Thailand’s Freedom of Expression Clampdown

In the hours after the Thai army’s declared martial law upon the country last Tuesday and before it announced a coup two days later, freedom of expression was already at risk.

Military intervention entailed censorship and shutting down of both anti-government and pro-government satellite TV channels and radio networks appeared to set the tone for what would follow: further restrictions on freedom of assembly around the capital, with a ban on political gatherings of more than five people. Given Thai protestors propensity to demonstrate, this was bound not to last for long, and protests sprang up to defy the laws.

One protest, outside the Bangkok Arts and Cultural Centre, a day after, was reportedly broken up. After hundreds of protesters staged a peaceful demonstration at the downtown location, the crowd was dispersed after five of the group were arrested. Scuffles have broken out at further protests held over the past week, prompting another warning from the military for citizens to avoid protesting on the streets. The military has also asked national media to avoid publishing content that “may offend others” as reported by national news outlet Bangkok Post.

Under the terms of martial law, soldiers can detain and interrogate anyone for up to seven days without having to provide evidence of wrongdoing or bring formal charges.

Under international human rights law, the right to freedom of expression is a fundamental right, but may be subject to certain restrictions if for the “protection of national security and public order, or of public health and morals”.

However, case-law shows that the restriction should be provided by law, have a legitimate aim, and be necessary. In reality, Thailand’s martial law is over 100 years old, and little attention is paid to the protection of freedom of expression.

Statements by the military have also raised questions, with one spokesperson worryingly declaring “the use of rights under democracy in Thailand may be different from other countries. The news reports by the Thai and foreign media about the situation in Thailand are also different,”.

Human rights groups, including  the Asian Human Rights Commission and Amnesty International have expressed their concern by asking the military to clarify how they intend to protect the rights of citizens, and openly condemning the crackdown on media freedom.

Overshadowing the whole situation is the justification for martial law in the first place, which affords the military sweeping powers. And there is further cause to be concerned: the last time the army intervened in Thailand in 2010 resulted in the deaths and injury of hundreds of protestors during the army’s response to demonstrations which turned violent. If protestors grow tired of the army’s rules, there is a chance that a crackdown like that of four years ago could happen again, a scenario that would prove disastrous for all sides.

For more information see:

Thai Red Shirts Cornered, (Channel NewsAsia, 25 May 2014)

Human Rights in Danger under Martial Law (Asian Human Rights Commission, 20 May 2014)

Junta explains reasons for coup to foreign nations (The Nation, 26 May 2014)

 

 

 

 

Myanmar’s Reforms: Three Years On

Myanmar’s transformation in 2011, started with several momentous events: the promise of a transfer from military to civilian run government, and the release from house arrest of pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who had spent the majority of the previous two decades under house arrest.

Since then, over a thousand political prisoners have been released, international sanctions lifted, and political reforms instated. The country is welcoming foreign investment and has even established a National Human Rights Commission. Progress so far should be applauded. However, many challenges and lingering questions remain, with some even arguing that Myanmar’s reforms are now stalling, raising concerns amongst observers who wish to see a democratic election in 2015.

Aung San Suu Kyi

A key concern is the question of whether Myanmar’s most famous woman will actually get to stand in presidential elections due next year.

After initial hopes after she was elected to parliament in 2012, little progress has been made to change Article 59(f) of the 2008 constitution that bans anyone married to a foreigner or having had children with a foreigner from running for president. It is a clause thought to have been included specifically to prevent her from ever running in elections, given that she married a British citizen and has two sons.

Lately, tensions have been rising between Suu Kyi and President Thein Sein, as well as the military, after an initial phase of friendly relations. Suu Kyi has increased her campaigning, making international visits to raise this issue. On a speech in Germany in March, Suu Kyi stated “Burma is not yet a democracy” and questioned whether the current government wished “to go toward a truly democratic union or go towards an authoritarian state disguised in democratic garb?”

Political Prisoners

Despite President Thein Sein vowing to free all of Myanmar’s political prisoners by the end of 2013, some still remain.

As of January 2014, according to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, 46 persecuted people remain behind bars in Myanmar’s prison system, with around 70 others awaiting trial and another 148 sentenced, some in absentia. More worrying is the fact that most presidential amnesties granted appear to be “conditional”, meaning ex-prisoners can find themselves back behind bars at any time.

Rohingya

Of extreme concern is the situation of the Rohingya minority in Myanmar, who are yet to be recognised as an official ethnic group, and therefore excluded from the country’s citizenship act.

Denied rights such as freedom of movement, many continue to live in squalid conditions in refugee camps, their conditions made worse by the recent exit of aid agencies, most of whom left Rakhine state after an attack on their offices in late March.

With the humanitarian situation rapidly deteriorating, eyes are shifting to the regional bloc of ASEAN to pressure the Myanmar government on the issue.

However, despite expressing concern over Myanmar’s violence in the past towards the Rohingya, ASEAN seems keen not to intervene as strongly this time, confirming it was not discussing Rohingya at the biannual summit of ASEAN that is taking place over the weekend.

This is a shame. Given that Myanmar is the ASEAN Chair for 2014, this is a good time to hold it to account for its democratic reform, as well as its remaining challenges. Instead, by choosing to remain silent, ASEAN may inadvertently allow an escalation of the Rohingya crisis, as well as a delay or at worst, a stall in movement to ensure fully democratic elections in 2015. Despite all the country has gone through, the 2015 poll is thought to be the true measure of Myanmar’s success in achieving positive reform. If this is in anyway hampered, the country will have been dealt a very large blow.

For more information see:

Report: Election tensions rise
(Guardian, 22 April 2014)

Report: Myanmar keeps Rohingya from upstaging summit (WSJ, 11 May 2014)

Report: Freeing Myanmar’s Political Prisoners
(Al Jazeera, 7 January 2014)

Brunei: International Outcry, Regional Silence

After a long silence, I have decided to revive my blog, and it seems apt to start with a comment on a different kind of silence – the one by ASEAN in response to Brunei’s recent adoption of a new penal code.

On the first of May, Brunei’s Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah announced the start of the first phase of harsh Islamic criminal laws that include stoning to death, flogging and dismemberment for crimes such as rape, adultery and sodomy among others.

The first East Asian country to adopt the criminal component of sharia law at national level, the move has drawn international condemnation that has made headlines in Western media.

From a human rights law perspective, Brunei’s revised penal code appears to directly contravene accepted norms, with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights declaring that violations include the application of the death penalty for such a broad range of offences, while stoning people to death constitutes torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Laws on blasphemy also raise concerns on the right to freedom of religion and belief, while harsh punishments for sodomy have been deplored by LGBT campaigners. Most of the laws will also apply to non-Muslims.

Regional Silence

Despite this, most criticism of the new penal code has mainly come from outside of ASEAN.  Less attention has been paid to the laws by Brunei’s neighbours, who have met them with a notable silence. Though the Sultan experienced rare domestic protest from the population on the new laws, prompting him to quickly issue threats to social media, Brunei’s ASEAN counterparts in the region were seemingly keen to avoid engaging in public criticism. Brunei’s new laws may seem to be an act of interference for a bloc that has typically avoided confronting its members openly about sensitive issues.

Meanwhile, the somewhat concerning rise in religious conservatism of Malaysia and Indonesia has raised concerns that Brunei’s policies could spread beyond its borders. Religious conservatism has been on the rise in Malaysia fueled by political parties anxious to gain votes. For example, leaders of Malaysia’s Islamist PAS party, part of the opposition, are currently bidding to install Sharia punishments in Kelantan state, which they control.

Rising religious tensions were heightened last October when a court in Malaysia ruled that a Catholic publication could not use the word Allah in its Malay section. Amidst backlash, the appeal is now before Malaysia’s highest court, which has delayed its decision to hear the case. Malaysia currently has a secular constitution.

In Indonesia, Aceh is currently the only province allowed to implement sharia law. The province has its own sharia police force and courts that enforce strict laws against gambling, promiscuity and alcohol.

Though support is growing amongst European and American celebrities and public figures to boycott the Sultan of Brunei’s global network of luxury hotels, it is unclear these efforts will be enough to sway his plans. More effective would be for Brunei’s neighbours in the region, particularly Muslim majority states, to persuade Brunei to rethink its roll out of the new code, and adopt less conservative reforms. For now however, it seems unwilling to do so.

For more information see:

Report: Brunei Adopts Sharia Law Amid International Outcry (CNN, 1 May 2014)

Report: UN Reaction to Brunei’s Reforms
(UN, 11 April 2014)

Report & Analysis: Brunei adopts Sharia Law, others in region consider it (Reuters, 29 April 2014)

 

 

 

Official Launch of the Business and Human Rights in ASEAN Baseline Study

On 9 April 2013, I attended the launch of the Business and Human Rights in ASEAN Baseline Study, hosted by the Human Rights Resource Centre in Jakarta.

The report that was published was a project that I have been involved in for the past year, as lead researcher and author of the Singapore report. A link to the full report can be found here.

The report examines how ASEAN states and companies are responding to human rights imperatives in the business sector.

One finding is that ASEAN states have substantial legal frameworks governing issues of land, labour and the environment, although gaps and loopholes persist. But a key challenge is weak regulatory effectiveness in member countries, according to Marzuki Darusman, executive director of the HRRC.

The regional conference was attended by the team of rapporteurs and advisors of the study, the diplomatic and business community, representatives from AICHR, National Human Rights Commissions in ASEAN countries, the UN Global Compact Network in ASEAN countries, Partner Institutions of HRRC and civil society organizations from the Southeast Asia region.

The Deputy Speaker of Indonesian Parliament, H.E Priyo Budi Santoso, gave the keynote speech following the expressions of support from the Swiss Ambassador to Indonesia, H.E Heinz Walker-Nederkoorn, the Norwegian Ambassador to Indonesia, H.E Stig Traavik, the US Ambassador to ASEAN, H.E. David Carden and the President Director of Mazars Indonesia, James Kallman.

Commentary for the study was provided by Dr. Makarim Wibisono, the Executive Director of ASEAN Foundation during the plenary session moderated by Prof. Harkristuti Harkrisnowo where the 2 of 3 advisors to the Study, Prof. Christine Kaufmann and Prof. Kevin Tan presented the findings and recommendations of the Study.

The Rapporteurs from each country then presented their findings in the breakout sessions of the regional conference.

For more details please see the official news release by the HRRC.

Update: Malaysia takes in Myanmar shipwreck survivors

This is an update on my previous post about the plight of 40 Myanmar shipwreck survivors who were turned away from Singapore after they had been picked up by a Vietnamese cargo ship over a week ago.

Though it was originally reported that the survivors would try and dock in Indonesia, it turns out that Malaysia sent a vessel early on Tuesday afternoon to the Nosco Victory to pick them up. The United Nations refugee agency UNHCR and the cargo ship had lobbied Malaysia to take in the survivors after Singapore refused. It is unclear whether Malaysia also intends to take in the nine passengers currently aboard the X-Press Hoogly, a Liberian freighter ship that also rescued people shipwrecked.

It is also still unclear, whether those rescued are Rohingya, although the Nosco Victory said all men are Muslim. As an Islamic country, Malaysia faces more domestic pressure to accept the survivors, especially with elections due by June next year.

Apart from the 49 survivors, it is thought that the other 160 passengers drowned when their vessel sunk on December 5, off the coast of Myanmar. Amidst the continued closure of the Bangladesh border to Myanmar refugees, more people are taking greater risk by attempting to reach other nearby countries.

Like most other countries in the region, apart from Cambodia and the Philippines, Malaysia has not signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Refugees.

Report & Analysis: Malaysia Takes In 40 Myanmar Shipwreck Survivors (WSJ, 18 December 2012)

Report: Malaysia takes in 40 Myanmar shipwreck survivors (Asia One, 18 December 2012)

2nd Meeting of the Human Rights and Business in ASEAN Baseline Study

Over the past three days, I have been in Bangkok, Thailand, taking part in a very exciting meeting- the 2^nd Meeting of the Human Rights and Business in ASEAN Baseline Study, hosted by the Human Rights Resource Centre in ASEAN (HRRCA).

The purpose of the report is to provide a comparative analysis of the duty of the State to protect against human rights abuses by business enterprises in ASEAN. This Duty to Protect is based on the Ruggie Framework on Business and Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in June last year. In an increasingly globalised world, corporate violations of human rights have been increasingly documented. This includes environmental degradation, indigenous peoples rights, labour rights, and land rights.

As an emerging field in international human rights, this is the first study of its kind to map out the existing business and human rights framework for a region, in the world. As Singapore researcher, I have been tasked with writing the Singapore report, an exciting, but also challenging assignment. Luckily, a very capable team is leading the project, and I have received research assistance at SIIA from a very supportive intern, Natalie.

As country reports take shape, and authors feedback, it has already been incredibly interesting to learn of the business and human rights landscape (or lack thereof) in ASEAN. With the establishment of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Committee on Human Rights, the commitments towards human rights with the ASEAN Charter, and the increasing imperative of including business when we think about human rights, I am looking forward to seeing the final report which will be released later this year, after a meeting of experts in October.

Singapore launches National Plan of Action on Trafficking

It has been some time since my last post, so I thought I would blog on some big news – for Singapore at least. The Singapore Government launched the National Plan of Action against Trafficking in Persons this morning, marking the end of a 2 year effort to put together the plan with stakeholders. It outlines Singapore’s strategy to combat human trafficking over the next four years using the 4P strategy: Prevention of TIP, Prosecution of Offenders, Protection of TIP victims and Partnerships with other countries, NGOs, academics and the private sector.

Singapore received a downgrade from tier 2 to the tier 2 watchlist in the 2010 US State Departments Trafficking in Persons report, putting it in the same company as countries like Afghanistan, Angola, Malaysia, Libya and even North Korea. Released annually, the report focuses mostly on the efforts the government is taking to address trafficking, rather than the actual scale each country is facing. In 2011, a few months after the government announced the formation of a Taskforce on Trafficking, Singapore was moved up to tier 2 again. If efforts continue, it is possible that the country will move up to the highest ranking of tier 1 in the next few years.

The National Action Plan will study the feasibility of accession to the UN Palermo Protocol on Trafficking in Persons (2000 United Nations TIP Protocol), which almost 150 countries have signed, and the setting up of a TIP hotline. It will review legislation related to TIP, enhance victim care services and conduct greater research on trafficking. The government has also included a indicative timeline which will allow the progress of the Plan to be monitored.

The National Plan of Action is a big step forward in the fight against human trafficking in Singapore – for one, the existance of the problem has been acknowledged. Despite this, much more remains to be done. According to the MHA, five sex trafficking and eight labour trafficking cases were prosecuted in 2010, with enforcement being taken against some 182 companies that showed signs of labour trafficking. However, Singapore laws do not explicitly address trafficking, although the Penal Code and Women’s Charter contain clauses that criminalise sex trafficking. Many organisations and NGOs are calling for a single law on trafficking that can be used to prosecute offenders. Apart from reviewing legislation, the taskforce should continue involving victims and other stakeholders in the Plan of Action, and work quickly to deliver on the initiatives it has outlined. One encouraging development from the draft plan, released for comments a few weeks ago, was the inclusion of a timeline, with time indicators on how long it would take to achieve action points.

More information on the significance of the launch of the Action Plan can be found here.

A day off for domestic workers

A  few weeks ago, in another encouraging sign, Singapore announced that it was imposing a mandatory day off for domestic workers, which has been a long time coming.

Negative reactions from employers of domestic workers, have been abound on the internet. Most tellingly, they reveal the high level of dependence on foreign maids in the country, with one letter writer in a local newspaper writing, “Who will do the chores and look after the children and the elderly when the maids are enjoying their days off?”

The care giving and parental responsibilities of the employer seem to have been forgotten in such cases.

With such backlash, in this instance, the Singapore government has taken a brave step in instituting a mandatory law, especially since an estimated 60% of domestic workers in Singapore were not getting a day off. Progress comes from changes in laws. In many places, legal protections precede, not follow, the broader recognition of rights. Laws have a teaching effect. Laws that discriminate validate other kinds of discrimination. Laws that require equal protections reinforce the moral imperative of equality. Practically speaking, it is often the case that laws must change before fears about change dissipate. This is one such law that was well overdue. A good article on the moral imperative of a mandatory day off can be found here.

Human Rights and Trafficking

Finally, below is an article I wrote for ONE Singapore on the importance of human rights in combating trafficking. The link to the article on their website can be found here. It is worth noting that I wrote the article before the release of the National Action Plan, to avoid any confusion.

Fight Human Trafficking by Respecting Human Rights

With a National Plan of Action (NPA) on Trafficking in Persons due out in a few months, Singapore is at a turning point. A recent round of public consultations with NGOs, academia and interested persons suggests that the Trafficking in Persons Inter-agency Taskforce is committed to its mandate to tackle the issue of trafficking. Promisingly, the government is in principle adopting the UN definition on trafficking and adopting a 4P – Prevention, Prosecution, Protection and Partnership – approach to combat the issue. All this is very positive, but much work remains to be done in the final weeks and months before the NPA is released to ensure that its outcome is a good one.

There is still time to influence the Inter-agency Taskforce’s work, before it becomes national policy.

In particular, as anti-trafficking campaigners, we need to ensure that the National Plan of Action is grounded in a human rights perspective, which protects the rights of the victims.  The Taskforce is conducting a final round of public consultations through 23 February and subsequently non-profit groups and members of the public can continue to advocate for these changes.

A victim-centred approach

Trafficking is a human rights issue because of the use of coercion and subsequent exploitation inherent in the practice. But a human rights perspective can also provide a better understanding of the problems experienced by those trafficked. Surely, to be a victim of trafficking is bad enough. But ‘victimisation’ – ignoring a victim’s needs and point of view, in the aftermath – can lead to deprivation of a victim’s self-control and autonomy, not to mention isolation from their family, society and the world around them.

A victim-centred approach focuses on empowering victims or survivors and restoring their dignity and self-worth. There are encouraging signs that Singapore is increasing its recognition of victims rights. In a marked change from the past, as long as a person claims to be trafficked in Singapore, it appears that the new National Plan of Action will ensure that she or he will be treated as a trafficking victim. Previously a foreigner who entered the country willingly to work illegally could have been treated as an immigration offender. It has also been agreed that a toll free 24 hour hotline will be set up, with translation services to allow trafficking victims to seek help. More details, such as who will run this hotline or when it will be established, are still unclear. As these questions are considered, it is imperative that the well-being of the victim comes first.

State responsibilities

In addition to victim protection, states also have a duty to prohibit trafficking and related acts, to prosecute and punish perpetrators and to address the causes and the consequences of trafficking itself.

When it comes to the prosecution of those responsible, the principle of non-refoulement or non-return means that temporary residence permits should be given to victims so that they can legally reside and work in Singapore, if they are at risk of re-entering the system. At all times, a victim should be able to remain in a state whilst court proceedings are underway, have effective witness protection of his/her identity and have free access to interpreters and legal advice. Compensation is an important form of remedy and the government bears the primary responsibility in this regard, because the fact that people are being trafficked illustrates the state’s failure to prevent traffickers from abusing victims. Apart from a government agency dedicated to trafficking, a body such as a national human rights institution should also be set up to monitor the issue.

Child Trafficking

When it comes to the particular issue of the commercial sexual exploitation of children, more measures must be taken. Reliable figures on child victims of trafficking for sexual purposes in Singapore remain difficult to obtain due to a lack of disaggregated data and the hidden and illegal nature of the crime. As such, the government should establish an independent monitoring mechanism to regularly supervise and gather information to ensure that child rights conform to the provisions set out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Singapore is a state party.

Singaporean law meanwhile provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction over Singaporean citizens and permanent residents who exploit children in other countries. However, the Singapore government has never prosecuted or convicted anyone for child sex tourism. The government must therefore re-examine this issue.

The role of poverty and discrimination

Finally, human rights can be used to address wider problems related to trafficking, including anti-poverty measures.

To the official 4Ps of fighting trafficking, I would add a 5th ‘P’: Poverty. Poverty is a human rights issue, as it affects economic, social and cultural rights – the right to food, housing and an adequate standard of health and education. Poverty is also a key driver of trafficking, compelling millions of migrant and foreign domestic workers to leave their home countries every year. When it comes to the sexual exploitation of children, poverty has an even bigger role to play as it often contributes to illiteracy, limited employment opportunities and difficult financial circumstances.  Children and youth from financially-struggling families become easy targets for procurement agents, who lure girls and boys away with the promise of high-paying urban jobs only to force them into prostitution.

Another issue that fuels trafficking is discrimination. The lack of employment opportunities for people belonging to gender, racial or ethnic groups forces them to go elsewhere and is a reason why women, in particular, are more vulnerable to traffickers.

The way ahead

A human rights approach is not the only tool we can use to combat trafficking, but it is an important one.

As Singapore’s Inter-Agency Taskforce continues its work to develop a new National Plan of Action (NPA) on Trafficking in Persons, it must use a human rights perspective to analyse trafficking issues and develop appropriate responses. Addressing trafficking in Singapore will involve work by many parties – civil society organisations, government and individuals – at multiple levels. But by keeping an open mind, taking into account a variety of approaches and perspectives, we can ensure that we continue to move forward in the fight to reduce trafficking and closer to the goal of a safer, more equal society for all.

Some more links related to human trafficking in Singapore, and the National Plan of Action, are listed below

“Singapore Toughens its Stance on Human Trafficking” (Straits Times, 11 June 2011)

“How do we stop Human Trafficking” by ShuQi Liu (onesingapore.org, 22 Jan 2012)

Government unveils measures to tackle human trafficking (TODAY Online, 21 March 2012)

Hello world!

Welcome to my blog! Over the coming days, weeks and months, I will use this space to post human rights news, commentary and analysis on the Asia Pacific region.

Based in the Asia-Pacific and working on these issues, I hope my blog can provide some insight into the growing human rights movement in this part of the world.

If nothing else, I hope it will serve as a place to share my musings and thoughts on current issues affecting the region.

Thanks for reading,

Rachel