshop aims to provide space for coordination and discussion between our researchers, who are going to conduct their research project starting on April 2017. Our Director Dafri Agussalim commenced the forum by congratulating all of the researchers who have acquired research grants from various providers, such as Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, SHAPE-SEA, Raoul Wallenberg Institute, and Australia-Indonesia Centre.

Afterwards, our Executive Secretary Ahmad Rizky Mardhatillah Umar provided general rules to help around eight research team. He suggested each team member to prepare timetable and field research schedule for coordination purpose. He also highlighted some important dates when each research team needs to submit their progress report and financial report. Through this mechanism, he wishes that each research team would be able to conduct their research in accordance to the schedule. Moreover, they should commit to provide research output at the end of research project, in which ASC strongly encourage them to produce journal article, policy brief, and working paper.

The session was then followed by each team disseminating their research progress for comments and suggestions among research members. Umar also added information that ASC will host three visiting scholars who will be our collaborative research partner, namely Dr. Avery Poole from University of Melbourne, Australia, Assoc. Prof. Mohamed Battour from Tanta University, Egypt, and Prof. Ronald Holzhacker from University of Groningen, Netherlands. Next, we also invite each researcher to sign a contract as a commitment to participating in the whole process of research project.

Lastly, Rahayu—one of our researchers from Department of Communication Universitas Gadjah Mada—proposed that this remarkable development of ASC’s research project should be followed by creating a kind of ‘data management center’, of which all of the data collected from fieldwork research are archived and accessible to all of our researchers. This initiative will be very helpful for our researchers to produce various academic works from the available data. Our Director welcomes this noteworthy suggestion for the future development of ASEAN Studies Center.

New ASC Book: “ASEAN In 2017: Regional Integration in an Age Of Uncertainty”

/in /by

ASEAN Studies Center UGM is pleased to launch a new book that covers a regional outlook in 2017. Co-authored by four ASEAN Studies Center’s researchers, this book highlights three key issues in ASEAN regional integration and the policy prospects for integration beyond 2017.

In political and security issue, Dedi Dinarto argues that Duterte’s presidency in Phillippines, who will hold ASEAN Chairmanship, is pivotal in managing US-Sino rivalry in the region. This is particularly in case with growing tension in the South China Sea.

In economic issue, Shane Preuss suggests that low-skilled labour migration is likely to deepen uneven economic development in the region, in which ASEAN needs to respond.

In social and cultural issue, Dio H. Tobing highlights the unresolved conflict in Rohingya, which has been a regional issue since 2015. Without strong regional solution from ASEAN and engagement with Myanmar’s new administration, the issue will bring further problems for regional social and cultural environment.

Ahmad Rizky M. Umar finally underscores the need for ASEAN to promote social integration instead of merely focusing on political and economic integration, given the state of ASEAN in 2017.

All authors strongly recommends Indonesia’s foreign policy to hold strong leadership in ASEAN.
ASEAN in 2017: Regional Integration in an Age of Uncertainty can be downloaded here

Pengumuman Seleksi Wawancara AYIEP 2017

/in /by

Yth. Kepada seluruh peserta seleksi Panitia AYIEP 2017,

Setelah melalui proses seleksi yang panjang dan dengan kompetisi yang tinggi, kami mengumumkan hasil seleksi wawancara panitia ASEAN Youth Initiative Empowerment Program 2017, sebagai berikut:

 

1 V. Y. Seto Damar
2 Hasya Nindita
3 Galuh Octania Permatasari
4 Fadilah Rahma NR
5 Rostya Septiana Putri
6 Heidy Melia Nefertiti
7 Anang Wahid Efendi
8 Alifiandi Rahman Yusuf
9 Patricia Martina Tobing
10 Dzikrullah Umam

 

Bagi nama yang telah disebutkan diatas, kami akan mengirimkan pengumuman kepada e-mail masing-masing.  Bagi yang tidak mendapatkan email, kami dengan berat hati menginformasikan bahwa anda belum diterima pada kepanitian kali ini. Terima kasih atas perhatian dan kerjasamanya.
Informasi lebih lanjut silahkan hubungi: aseanyiep@gmail.com

Modelling International Lawmaking in ASEAN

/in /by

 

ASEAN and its model of international law has always being questioned by many international lawyers for its informal nature of law-making processes in concluding agreements among member states. For them, this phenomenon is unusual because normally international law is being concluded in a formal manner to show its commitment in tackling global problems.

In 2012, The University of Oxford released a book entitled, “Informal International Lawmaking”. This book is written after the realization on the increasing number of Informal International Law (IN-LAW), which being made within the international community. In this book, Joost Pauwelyn identifies the characteristics of IN-LAW which consists of output informality, process informality, and actor informality.

All of these characteristics are reflecting the way of ASEAN in concluding its agreements. However, interestingly, only a limited amount of reference to ASEAN is being included in this book to understand the nature of IN-LAW.

The emergence of IN-LAW is not a new phenomenon. Since ASEAN’s inception in 1967, the characteristic of this organization is underpinned by ‘informality’. Therefore, the blame towards ASEAN’s inability to conclude legally-binding agreements should be argued further. It is common that many legal scholars arrive at mistakes in assessing international law in ASEAN because the tendency of assessing and framing ASEAN law through the ‘western-based’ conception of international law.

I argue that many of ASEAN agreements are IN-LAW based on the following evidences. First, IN-LAW is entrenched strongly in ASEAN’s vessels that by the time of ASEAN founding fathers had a meeting to conclude ASEAN’s establishment, the foundational treaty was simply a declaration. Only when ASEAN member states realized that the organization is missing of a constituent treaty, the ASEAN charter was created.

This unique characteristic of ASEAN in law-making process is driven by the ASEAN Way, especially on ASEAN’s procedural norm that endorses the principle of seeking agreement and harmony, the principle of sensitivity, politeness, non-confrontation and agreeability, the principle of quiet, private and elitist diplomacy versus public washing of dirty linen, and the principle of being non-Cartesian, non-legalistic (Soesastro, 1995). In short, all of these principles lead to the informal aspect of ASEAN.

In fact, if to be traced back any further, ASEAN’s predecessors, both Associations of Southeast Asia (ASA) and Malaysia-Philippines-Indonesia (Maliphindo), have already practiced similar norms on managing intra-regionalism affairs (Goh, 2003). Thanat Khoman, the key architect of ASA who was then Thailand’s Foreign Minister declared that ASA’s norms were deeply rooted in “Asian Culture and Traditions”. Similar view is shared towards Maliphindo, where consultation or musyawarah serves as the basis of settling differences among ASEAN members.

Second, non-legally binding instruments are the nature of ASEAN agreements. Due to the informal nature of cooperation among ASEAN member states, the output of decision-making is often to be informal as well. Even for ASEAN external agreements, 104 out of 175 are non-legally binding (Cremona et al, 2015). If more than a half of agreements concluded with external actors are non-legally binding, what is to be expected in ASEAN’s inter-state cooperation. The number of ASEAN’s legally binding agreements is far fewer than those formed in legally-binding instruments. It is clearly that non-legally binding nature of cooperation is the foundation and custom of ASEAN inter-state cooperation.

Third, actors engaged in ASEAN diplomacy are not exclusively the head of state or foreign minister. ASEAN hosts various annual meeting, ranging from state representatives to non-state actors. All this type of ASEAN meetings concludes the making of ASEAN agreements. Different than the United Nations (UN) or any other international organizations that facilitate committee of experts which focus on the technicalities of that particular chamber, ASEAN does not offer similar facilitation, yet some of ASEAN’s meeting are filled with non-state actors. The involvement of non-state actors in ASEAN diplomacy shows the characteristic of ASEAN informality.

These three aspects conclude the nature of IN-LAW in ASEAN law-making process. Therefore, in assessing international law in ASEAN, legal scholars must refrain from using the conventional approach of assessment to international law due to the nature of ASEAN cooperation. Furthermore, in developing a study related to IN-LAW, such discipline must not neglect the fact that such international law has been well developed in Southeast Asian region, thus reference to ASEAN should be made.

Dio Herdiawan Tobing is the Research Manager of ASEAN Studies Center, Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Pengumuman Jadwal Wawancara AYIEP 2017

/in /by

Berikut adalah peserta yang lolos seleksi berkas beserta jadwal wawancara yang ditentukan. Wawancara akan diadakan di kantor ASEAN Studies Center Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, Gedung BC ruang 209.

No Nama Tanggal Waktu
1 Gidion Ivan Arly 23 Maret 2017 10:00
2 Alfian B. Satrio 23 Maret 2017 10:20
3 Valentinus Yudanto Seto Damarjati 23 Maret 2017 10:40
4 Sri Winarni Ardi Sutrisni 23 Maret 2017 11:00
5 Ubaidillah Amir 23 Maret 2017 11:20
6 Nikita Cendhani P 23 Maret 2017 11:40
7 Muzakir Haitami 23 Maret 2017 12:00
8 Alifiandi Rahman Yusuf 23 Maret 2017 13:00
9 Patricia Martina Tobing 23 Maret 2017 13:20
10 Gurindra Budi Prasetyo 23 Maret 2017 13:40
11 Hasna Nurain Muksin 23 Maret 2017 14:00
12 Dzikrullah Umam 23 Maret 2017 14:20
13 Rostya Septiana Putri 23 Maret 2017 14:40
14 Imra’atul Jamilah 23 Maret 2017 15:00
15 Nur Fajrhi 23 Maret 2017 15:20
16 Hasya Nindita 23 Maret 2017 15:40
17 Wahyu Ramadhan Yusuf 23 Maret 2017 16:00
18 Anang Wahid Efendi 24 Maret 2017 10:00
19 Rahil Helmi 24 Maret 2017 10:20
20 Rizky Fitri Lestari 24 Maret 2017 10:40
21 Galuh Octania Permatasari 24 Maret 2017 11:00
22 Heidy Melia Nefertiti 24 Maret 2017 11:20
23 Muhammad Alfian Kusuma Wardhana 24 Maret 2017 13:00
24 Amanda Mutiara Ayu Rahmawati 24 Maret 2017 13:20
25 Fadilah Rahma Nur R 24 Maret 2017 13:40

 

Informasi lebih lanjut silahkan hubungi: aseanyiep@gmail.com