Press Release Bincang ASEAN: “Challenges for Civil Society Advocacy on Human Rights in the Next Decade”

Yogyakarta, 30th September 2019
Written by Robbaita Zahra

Yogyakarta – On Friday, 27th of September 2019, ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada held Bincang ASEAN with the theme of “Challenges for Civil Society Advocacy on Human Rights in the Next Decade”, bringing Ms. Yuyun Wahyuningrum, the Representative of Indonesia to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) as the speaker.

The discussion started with the elaboration of human rights regime analysis by Donnelly, which consists of: Declaratory, Promotional, Implementation, and Enforcement. Declaratory regime is when a state declare whether or not it acknowledges human rights. Promotional regime refers to the engagement of states in activities such as exchange of information, technical assistance, and other processes where human rights are discussed. A state can be said to be in implementation regime if it has concluded legally binding documents on human rights.  Enforcement is when a State has enforced human rights accordingly. Ms. Yuyun stated that Indonesia is currently in promotional regime going to implementation regime.

Further, the discussion continued with discussing international law. It is important to discuss international law when talking about human rights as it puts state as the main actor of human rights (produce, enforce, monitor). In this context, State has 2 identities: as the offender and protector of human rights. The balance between these identities have to be seen to determine whether or not a State is respecting human rights. However, this dual identity makes the relation between State and international human rights law complicated.

Moving to the discussion about the context and regionalism in ASEAN. Ms. Yuyun explained that ASEAN countries, which previously only discussed about politics and economy, are forced to discuss about human rights within this new regionalism context. There are 3 reasons of State creating regional human rights mechanisms: 1) As the expression of modernity; 2) Compared to international mechanism, regional mechanism is more likely to discuss issues within Southeast Asia; and 3) As the intermediary between national and international system.

 After the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all countries in the world domesticate human rights into their constitutions, including ASEAN countries. Despite this fact, human rights are not included in the establishment of ASEAN. The reasoning behind this is because countries in Southeast Asia do not want to be disturbed by the competition that is happening within the Cold War. However, this does not mean that human rights are not discussed at all in ASEAN. It has to be noted that ASEAN is home for diversities, different from for example EU – which is supranational. Therefore, in talking about human rights, ASEAN has to be careful because it cannot replace the state’s role as the protector of human rights.

With regard to ASEAN human rights system, one of the main part of this is ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), which has the function to protect and promote human rights. Ms. Yuyun then proceed to discuss the challenges for civil society. Regional human rights framework in ASEAN is the product of the combination between ASEAN Way, international human rights law, and national interest of ASEAN member states. With this context in mind, the challenges for civil society are: 1) Lack of independency of the AICHR Representatives; 2) Lack of transparency of AICHR’s work; 3) Lack of interest of AICHR Representatives to engage with CSOs; 4) Lack of recognition from AICHR on the role of CSOs/Stakeholders; 5) Lack of member states’ political will to integrate human rights fully in ASEAN regionalism project; 5) Lack of ability and capacity to protect human rights; and 6) Lack of people awareness about its role.

Despite these challenges, AICHR has obtained several achievements during Ms. Yuyun’s period, such as the adoption of ‘Minus X Formula’, meaning that which countries are ready to participate in any scheme, they can go ahead while members who are not ready could join in later. This has opened several discussions which are not being able to be held before due to the difficulty to reach consensus from all member states. Another achievement is the agreement to conclude ‘Recommendation on the Implementation of ASEAN Human Rights Declaration’, successful briefing on Rakhine Crisis, and other various achievements. However, none of these achievements are coming from the request of the people, which is aiming at the protection of human rights. Nonetheless, this can be the starting point of doing so.

Lastly, the discussion ended with a question and answer session. Within this session, Ms. Yuyun explained that the deficit of democracy within countries in Southeast Asia has influenced the development and the dynamic of AICHR. She also explained that knowledge regarding the dynamic of culture and tradition are essential in ASEAN. However, many institutions are not aware of this fact. Therefore, AICHR tries to respond with this by establishing practice, concluding internal documents as future references, and engaging with civil society and students in various countries in ASEAN. This Bincang ASEAN is one of the manifestations of this practice.

Press Release Public Lecture: “The Politics of Leadership Succession: A Comparative Perspective across Democratic and Non-democratic Regimes”

Yogyakarta, 20 August 2019

On Tuesday 20th August 2019, ASEAN Studies Center UGM welcomed the new semester with a public lecture by Professor Ludger Helms from the University if Innsbruck, Austria. In this lecture, Professor Helms talked about his research on leadership succession, and compared leadership transitions between democratic and non-democratic governments. The public lecture was held in Universitas Gadjah Mada’s Faculty of Social and Political Sciences and was moderated by Robbaita Zahra, an intern at ASEAN Studies Center UGM.

The public lecture commenced by questioning the definition of leadership, what exactly constitutes as leadership, and what is specifically required from an individual or a group in order to be recognized as a leader. Professor Helms believed that leaders do not necessarily refer to the incumbent – anyone who is able to inspire and mobilize a group of people to perform actions could also be definitively considered as a leader, regardless of whether their intentions were ‘good’ or ‘bad.’[1] 

Furthermore, Professor Helms also explained the difference between ‘successions’ and ‘transitions’ as these two terms are often used synonymously.  In democratic studies, ‘successions’ entail change in political leaders and/or parties, whereas ‘transitions’ mean something else. The difference between the two is best described as such: when a government experiences change in its dominant political party, it is considered a ‘succession’, but when the government only experiences mere reform, it is considered a ‘transition’.

Helms believed that successions are mainly found in non-democratic regimes. Evident authoritarian governments such as dictatorships mainly appoint its successor from close spheres of influence. With the case of monarchies, the king or queen may appoint its successor on familial merits. However, this is not exclusively exercised by non-democratic regimes. In democratic governments, a leader could also find its successor within dynastic families that often play a large role in the government’s authority – occupying parliamentary seats without public notice and driving the country’s policies from the shadows.  However, it is important to note that this is a rare occurrence.

The lecture also highlighted five differences between democratic and non-democratic leadership successions: institutionalization and openness of succession, the existence or absence of term limits, incumbency advantage and longevity, the ability of leaders to pick their own successors, and political dynasties.

One significant finding that Helm’s research brought was that non-democratic governments, that are usually ruled by such autocratic regimes, tend to have much longer ruling periods in comparison to more democratic regimes. The centralization in autocratic regimes also contributes to the adoption and maintenance of a single policy without opposition, which provides an incumbency advantage for the leader. Meanwhile, in democracies, such policies would more likely be safeguarded by the opposition coalition to ensure its execution, limiting the power of the incumbent to single-handedly choose their next successor.

Professor Helms ended the lecture by emphasizing the need to develop a more substantive academic understanding of leadership succession, especially how the study has not been developed as much as its other political science counterparts. He specifically refers to the need for better conceptualization and better data compilation so that the study of leadership succession could further contribute to the study of democracy implementation of various countries.

[1]Professor Helms expressed his dissatisfaction to his colleagues that argue that ‘bad’ leaders such as Hitler or Stalin, simply referring to them as ‘power-wielder.’ In his point of view, no matter how ‘bad’ they are, they can still be considered as a leader as they fulfill the prerequisites, requirements, and what it takes to be a leader.

Written by Daffa Syauqi, Robbaita Zahra, Fara Sheila. Edited by Nisrina H Khotimah. Research interns at the ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada

Internship 2019 #2

Download full poster here

[ASC UPDATE] Internship 2019 Second Term

We have good news!
ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada invites students from various universities in Yogyakarta to join our Internship Program and involves in our 2019 research and program.
Internship period: August – December 2019

Required Documents:
Cover Letter
TOEFL/IELTS/TOEFL Prediction Certificate
Other supporting documents

General Requirements:
1. Must be an active university student or fresh graduate with minimum GPA of 3.25
2. Excellent written and verbal communication skill both in Bahasa and English (at least TOEFL 525/IELTS 6.0)
3. Have an interest on ASEAN Issues
4. Ability to work effectively as a team member and independently with minimum supervision
5. Ability to manage multiple priorities under pressure, and to meet short- and long-term deadlines

Interns in Research Team
1. Experiences in assisting research and publication will be an added value
2. Submitting 300 words of writing sample with a specific theme of “Advancing Partnership for Sustainability in ASEAN”
3. Disciplined to meet publication deadlines

Interns in Program Team
1. Experience in managing national and international event (conference, seminar or public lectures)
2. Knowledge of project funding procedures and guidelines
3. Demonstrated experience in the formulation of cooperation and funding proposals
Interns in Media and Publication Team
1. Able to manage social media and WordPress-based website (Facebook & Instagram, including content planning and writing)
2. Mastered basic graphic design, camera and video editing skill

– Deadline of application 13 July 2019
– Notification of Result for Interview 18 July 2019
– Interview 22-25 July 2019
– Notification of Final Result 29 July 2019

Submit your requirements to: with subject: Internship ASC UGM Batch II_full name

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

Yogyakarta, Friday, November 24th, 2018

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

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

Recent the Development of the Issue

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

[1] Council, Internal. 2017. “IDMC » Myanmar IDP Figure Analysis”. Internal-Displacement.Org.

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

Press Release Bincang ASEAN “Gender in ASEAN”

Yogyakarta, Friday, November 9th, 2018

The ASEAN Studies Center UGM and ASEAN Studies Center UMY held its first collaborated Bincang ASEAN entitled “Gender in ASEAN” at Amphitheater E6 K.H Ibrahim Building, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta.


This event featured Dr. Nur Azizah, M.Si. (Head of International Relations Department Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta & Researcher at ASEAN Studies Center UMY and Karina Larasati, S.IP. (Junior Researcher, ASEAN Studies Center, UGM) as the moderator.  250 undergraduate and postgraduate student across Yogyakarta and Central Java participated in this event.


On this occasion, Dr. Nur Azizah, M.Si. addressed the misconception about gender in society and how important it is to understand gender and further differentiate it with the term” sex”. She explained that today, the issue of gender is being politicized and associated with the power division in the government. As consequences, the attention to gender issues is often ruled out where in the end women do not get maximum political space as desired by the relevant legislation and defenders of women’s rights.


Furthermore, she emphasizes that in ASEAN, the issue of gender is still under-explored. If compared to European countries, awareness of gender equality can be said to be quite lagging behind. Yet, this does not mean that gender issue is truly dead in the region. In 1975, ASEAN established the ASEAN Sub-committee on Women (ASW), followed by a meeting in Makati, Philippines to determine ASEAN’s strategy in responding to the United Nations International Decade for Women (1975-1985). In 1981 the ASW was changed to AWP (the ASEAN Women’s Program) until it ended with the name of the ASEAN Committee on Women the year after.


It is good news for gender equality defenders that in recent times, various gender mainstreaming initiatives have emerged in the region. All in all, ASEAN has done a great job in increasing gender equality within its region. However, she further emphasizes that there are constraints and challenges need to be considered, such as lack of data availability, resources, and funding. There will be lots of improvements to be done, and the actions need to be taken to do a grander job. This Bincang the ASEAN exchange center between ASEAN Studies Center UGM and the ASEAN Studies Center UMY.


Written by Karina Larasati and Raissa Almira, ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada

Press Release Bincang ASEAN “Transnational Activism for Migrant Workers in Asia: The Case of Indonesia and the Philippines”

Yogyakarta, October 26th 2018

Yogyakarta – On Friday, October 26, 2018, ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada held the fourth edition of Bincang ASEAN 2018. Approximately 50 students and practitioners across Yogyakarta, Central Java and West Java registered on this Bincang ASEAN #4 held in BA 201 Room FISIPOL UGM on October 26th, 2018. On this edition, Ezka Amalia, MA (ASEAN Studies Center UGM Researcher) disseminatedher dissertation findings about “Transnational Activism for Migrant Workers in Asia: The Case of Indonesia and the Philippines”. This discussion also had Raissa Almira (ASEAN Studies Center UGM Research Intern) moderating.

Firstly, Ezka described the status quo of labor migration in Southeast Asia, specifically Indonesia and Philippines. She also characterized the detail of Indonesia as a migrant worker sending country and the regulations within the country managing the migrant protection. It includes the advocacy maneuvers of Indonesian migrant worker in articulating their peers’ voice. Consecutively, same explanations were also given concerning Philippines as major migrant sending country.

Simultaneously, the dissertation indeed also explains the migrant worker destination country: Hong Kong. She presented the statistics of Hong Kong as receiving country and the advocacy network of both Indonesian and Philippines migrant worker in that country, that is also known to have a prominent regulations protecting the foreigners working there. These explanations were followed by personal stories of migrant workers re-told by Ezka. 

At the end of the presentation, Ezka discloses the reason behind the difference of advocacy model done by Philippines and Indonesia concerning the migrant worker protection. The metric of the comparison was mainly the domestic structure the two countries. Specifically, Indonesia and Philippines has different civil society tradition and characteristic of network.


(Written by Rafyoga Jehan Pratama Irsadanar, research intern in ASEAN Studies Center UGM)

Press Release Bincang ASEAN “Delegate Sharing Session: Model ASEAN Meeting Experiences”

Yogyakarta, Friday, October 12, 2018

ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada held its very first collaborated Bincang ASEAN featuring the Department of International Relations, Universitas Islam Indonesia. In order to better raise awareness and promote greater ownership of the ASEAN Community among young generation throughout the region, as well as to introduce more closely how the decision-making process at the ASEAN level is carried out, this time Bincang ASEAN inviting Kevin Iskandar (Best Position Paper and Diplomacy Award of AFMAM 2018) and Tri Inov Haripa (Best Delegation of AFMAM 2018) to share their experiences on Model ASEAN Meeting.

The event began with Tri Inov Haripa briefly introducing the ASEAN Model Meeting. She portrayed the Model ASEAN Meeting as an academic simulation from the Model ASEAN Meeting, where participants are invited to play the role of diplomat representing 10 ASEAN member countries in solving urgent regional issues by using perspectives and policies of the assigned countries that are in line with the principles ASEAN. As she emphasizes, the key objective of the Model ASEAN Meeting is for participants to gain an understanding, insight, and appreciation of the decision-making process of ASEAN. The final outcome of the meeting is to have the Heads of Government (HOGs) adopt a concerted document that addresses the issues identified, also known as the Chairman Statement, based on the ASEAN Way. There are 6 steps in the Model ASEAN Meeting Process, which are Opening Ceremony (Remarks by HoG), Simulation of Sectoral Bodies Meeting (SOM), Simulation of ASEAN Ministerial Meetings, Community Council Meeting, Coordinating Council Meeting, and ASEAN Summit (Closing Ceremony & Remarks by HoG).

The next session was continued by Kevin Iskandar, presenting the stages and roles in the ASEAN Meeting Model. First off, ASEAN Secretariat is responsible to prepare the Draft Statement, assist the document formulation during the Negotiation and draft the final report with the assistance of the ASEAN National Secretariat. Second, Senior Officials are responsible to lay out the foundation of discussion and amend the draft statement. Third, the Ministers are responsible to negotiate the unresolved (escalated) points of Draft Statements and propose a substantial point. Lastly, the Head of Government is responsible to coordinate councils and the ASEAN Summit.

Closing the session of Bincang ASEAN, Kevin and Tri outlined more details about the strategy paper & position paper. Position paper lays down the background of the topic, country’s position and proposed solutions, does a deliberate research on the past country’s efforts and regional efforts beforehand and formulated by every delegate with the exception of the HoG and Foreign Minister. As for the strategy paper, it comprises of what one’s country has done in the past in its efforts realizing the vision/mission of each pillar, includes the area of cooperation that your country would be (and would not be) willing to negotiate and covers strategy to approach the issue on the table. All in all, Model ASEAN Meeting is a very good platform for youth to learn more about ASEAN, especially in solving pressing regional issues using the policies and perspectives of their assigned country using the ASEAN Way.

Written by Raissa Almira, research intern in ASEAN Studies Center UGM

Press Release BINCANG ASEAN “Mapping the Source of Indonesia’s Refugee Obligations: Does it Exist?”

Yogyakarta, 6th September 2018


ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada held the second meeting of Bincang ASEAN in Thursday (6/9), with Dio Herdiawan Tobing S.IP, LLM, former researcher at the ASEAN Studies Center UGM, who is currently working as Senior Policy Advisor at the Netherlands Embassy, presenting his dissertation on “Mapping the Source of Indonesia’s Refugee Obligations: Does it Exist?” . Held at BB building room number 208, the discussion was initiated with the issue of mapping Indonesia’s refugee obligation from various international legal instruments.

Indonesia is regarded as one of the main refugee transit countries in Southeast Asia after Thailand and Malaysia with more than 13.000 asylum-seekers and refugees. However, Indonesia is a non-party to 1951 Refugee Convention and its additional protocol but Indonesia ratified several treaties such as International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Convention against Torture, and Convention on the Rights of the Child.

“Indonesia’s first action on refugee is when the government provided Galang Island so that refugee can be settled in the late of 1970.  Indonesia also thinks that they’ve done well to do their obligation such as when they provide the Island on the refugee from Vietnam when Vietnam War happened, so the government doesn’t think that it is necessary to ratify the refugee convention.” Dio said.

In this occasion, Dio attempts to explain the decision made by the Foreign Ministry of Indonesia and other government-affiliated institutions’ stance on the refugees-like issue which is solid: no ratification, no refugee obligation. But the fact is Indonesia has existing non-refoulement refugee obligation that derived from other legal instruments such as ICCPR and Convention against Torture. In particular, on Article 3 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 6 Convention Against Torture.

The findings of his dissertation present that in spite of Indonesia’s non-ratification to the Refugee Conventions, the country remains to have refugee obligation derived from other legal instruments. In fact, the threshold of Indonesia’s refoulement obligation is higher.

Bincang ASEAN: Mapping the Source of Indonesia’s Refugee Obligations: Does it Exist?


With more than 13,000 asylum-seekers and refugees currently hosted in Indonesia, the country is regarded as one of the main refugee transit countries in Southeast Asia after Thailand and Malaysia. However, in light of the situation, Indonesia is a non-party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its additional protocol. The Foreign Ministry of Indonesia and other government-affiliated institutions frequently describe that Indonesia’s stance to refugees-like issue is solid: no ratification, no refugee obligation. Is this even entirely true?
Speaking from an international perspective, Dio’s LL.M Dissertation maps out Indonesia’s refugee obligation from various international legal instruments: Convention Against Torture, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Convention on the Rights of the Child. The findings of his dissertation presents that in spite of Indonesia’s non-ratification to the Refugee Conventions, the country remains to have refugee obligation derived from other legal instruments. In fact, the threshold of Indonesia’s non-refoulement obligation is higher.
ASEAN Studies Center UGM presents:
Mapping the Source of Indonesia’s Refugee Obligations: Does It Exists?
With the expert, Dio Herdiawan Tobing, S.IP, LL.M, this edition of Bincang ASEAN will discuss about Indonesia’s existing non-refoulement refugee obligation, the reflection of such obligation in the newly adopted Refugee Decree No. 125/2016 and its flaws, and the incoherence of the existing international non-refoulement obligation in Indonesian practices.

Don’t miss it!
Friday, September 7th, 2018.
15.00 – 17.00 WIB.

Online registration at

Pictures source:


Seminar on Enhancement of Cooperation between Eastern Part of Indonesia and Southern Part of the Philippines

Seminar on Enhancement of Cooperation between Eastern Part of Indonesia and Southern Part of the Philippines

23 August 2018 | 8.30 – 16.45 | R. Seminar Timur, Fisipol UGM

REGISTRATION until 21 August 2018
Subject: August Seminar | Format: name_institution_phone number | send to:

CP Karina +62 851 1332 3663

*Registration starts at 8.00 AM