Nitia Agustini, Research Intern di ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada

Salah satu isu penting yang agak terabaikan dalam perkembangan Masyarakat ASEAN dewasa ini adalah keterlibatan Masyarakat Sipil di ASEAN. Bersamaan dengan penyelenggaraan ASEAN Summit di Kuala Lumpur,  ASEAN People’s Forum (APF) diselenggarakan di Wisma MCA Kuala Lumpur Malaysia pada 21-24 April 2015.

Pelaksanaan APF tahun ini bukan saja menandai kiprah 10 tahun masyarakat sipil dalam proses regionalisme di ASEAN (pertama kali APF/ACSC digelar di Malaysia, satu dasawarsa silam), tetapi juga menandai beberapa peningkatan keterlibatan. Antara lain, sebagaimana nanti akan dijelaskan, adanya kesempatan bertemu kepala negara ASEAN melalui interface meeting.

Pertemuan ASEAN People’ Forum tahun ini dihadiri sekitar 1400 orang yang merupakan perwakilan civil society di ASEAN dengan berbagai isu. Walaupun memiliki bidang yang berbeda-beda, peserta dalam forum ini sepakat untuk mendorong keterlibatan masyarakat dalam pembuatan kebijakan-kebijakan ASEAN.

Isu ini penting, karena sejauh ini ruang partisipasi masyarakat sipil di ASEAN memang tidak banyak terakomodasi di struktur formal. Kajian ASEAN Studies Center tahun 2014 melihat bahwa baik di isu HAM dan UKM, keterlibatan aktor non-negara dalam proses regionalisme belum sekuat negara. ASEAN masih menjadi bagian dari skema besar ‘kepentingan negara’.

Meng-address keterlibatan masyarakat sipil ini menjadi penting agar Masyarakat ASEAN tidak diidentikkan hanya pada sektor ekonomi. Selama beberapa tahun terakhir, kebijakan ASEAN lebih fokus pada pembangunan ekonomi dan liberalisasi sektor perdagangan. Konsekuensinya, ASEAN hanya menjadi domain dari kepentingan pemerintah serta pemaim bisnis besar. Hal ini berakibat pada kesenjangan pendapatan, problem pembangunan, hingga kesejahteraan yang tidak terdistribusi dengan merata.

Problem HAM

Dalam forum tersebut, muncul kegelisahan dari peserta bahwa walaupun ASEAN telah membuat Komisi ASEAN untuk Hak Asasi Manusia (AICHR) dan Deklarasi HAM ASEAN (AHRD) yang ditandatangani pada tahun 2012 silam, pelanggaran HAM masih terus terjadi. ASEAN sebagai sebuah asosiasi regional dinilai belum mampu melakukan intervensi untuk menyelesaikan itu.

Kita bisa lihat beberapa kasus, Misalnya, beberapa waktu lalu terjadi penangkapan oleh pemerintah Myanmar terhadap mahasiswa yang berdemo. Problem lain adalah yang baru-baru ini terjadi: statelessness yang menimpa beberapa kelompok etnis di Myanmar , terutama Rohingya. Di Malaysia, Laos dan Thailand, beberapa aktivis oposisi pemerintah yang menghilang, ditangkap dan direpresi. Ini belum termasuk kasus-kasus pelanggaran HAM lain di negara-negara ASEAN.

Dalam rangka mendorong percepatan pemenuhan hak masyarakat ASEAN, peserta ASEAN People’s Forum 2015 membuat sebuah rekomendasi yang berjudul “Reclaiming The ASEAN Community For The People”. Rekomendasi ini menyoroti beberapa priotitas yang penting untuk dilakukan yaitu, (1) Menjamin Keadilan dalam Pembangunan; (2) Melindungi Proses Demokrasi, Pemerintahan, serta pemenuhan Hak dasar dan Kebebasan; (3) Komitmen dalam mewujudkan Perdamaian dan Keamanan; dan (4) Mengakhiri Diskriminasi dan ketidaksetaraan.

Peserta ASEAN People’s Forum 2015 berharap adanya dialog terbuka yang konstruktif antara pemerintah dan perwakilan civil society. Hal ini agar rekomendasi yang telah dibuat dapat dipahami oleh pemerintah. Serta dapat mempengaruhi kebijakan ASEAN.

Salah satu perkembangan menarik dari ASEAN People’s Forum 2015 adalah adanya interface meeting antara perwakilan NGO, Business Advisory Council, Pemuda, dan Think-Tank dengan perwakilan Kepala Negara di ASEAN. Kendati dihadiri oleh hampir semua Kepala Negara (termasuk Presiden Joko Widodo), tidak banyak pembicaraan yang bisa dilakukan dalam forum ini.

Ada statement menarik tentang hal ini. Wathslah Naidu dari Organisasi Perempuan Malaysia pun mengatakan bahwa “Kami berharap melalui pernyataan ini, suara-suara dari semua orang akan didengar oleh para pemimpin ASEAN. Kebijakan ASEAN harus menguntungkan masyarakat yang paling terpinggirkan, tidak bekerja melawan mereka”. Hal ini menunjukan bahwa sudah saatnya pembangunan ASEAN mendengarkan aspirasi masyarakat.

Dengan demikian, prinsip ASEAN yaitu people-centred oriented tidak hanya sebuah “simbol” atau jargon yang diulang-ulang setiap kali Summit, namun benar-benar terwujud dalam proses-proses formal yang ada.

Tantangan Regionalisme ASEAN

Apa pelajaran yang bisa diambil dari keterlibatan masyarakat sipil ini?

Setidaknya, APF 2015 memperlihatkan pada kita bahwa regionalisme ASEAN dengan pendekatan people-centred oriented masih mengalami banyak kendala. Kritik banyak pihak bahwa kebijakan ASEAN selama ini berbasis kepentingan elit ASEAN, belum menemukan solusi yang benar-benar bisa dilaksakan.

Melihat pola relasi antara negara dan aktor-aktor non-negara saat inji, Mewujudkan ASEAN yang lebih inklusif dan berdampak langsung pada masyarakat masih belum bisa diwujudkan dalam waktu dekat. Alex Chandra (2009:11) menjelaskan alternatif strategi untuk mewujudkan ASEAN yang lebih “membumi”. Menurutnya, People-Centred dan People-Oriented ASEAN berarti bahwa organisasi non pemerintah (LSM) yang ada di ASEAN harus dilibatkan dalam pembuatan keputusan.

Alexander Chandra memberikan rekomendasi menarik terkait hal ini. Menurutnya, dalam proses pembuatan keputusan,. pembuat kebijakan harus memfasilitasi masuknya aspirasi konstituennya (civil society) dalam menyusun rencana kebijakan. Selanjutnya saat final drafting kebijakan, konsultasi antara negara dan perwakilan non-negara menjadi penting.

Hal ini dimungkinkan dalam format kelembagaan ASEAN, mengingat Konsultasi adalah salah satu dari dua mekanisme pengambilan keputusan di ASEAN (selain ‘Konsensus’). Ironisnya, dalam praktiknya, hal ini cukup sering diabaikan.

Jika model perumusan kebijakan dapat lebih ‘konsultatif’, kita bisa mengharapkan kebijakan-kebijakan ASEAN akan berdampak pada kesejahteraan masyarakat ASEAN. Terpenting, kebijakan ASEAN dapat bermanfaat bagi seluruh elemen masyarakat, transparan, merangkum kepentingan bersama, partisipatif dan inklusif.

Mari mengawalnya di KTT ASEAN Kuala Lumpur yang akan datang.

Muhammad Prayoga Permana, MPP
Kepala ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada

Masyarakat Ekonomi ASEAN (selanjutnya disingkat EA) akan segera diluncurkan akhir tahun 2015 ini. Disadari atau tidak, MEA akan sangat terkait dengan kompetisi yang makin tajam di kawasan Asia Tenggara. Kendati idealnya MEA dirancang untuk memberikan manfaat bagi semua negara anggota ASEAN, Presiden Joko Widodo dalam beberapa kesempatan memaparkan bahwa MEA merupakan persaingan antar negara.

Dalam hal ini, negara dan segenap aparatur birokrasi di dalamnya akan menjadi katalisator. Mereka akan menentukan nasib setelah MEA efektif diberlakukan per 31 Desember 2015.

Pertanyaan yang perlu diajukan, apakah Indonesia akan menjadi pemenang bersama dengan kesepuluh anggota ASEAN lainnya ataukah justru Indonesia hanya akan menjadi pasar? Berbagai pendekatan telah dilakukan dalam mengukur kesiapan masyarakat menjelang MEA. Namun, ironisnya, belum ada yang berhasil menggambarkan secara komprehensif kesiapan pemerintah sendiri.

Dalam menghadapi MEA, cara bekerja birokrasi harus berubah. Catatan ASEAN Community Progress Monitoring System (ACPMS) 2012 memaparkan proporsi ekspor Indonesia dalam produk berteknologi tinggi berada jauh di bawah rata-rata ASEAN. Artinya, kapabilitas pengembangan teknologi Indonesia masih cukup rendah dan hanya mengandalkan ekspor bahan mentah. Selain itu, ongkos ekspor Indonesia menduduki posisi ke-3 termahal di ASEAN dan untuk impor justru termurah ke-3 di ASEAN. Tanpa intervensi yang tepat dari pemerintah, MEA hanya akan menguntungkan importir untuk pasar domestik dan eksportir komoditas tanpa nilai tambah.

Memenangkan Peluang

Memenangkan peluang MEA membutuhkan adaptasi dan ketangkasan (operational agility). Ketangkasan yang dimaksud adalah bagaimana merespon perubahan lansekap ekonomi maupun ketidakpastian dengan pergerakan cepat (Kasali, 2013). Berbeda dengan sebelumnya, birokrasi publik di era baru MEA dihadapkan pada situasi yang bersifat VOCA (Volatility (bergejolak), Uncertainty (memiliki tingkat ketidakpastian yang tinggi), Complexity (saling berhubungan, saling tergantung dan rumit) dan Ambiguity (menimbulkan keragu-raguan). Oleh karena itu capaian kinerja birokrasi tidak lagi harus bersifat rule based namun harus bergerak maju ke arah yang lebih dinamis.

Situasi dalam VOCA membutuhkan setidaknya pendekatan berpikir ke depan (thinking ahead) yakni kapabilitas untuk mengidentifikasi perkembangan, memahami implikasi perubahan sosial ekonomi dan menentukan investasi kebijakan strategis maupun menciptakan lingkungan yang memungkinkan bagi masyarakat untuk memanfaatkan peluang dan meminimalisasi ancaman (Neo & Chen, 2007).

Secara fundamental, arah pengembangan birokrasi pasca-2015 perlu untuk memahami dinamika relasi antara birokrasi dan pasar misalnya. Paradigma lama yang menekankan pada minimalisasi peran birokrasi untuk merespon globalisasi telah usang. Shin (2005) menjelaskan fenomena integrasi ekonomi, seperti MEA, memiliki 2 dimensi utama yakni mobile factors dan non-mobile factors.

Dimensi pertama terfokus pada pilar investasi. Kemudahan teknologi dan integrasi perbankan membuat modal dengan cepat berpindah. Sementara itu, pada dimensi kedua, kualitas non-mobile factors seperti respon sektor publik terhadap tantangan perbaikan pelayanan, percepatan infrastruktur dan harmonisasi regulasi menjadi hal krusial yang menentukan kemana mobile factors tadi berpindah.

Dalam kasus ini, Indonesia merupakan negara dengan proses pengurusan investasi terburuk di ASEAN. Indonesia juga tercatat sangat restriktif dalam memfasilitasi mobilitas investor dalam wilayah domestiknya (Soesastro & Atje dalam Basu Das, 2012). Kondisi ini, disadari atau tidak, kan menurunkan daya tarik Indonesia dalam sektor investasi.

Competitive and Representative Government

Bagaimana menyikapi beberapa tantangan  tersebut? Selama ini, reformasi birokrasi cenderung hanya dipahami dalam tataran teknis. Meskipun penting, kitat patut mempersoalkan bagaimana arah dan cara kerja reformasi birokrasi yang berjalan selama ini terkait dengan tantangan eksternal yang muncul. Artinya, dalam menghadapi MEA, perlu adanya pembenahan paradigma aparatur birokrasi agar mampu bersiap menghadapi dan merespons transformasi ekonomi kawasan.

Pembenahan paradigma tersebut dapat dilakukan dengan memperkenalkan cara pandang competitive and representative government sebagai bagian dari Reformasi Birokrasi di Indonesia. Cara pandang tersebut menghadirkan kembali negara pada pemerintahan yang kompetitif, namun tetap memiliki kapasitas untuik merepresentasi kepentingan publik. Pemerintahan yang kompetitif berarti pemerintaan yang mampu beradaptasi dengan konstelasi global maupun regiona. Sementara itu, pemerintahan yang representatif berarti pemerintahan yang yang konsisten mengutamakan kepentingan masyarakat dan mendorong partisipasi publik di dalam penyelenggaraan pemerintahan (lihat Hameiri, 2010).

Tantangan bagi birokrasi Indonesia, dalam konteks ini, tidak hanya bekerja untuk merespon tuntutan regionalisasi ekonomi ASEAN. Pada dasarnya, birokrasi juga dituntut untuk hadir meminimalisasi ekses pasar. Dengan kata lain, birokrasi perlu menyeimbangkan antara tuntutan scorecard liberalisasi di tingkat regional dengan implementasi paket-paket kebijakan untuk mencegah eksternalitas pasar.

Berkaca pada pendekatan yang dianut pemerintah saat ini, perlu adanya evaluasi menyeluruh terhadap kecenderungan pendekatan mekanis yang berujung pada birokratisasi reformasi birokrasi perlu. Reformasi birokrasi harus mampu lepas dari kekangan tumpukan dokumen bukti kinerja. Lebih dari itu, birokrasi perlu baham betul apa sebenarnya titik peluang, tantangan dan kerawanan MEA bagi unit kerjanya masing-masing.

Masyarakat Ekonomi ASEAN merupakan titik tolak bagi birokrasi untuk berani keluar dari pakemnya. Inovasi, dengan demikian, menjadi sangat penting. Sudah saatnya standar pelayanan birokrasi mengakomodasi input dan ekspektasi sektor privat.

Dedi Dinarto – Research Intern at ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada (dinartodedi@gmail.com)

Even though China has successfully controlled the entire Spratlys on January 1974, the discourse on China’s presence in South China Sea remains the most debated issue in Southeast Asia. Accordingly the economic, strategic and political interests of involved ASEAN member countries cannot be separeaed with this problematic issue. China’s presence in the South China Sea cannot be separated from the historical trajectory, which is claimed as its own territory. However, the establishment of the ASEAN consequently resulted the demarcation of South China Sea by several ASEAN countries, such as Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei Darussalam, claimed the South China Sea as their territory. Soon afterwards, this complexity of interest sparked the border dispute among them, which until now, has not been able to be resolved.

There are some scholarly discussions over this issue. For example, Ralf Emmers explained his main argument justifying the China’s naval position in the Spratlys has continue to be weak due to its limited power projection (Emmers, 2007:53). At that time, China naval capability did not arrange the external mission instead of remaining stay at its mainland bases. However, the transformation of China’s foreign policy, particularly during the leadership of Hu Jintao and Xi Jinping, triggered anxiety and caution of its neighbor countries, in which its action is predicted to control over some disputed border through assertive behavior.

In the sense of China’s past behavior, many diplomatic efforts have been done politically despite of military projection. But the current condition seems to be very different and any attempts to involve in the conflict will be regarded as a threat to the balance of power in South China Sea dispute. since the rise of China’s military budget has correspondingly shown its assertive behavior due to the naval presence in South China Sea. From 2013 to 2015, China’s military budget is rising year-to-year approximately US$ 114.3 billion in 2013, US$ 131.57 billion in 2014, and US$ 141.5 billion in 2015 (Erickson, 2013, 2015; Keck, 2014). Having Hua Chunying as the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, she underlined the reason behind the extensive presence of China’s naval in South China Sea with the statement to maintain the military personnel, safeguard the maritime and territorial integrity, respond the maritime search and rescue, and increase the observation and research, as well as enhance fishery production (Tiezzi, 2015).

This statement has also been revealed as the main reason of China’s reclamation projects in the conflicting area. These projects remains debatable because they have larger political functions, particularly for military bases. Nevertheless, the most important thing that we can see is all about the diplomatic way endorsed by Hua Chunying, in some purpose to hide the more political and assertive behavior toward this issue, as explained by Fareed Zakaria as an effort of Chinese to hide consciously the ‘bully’ action from international view (Li, 2009:2). In the sense, this kind of political issue is successfully reframed by Chinese using soft power approach despite of military intervention.

Understanding Regional Security in ASEAN

In general, it is worth necessary to understand how the ASEAN member countries manage their conflict or dispute internally and externally. The ‘ASEAN Declaration on the South China Sea’ stated ASEAN’s position toward the disputed area by means of peaceful way, without resort to force, and to be concerned on exercise restraint (Morse, 1992:2-3). Hence, the ASEAN Way as the basic principal of member countries shows its essence to solve every bilateral or regional disputes using consultation and consensus despite of forces.

Besides that, since 1967, the ASEAN member countries have built the principle of non-interference, which means of no military conflict in every internal affairs. This principle has long to affect the relationship of ASEAN member countries. On the other hand, results some prominent principles to understand ASEAN, which are the respect of sovereignty, and the high acknowledgement on freedom, independence, and integrity.

Basically, the ASEAN member countries also stated on the Bangkok Declaration 1967 about how they should dealt with external interference, especially several Great Powers after World War II, which are Uni Soviet, United States of America, and China as the nearest and biggest neighbor. They seek to defend their regional stability by ensuring the security of ASEAN territory from external interference in any form or manifestation. Therefore, it is necessarily important to underline the framework of regional security in ASEAN which do not acknowledge the use of force and military action.

A Need for Shifting Paradigm?

Accordingly, the old understanding of regional security framework in ASEAN is justified to set aside the material purposes in which the cooperation was basically made through value and norms as the product of inter-subjectivity. It is worth to say that the construction of security community in ASEAN is non-sense and rhetorical instead of developing the substantive cooperation (Acharya, 2001:63). The unconsciousness of ASEAN member countries to accept the nature of materialismm in one hand, has been used by China to expand its military presence in the South China Sea. In the other hand, China is not only to use its soft approach getting closer to the South China Sea, but also taking some materialistic advantage in this situation, which according to the ASEAN member countries as the irrelevant factor in term of regional security.

In terms of South China Sea conflict issue, the ASEAN member countries shall re-understand the behavior of China over some disputed areas. Giulio M. Gallarotti promoted the cosmopolitanism power as the new framework to understand the current international politics. It acknowledges the possibility of soft power and hard power being practiced simultaneously. To maintain good relationship and image with all possible countries and to concern on military capability development are the two most prominent elements to define cosmopolitan power. Hence, what has China has shown to the world, particularly in the South China Sea, is worth to be described as the practice of such power. Expanding its economic cooperation is included as the practice of soft power. On the contrary, the increasing of military budget, and spreading of military presence are the concrete action of China to practice its hard power.

ASEAN member countries should also seek a new paradigm to handle the South China Sea dispute. The consciousness over the military expansion needs to be discussed further for a new strategy balancing the Chinese military presence. Not to be collided with the ASEAN Political Security Community Blueprint 2009-2015, it is important for ASEAN member countries to address their common interests on the military cooperation, particularly on the provision of common military equipment and personnel for regional integrity despites of the exclusive cooperation among disputed ASEAN member. With the notion of ASEAN centrality, a ‘common interest’ will overcome ASEAN’s passive attitudes towards Chinese military development in the South China Sea.

Rizky Alif Alvian and Tadzkia Nurshafira

Board of Chairman and Head of Advocacy Committee at the Student Council of Faculty of Social and Politicial Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada

Justice is at stake in Burma. Two weeks ago, hundreds of student activists were detained by security forces for protesting the new National Education Law this month. Waves of solidarity has been sent to Burma as well as critics to the newly semi–democratic government to end the repression for student protest in the country. It is now a moment for student activists across ASEAN to share supports and solidarity for Myanmar students for their rights to participate in the decision-making processes, particularly in education.

The repression of student protest in Burma poses a challenge for the regional economic integration that has been planned by all ASEAN member states since 2003. What is happening now in Burma will not only harm the internal development of economic integration in the region but also prop up to some agreements regarding the establishment of ASEAN Community.

The Neglected Issue: Human Rights and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community

Flashed back to the moment when ASEAN Leaders ratified the Bali Concord II (2003) and the Cebu Declaration (2007), ASEAN leaders acknowledged that all of the member states have been admitted “..to realize an integrated, stable, knowledgeable, and caring community in order to strengthen their economic competitiveness…’ [1] The ASEAN Charter (2009) also acknowledge participation and people-oriented ASEAN in order to make sure that all of integration process benefit all elements in the society.

However, we have also witnessed a fact that almost all workshops, trainings, and seminars regarding the ASEAN Community were only focusing the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). Aimed to increase people’s consiousness and knowledge instantly about ASEAN, these serials of workshops and seminars have neglected two other pillars in the ASEAN Community, particularly the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC). It is ironic because the ASCC is the most important pillar to maintain cohesivity and justice in the community. The neglection of ASCC in ASEAN discussions will lead to neglection of many problems related to social justice and conflict in the region.

Therefore, it is important for us to take a deeper look to Myanmar student protests. So far the protests have shown close connections with ASEAN integration project in social and cultural pillars. Even though all ASEAN member states have already signed the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, we still witness the violation of student’s rights to participate and express their political interests peacefully in the decision making process in a states which now should have promoted the value of democracy. This problem poses a question whether ASEAN member state’s commitment towards ASEAN Community establishment is still preserved or not^___specifically for the protection of human rights which is embodied clearly in ASCC.

The ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) has basically established to realise an ASEAN Community that is people-centred and socially responsible by forging an inclusive, harmonious, and common identity[2]ASCC has two basic concerns regarding the Human Rights: Human Development and Social Justice[3].

According to the Blueprint of ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community, ASEAN shall provide an equitable access to the opportunities of human development by investing education in many methods. This point is aimed to maximize efforts in enhancing the quality of human resources. In this context, the term ‘access’ should be taken into account. The blueprint does not clearly mentioned the meaning of ‘access’ in terms of higher education. Instead, the document only mentioned that ‘people shall get all of their rights only when they are able to start participating in some levels of education”.

Nevertheless, the concept of ‘access’ should not only understood merely as opportunities to enter or enjoy educational facilities, but also to involve the whole processes education, including participation in decision-making processes. An access without rights to participate in every processes is not enough to ensure human development in ASEAN.

Samuel Ku (2011) stated that this concern means that society must be engaged in providing inputes for policy choices, including the educational policy. [4] Therefore, rights to ‘access’ in terms of participation in decision-making processes as well as ‘access’ to education regardless economic ability shall also taken into consideration in understanding Human Development in ASEAN. It is quite inappropriate for the state to deny any potential from students t to think, supervise, and evaluate any educational policy in the country

Besides that, social justice and rights has also been mentioned as one of the pillar in the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community. This point is committed to ensure social justice as well as to mainstream people’s equal rights in every social aspect, including the rights and welfare of disadvantaged, vulnerable and marginalised group such as women, children, the elderly, persons with disabilities and migrant workers.[5] There are some important points that shall be noted by all ASEAN member states, including; (1) ASEAN state members will definetely support any efforts to enforce the fulfillment of human rights in all levels, (2) the targeted people are all elements of society whose rights are taken by the other, (3) the efforts must be compatible with the policy in each states member

These points shall be reconsidered by the States in dealing with student protests, including what has been happened in Myanmar. A more progressive approach that consider Human Rights principles shall be undertaken by Myanmar government in dealing with their student’s demands on democratic education in the country.

The Importance of Solidarity

But what was happening in Myanmar apparently shown the opposite trends. With the repressive and violent acts, Myanmar’s commitment as ASEAN member state is now at stake. As stated in the blueprint, ASCC aimed to protect an equitable access towards human development. In Myanmar student protest, student’s demands for access to education as well as participation in decision making process shall be dealt with peaceful approach by the Government.

What is at stake here is Myanmar Government’s responses to the protests. Government must take a high stake to student’s capability of thinking and evaluating, as well as their potentials in maintaining democracy and development in the country. Thus, it is important to note that violence is not the way to resolve student protests in Myanmar. Instead violent and repressive act will only prevent Myanmar’s inclusion to ASEAN Community.

Repressive acts undertaken by Myanmar government will only harm Myanmar’s progress towards ASEAN Community. For ASEAN, this case means that progress of democratization and human rights protection that was endorsed by ASEAN shall be strengthened in regonal level. The task to strengthen human rights and democratization lies not only to Myanmar government, but also to all ASEAN member states.

It will be such a contradiction if ASEAN try to show its regional governance capacity by establishing economic liberalization through ASEAN Economic Community while at the same time put the Human Rights problem away from the dialogue. In the name of humanity and people-oriented regionalism, ASEAN must embolden some efforts to show commitment to their values in protecting student’s rights in politics.

The Student Council of Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada, has expressed a solidarity for Myanmar students in an open letter. Therefore, we urge all ASEAN leaders to take all necessary action to ensure that this problem can be resolved by Myanmar Government as soon as possible.

– – –

[1]Shaun Narine, “Forty Years of ASEAN: A Historical Review,” The Pacific Review 21.4 (2008): 418

[2]ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Blueprint, p 1.

[3]Ibid, p 3.

[4]Samual C.Y. Ku, ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community: Development and Prospect, presented at International Conference on ASEAN Vision 2015: Moving Towards One Community, held by Taiwan ASEAN Studies Center, Taipei, May 24 2011

[5]Mid-Term Review on ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community

Malaysia Prime Minister’s Palace

Ahmad Rizky M. Umar, Researcher, ASEAN Studies Centre, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia

As Myanmar’s chairmanship in ASEAN will be ended this year, we are now looking forward to transfer the chairmanship to Malaysia next year. Malaysia will host ASEAN Summit as well as most of regional forum in ASEAN.

In line with the ‘formal’ processes, Malaysia will also host the annual ASEAN People’s Forum/ASEAN Civil Society Conference (APF/ACSC). In this forum, many civil society organisation will gather, discuss, and announce their positions on emerging regional issues in Southeast Asia, including ASEAN.

Nect year’s ASEAN People Forum will be important for two reasons. First, we are getting closer to ASEAN Community, which will be established by 2015. The forum will determine how ASEAN civil society consolidate themselves to respond the upcoming ASEAN Community.

Second, this forum is important to prove whether ASEAN can be a ‘people-oriented’ organisation, as recently acclaimed by the Charter since 2007. If ASEAN want to be consistent with this jargon, it should be able to connect its people with the state and widening participation from grass-roots in the formal decision-making processes.

Since 2003, ASEAN has been institutionalised into a more complex form of regionalism. There has been three community inside ASEAN, which are aimed to be established by 2015 –ASEAN Political Security Community, ASEAN Economic Community, and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community.

From year to year, the institutionalisation is getting more complex. For example, ASEAN has made a new regional Human Rights regime with the establishment of ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) and ASEAN Human Rights Declaration. This similar trend has also happens in other sectors, particularly in economic sectors.

However, in the other side, recent institutionalisations in ASEAN have also created a bureaucratic-technocratic tendency within the Association, particularly in the form of ASEAN Secretariat. Within this institution, ASEAN decision-making process is incorporated in a bureaucratic platform, which leaves only a little room for people’s participation.

This phenomenon leaves a critical question: is there any room for civil society to participate and getting involved in ASEAN decision-making process? If ASEAN is acclaimed as ‘people-oriented’ organisation, how ‘people-oriented’ is it in terms of people’s participation?

The ‘people-oriented ASEAN’ will be proven true if it open chances to speak, participate in decision-making process. In terms of participation, we have to consider participation not only in terms of ‘formal’ or ‘instituionalized’ participation, but also how the ‘subaltern’ –those who are marginalized and not able to politically express themselves— speak.

As we are getting nearer with the upcoming ASEAN Community, which is aimed at gathering all Southeast Asian countries to a ‘people-oriented’ regionalism, this problem should be taken into account.  Without creating spaces for any interest group to speak, we will only have an ‘elite-driven’ ASEAN which is, of course, not ‘people-oriented’ at all.

The ASEAN People Forum (formerly ASEAN Civil Society Conference), which is held annually as side programs of the Summit, can be an alternative room for the people to speak. Firstly launched in 2005, this forum was organised by Non-Governmental Organisations under SAPA to create a new ‘alternative regionalism’ in Southeast Asia (Chandra, 2009).

At the beginning, the Conference has been greeted by ASEAN Leaders. Malaysia, as the host of ASEAN Summit 2005, facilitated the forum in Universiti Teknologi Mara and invited the Conference’s representative to the Summit to present the result before the Summit. It was a good beginning.

However, as the time slowly passes by, relations between NGOs and ASEAN leaders weakened. There is still no room allocated for civil society to engage in decision-making process, particularly at the summit.

For example, as has been pointed out by Kelly Gerard (2014), several civil society organisations from Cambodia and Myanmar has been rejected by the government. Many decisions also ended up as policy recommendation, because there is no room for civil society’s representative to engage at the summit.

Thus, there has been a paradox. While ASEAN aims to create a ‘people-oriented ASEAN’, or, according to Amitav Acharya, ‘creating a participatory regionalism’, the decision making process at ASEAN itself has been closed for its society.

It becomes a main problem in ASEAN today. If we still want to build a ‘people-oriented’ ASEAN, the upcoming ASEAN People Forum should be able to deal with that. ASEAN People Forum cannot be a ‘talk shop’ anymore; the result should be progressive. I hereby proposed two steps to resolve the problems.

Firstly, making the ASEAN People Forum as a place for dialogue between the ASEAN Leaders and the ASEAN People –not only civil society, but also other interest group or minority entity in Southeast Asia. The organiser should invite the ASEAN Leaders –or high-ranking officials in ASEAN Secretariat—to make sure that the result of this forum is heard by ASEAN Elite Ranks.

Secondly, building some institutional hubs to accommodate people’s aspiration in  ASEAN decision-making processes. The ASEAN People Forum is not enough to accommodate ASEAN People’s interest, so that it should be widened through the creation of an ASEAN Parliament, to make sure that the the people can speak and be represented in ASEAN.

Thus, we shall welcome Malaysia’s chairmanship in ASEAN with a homework to make sure that the ASEAN people, including the subalterns, can speak and be heard by ASEAN Leaders. This homework is left to the participant and should be advocated more seriously.

I believe that if ASEAN People Forum can be more inclusive and dialogic, the Forum will not be an annual ‘talk shop’ anymore; even we can optimistically see a more ‘people-oriented ASEAN’ in the future. However, to make it worth, the participant should be more aware with people’s participation in the upcoming ASEAN Community.

The ASEAN People Forum 2015 should deliver a message –that the ASEAN People wants to be heard in the upcoming ASEAN Community. Thus, let the ASEAN People speak in Malaysia next year!