Nov 9, 2020 | BHR, Statements
An Indonesian translation of this statement can be found here.
JAKARTA – As Indonesia’s parliament opens today, regional MPs are calling for the Omnibus bill on job creation to be rejected, until genuine consultations are conducted with civil society and affected communities, and the bill is brought into line with international human rights standards.
An omnibus bill is a document comprising different measures packaged together, and accepted in a single vote by the legislature. Indonesia’s Omnibus bill on job creation, aimed at attracting renewed foreign and domestic investment, alters more than 70 laws. It was submitted to the House of Representatives on 12 February, with the aim of completing deliberations within 100 days.
ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) is gravely concerned about the bill’s impact on the human rights of Indonesians, including their rights to work, and to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment.
“This is a perfect example of how not to encourage economic growth. Instead of focussing on sustainable and people-centred development, the Indonesian government is trading its people’s labour, environmental and human rights for the promise of unchecked investment,” said Teddy Baguilat, a former Philippine parliamentarian, and APHR Board Member. “The impacts of this short-sightedness will be felt by the country’s most vulnerable. Thankfully, there is still an opportunity for the government to change course, by listening to all voices, and by introducing a new bill that both stimulates economic growth and protects people’s rights.”
Revisions to Environmental Law 32/2009 will lower the standards for environmental protection, and reduce community involvement in decisions that impact their environment and resources, APHR said. For example, it is unclear from the bill how some risks posed by investments to the environment will be addressed, such as low but systemic risks, or those that evolve over time, such as climate change.
“In a country as large as Indonesia, it is the local actors who understand the situation in their area best,” said Baguilat. “These decisions need to be made by people on the ground, not someone sitting in the capital thousands of miles away, with little grasp of the local context.”
Meanwhile, the lowering of standards concerning sick and other types of leave, severance pay, labour flexibility, ease of recruiting and laying off workers threatens Indonesians’ labour rights, APHR said.
“In its current form, the bill will have a dreadful impact on the rights of workers, and of those most reliant on their natural environment, like indigenous peoples and women,” said Chamnan Chanruang, a former Thailand Member of Parliament (MP) and APHR member. “The role of the law should be to protect workers from the harmful and unjust practices of employers. Instead, the Omnibus bill opens the door for further abuses.”
APHR is also extremely concerned by the fact that the bill threatens to erode Indonesia’s rule of law and balance of powers. In particular, Article 170 of the Omnibus bill allows the central administration to use a government regulation (Peraturan Pemerintah) to change existing laws in order to create jobs. While the provision states that the central government can consult the leadership of the House of Representatives before such a decision is made, this step is only optional
It is also troubling that the bill was drafted without transparent and meaningful consultations with civil society and local governments, including those who called for its cancellation in its entirety, APHR said.
“Meaningful consultations are crucial to ensuring that civil society and those most affected by the bill can openly raise their concerns,” said Chanruang. “So far, the lack of input from other actors undermines the bill’s credibility in a democratic country.”
Nov 9, 2020 | BHR, Statements
JAKARTA – 10 March 2020: As ministers of the member countries of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) meet for final negotiations over the trade agreement this week, regional lawmakers today expressed concern about the lack of parliamentary and public oversight of the deal, as well as its potential human rights impacts.
The RCEP is a free trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region that includes the 10 member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), as well as China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. India withdrew from the deal in November 2019.
“During the negotiations, governments have given privileged positions to large business lobby groups, at the expense of public and parliamentary oversight,” said Teddy Baguilat, former Philippine parliamentarian and board member for ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR). “What’s worse is that they’ve been unapologetic about this double standard, welcoming inputs from businesses while flatly rejecting appeals from civil society to see official documents. The entire process has been an affront to democracy.”
Negotiations for the RCEP have failed the transparency and public participation tests, APHR said. Neither public nor parliamentary oversight have been meaningful, or respected the principle of free, prior and informed consent, lawmakers said.
Among a number of problematic issues in the RCEP agreement, APHR expressed alarm at proposals related to intellectual property rights (IPR), which could have a catastrophic impact on the rights of people living in Southeast Asia.
“Intellectual property provisions in the RCEP threaten access to medicine and public health for hundreds of millions of people across Southeast Asia, by extending patents, likely resulting in rising medicine prices. Access to healthcare is a fundamental human right, and the RCEP must respect this,” Baguilat said.
Despite RCEP members having taken positive steps towards dropping the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms from the agreement, the measures have not been explicitly ruled out, including from future negotiations. ISDS, which allows investors to sue countries for a range of practices, have been widely criticised for undermining national sovereignty, lacking transparency and restricting a state’s ability to respect and ensure their citizens’ human rights.
APHR calls on negotiating parties to officially exclude ISDS mechanisms from all RCEP negotiations as a step towards ensuring the agreement is human rights compliant.
In addition, the rights group is calling on RCEP negotiating parties to conduct open and inclusive public consultations, as well as independent environment, human rights and economic assessments of the agreement, and for up-to-date information regarding the negotiations and texts to be made available to the public and parliamentarians. APHR also reiterates its calls for decision makers to provide balance in their negotiations, rather than continuing to prioritise elements of the private sector.
“The RCEP negotiations have been conducted almost entirely in secret, making it impossible for parliaments and the public to scrutinise whether or not the deal respects human rights and democratic principles,” said Tom Villarin, former Member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines and APHR member. “The current negotiating process bypassess usual checks and balances on the executive. National parliaments must be given the opportunity to review and vote on any agreement before it is signed”.
Furthermore, APHR called on the ASEAN Economic Community to balance its focus on encouraging economic activity with wider obligations to ensure and respect human rights across the region.
“ASEAN’s narrow focus on encouraging economic activity is incompatible with its responsibilities to protect and fulfil human rights,” said Baguilat. “It is time for ASEAN to fulfill its obligation to protect its people’s rights and address economic advancement and prosperity in a balanced and sustainable way.”
Nov 9, 2020 | BHR, DFF, Statements
On the seventh anniversary of the enforced disappearance of Lao civil society leader Sombath Somphone, we, the undersigned organizations, urge the Lao and Thai governments to investigate enforced disappearances, and demand Vientiane finally reveal Sombath’s whereabouts and ensure justice for him and his family.
Considering the Lao police’s protracted failure to effectively investigate Sombath’s enforced disappearance, a new independent and impartial investigative body tasked with determining Sombath’s fate and whereabouts should be established without delay. The new body should have the authority to seek and receive international technical assistance in order to conduct a professional, independent, impartial, and effective investigation in accordance with international standards.
Sombath was last seen at a police checkpoint on a busy street of the Lao capital, Vientiane, on the evening of 15 December 2012. Footage from a CCTV camera showed that Sombath’s vehicle was stopped at the police checkpoint and that, within minutes, unknown individuals forced him into another vehicle and drove him away in the presence of police officers. CCTV footage also showed an unknown individual driving Sombath’s vehicle away from the city center. The presence of police officers at Sombath’s abduction and their failure to intervene strongly indicates state agents’ participation in Sombath’s enforced disappearance.
Lao authorities have repeatedly claimed they have been investigating Sombath’s enforced disappearance but have failed to disclose any new findings to the public since 8 June 2013. They have met with Sombath’s wife, Shui Meng Ng, only twice since January 2013 – the last time in December 2017. No substantive information about the investigation has been shared by the police with the family, indicating that, for all intents and purposes, the police investigation has been de facto suspended.
We also call on the Lao and Thai governments to resolve all cases of enforced disappearances in their countries. The most recent case is that of Od Sayavong, a Lao refugee living in Bangkok, who has been missing since 26 August 2019. Over the past several years, Od engaged publicly in drawing attention to human rights abuses and corruption in Laos, and met with the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights on 15 March 2019 in Bangkok, prior to the latter’s mission to Laos. The concerns regarding Od’s case were expressed in a joint statement that the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and three Special Rapporteurs issued on 1 October 2019.
We would also like to draw particular attention to reports that Ittiphon Sukpaen, Wuthipong Kachathamakul, Surachai Danwattananusorn, Chatcharn Buppawan, and Kraidej Luelert, five Thai critics of the monarchy and Thailand’s military government living in exile in Laos, went missing between June 2016 and December 2018. In the case of the latter three, the bodies of Chatcharn and Kraidej were found about two weeks later on the Thai side of the Mekong River, mutilated and stuffed with concrete, while a third body – possibly Surachai’s – reportedly surfaced nearby and then disappeared. DNA tests carried out in January 2019 confirmed the identity of Chatcharn and Kraidej.
We call on the Lao and Thai governments to investigate these cases in line with international legal standards with a view towards determining their fate and whereabouts.
Both the Lao and Thai governments have the legal obligation to conduct such prompt, thorough and impartial investigations and to bring all individuals suspected of criminal responsibility for crimes under international law and gross human rights violations to justice in fair trials.
We also urge the Lao and Thai governments to promptly ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which Laos and Thailand signed in September 2008 and January 2012 respectively, to incorporate the Convention’s provisions into their domestic legal frameworks, implementing it in practice, and to recognize the competence of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of victims or other states parties.
Finally, we call on the international community to use the upcoming Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Laos to demand the Lao government promptly and effectively investigate the enforced disappearance of Sombath Somphone. The third UPR of Laos is scheduled to be held on 21 January 2020 in Geneva, Switzerland.
During the second UPR of Laos in January 2015, 10 United Nations member states (Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom) recommended the Lao government conduct an adequate investigation into Sombath’s enforced disappearance.
Until the fate and whereabouts of those who are forcibly disappeared are revealed, the international community should not stop demanding that they be safely returned to their families. The Lao government should be under no illusion that our demands will go away, we will persist until we know the real answer to the question: “Where is Sombath?”
Signed by:
- 11.11.11
- Action from Ireland (Afri)
- Alliance Sud
- Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma (ALTSEAN-Burma)
- Alyansa Tigil Mina (Alliance to Stop Mining)
- Amnesty International
- Armanshahr / OPEN ASIA
- Article 19
- ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR)
- Asia Europe People’s Forum
- Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD)
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- Asian Resource Foundation
- Association of Women for Awareness and Motivation (AWAM)
- Awaz Foundation Pakistan – Centre for Development Services
- Banglar Manabadhikar Sutaksha Mancha (MASUM)
- Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC)
- CCFD-Terre Solidaire
- Center for Human Rights and Development (CHRD)
- Centre for the Sustainable Use of Natural and Social Resources (CSNR)
- China Labour Bulletin (CLB)
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- Civil Rights Defenders
- Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS)
- Community Resource Centre (CRC)
- Community Self-Reliance Centre (CSRC)
- DIGNIDAD Coalition
- Dignity – Kadyr-kassiyet (KK)
- Equality Myanmar
- Europe solidaire sans frontières (ESSF)
- Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND)
- FIAN International
- FIDH – International Federation for Human Rights
- Focus on the Global South
- Fresh Eyes – People to People Travel
- Front Line Defenders
- Global Justice Now
- Globe International
- Human Rights and Development Foundation (HRDF)
- Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP)
- Human Rights in China (HRIC)
- Human Rights Watch (HRW)
- Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI)
- INFORM Human Rights Documentation Centre
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw)
- Justice for Iran (JFI)
- Karapatan Alliance Philippines (Karapatan)
- Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law (KIBHR)
- Korean House for International Solidarity (KHIS)
- Land Watch Thai
- Lao Movement for Human Rights (LMHR)
- Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada (LRWC)
- League for the Defence of Human Rights in Iran (LDDHI)
- MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
- Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN)
- Manushya Foundation
- MONFEMNET National Network
- National Commission for Justice and Peace (NCJP)
- Nomadic Livestock Keepers’ Development Fund
- Odhikar
- People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy(PSPD)
- People’s Empowerment Foundation (PEF)
- People’s Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR)
- People’s Watch
- Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)
- Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity (PACTI)
- Psychological Responsiveness NGO
- Pusat KOMAS
- Right to Life Human Rights Centre (R2L)
- Rights Now Collective for Democracy (RN)
- South India Cell for Human Rights Education and Monitoring (SICHREM)
- Stiftung Asienhaus
- STOP the War Coalition – Philippines (StWC-Philippines)
- Sustainability and Participation through Education and Lifelong Learning (SPELL)
- Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR)
- Tanggol Kalikasan – Public Interest Environmental Law Office (TK)
- Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP)
- The Corner House
- Think Centre
- Transnational Institute
- Union for Civil Liberty (UCL)
- Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR)
- Vietnamese Women for Human Rights (VNWHR)
- WomanHealth Philippines
- Women’s Rehabilitation Centre (WOREC)
- World Organization Against Torture (OMCT)
- World Rainforest Movement (WRM)
Individuals
Andy Rutherford
Anuradha Chenoy
David JH Blake
Glenn Hunt
Jeremy Ironside
Jessica diCarlo
Kamal Mitra Chenoy
Mary Aileen D. Bacalso
Miles Kenney-Lazar
Nico Bakker
Philip Hirsch
Nov 9, 2020 | BHR, DFF, FoRB, RM, Statements
A Thai version of this statement is available here.
JAKARTA – Parliamentarians from across Southeast Asia today called on their leaders to not overlook the most pressing challenges facing the region when they gather in Thailand for the ASEAN Summit this week.
The 35th ASEAN Summit will be held from November 2–4 in Bangkok, but regional lawmakers are concerned that ASEAN leaders will once again fail to discuss the rise in authoritarianism and lack of commitment by states in protecting human rights. Of particular concern remain ongoing human rights violations and persecution of the Rohingya and other ethnic minorities in Myanmar, the demolition of democracy and assault on dissent in Cambodia, the lack of accountability for the thousands of extra-judicial killing victims in the Philippines, as well as the continued suppression of civil and political rights and military interference in politics in Thailand, said ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR).
“The list of issues that could and should be discussed at this summit is just too long, and too serious, to reel off in sufficient detail, but we all know the likelihood of any of them being addressed over the coming days is minimal. APHR and civil society organizations have repeatedly called on ASEAN to step up, but it has always failed to do so. Regardless of the well-meaning intentions that some of the region’s leaders may have, ASEAN does not provide even an inch of space for meaningful dialogue on human rights abuses against its own citizens,” said Charles Santiago, Malaysian MP and APHR Chair.
Among the many concerns that require urgent regional attention, APHR has consistently highlighted ASEAN’s failure to respond sufficiently to allegations of genocide being committed in one of its member states and ensure full accountability for the crimes.
“The suffering of the Rohingya has no end in sight,” said Eva Sundari, former Indonesian MP and APHR Board Member. “ASEAN needs to live up to its responsibility and use its position to press Myanmar to address the root causes of the crisis, including restoring the rights of the Rohingya. Any discussion of repatriation is futile unless we listen to the Rohingya’s demands and Myanmar can guarantee their safety and dignity.”
Meanwhile, authoritarian governments are closing democratic space and targeting activists and opposition members for their peaceful criticism against ruling government policies.
APHR has documented the growing trend of judicial harassment and persecution of the opposition in Cambodia, Thailand, and the Philippines. This year, more than 50 activists and opposition members from the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) have been arrested, placed in pre-trial detention and forced to admit their “crime” for peacefully expressing their right to freedom of expression, creating an atmosphere of fear among the general public. In Thailand, the authorities must immediately lift restrictions on fundamental freedoms and end their attempts to silence the opposition and civil society. APHR also issued a report exposing the crackdown on political opponents of the Philippine government.
Parliamentarians warned ASEAN that by failing to live up to its stated principles of democracy and hold member-states to their commitments to human rights, the grouping could become fractured. They also stressed the important role played by the international community in pushing for greater respect for human rights in the region. ASEAN leaders will meet with key dialogue partners at the East Asia Summit, as well as in separate summits with China, Japan, the US, India, and the United Nations.
“Supporting authoritarian regimes that are suppressing the rights and freedoms of their people will not lead us to the long-term peace and prosperity which ASEAN hopes to achieve. We must also not forget that Laos, Brunei, and Vietnam are no closer to opening up than they were a decade ago,” said Kasit Piromya, former Thai MP and APHR Board Member.
“As the Chair of ASEAN this year, Thailand should lead by example in finally speaking up, and international leaders attending the Summit must urge ASEAN and its member states to put human rights at the forefront.”
Nov 9, 2020 | BHR, DFF, FoRB, Open Letters
Dear Members of the European Parliament,
We, the undersigned Vietnamese and international civil society organisations, are writing to urge you to ensure that the European Parliament postpones its consent to the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA) and Investment Protection Agreement (IPA) until certain human rights benchmarks are met by the Vietnamese government.
As you may know, in recent years the Vietnamese government has intensified its crackdown on human rights defenders, members of civil society, religious groups and individuals who express opinions deemed critical of the government or otherwise disfavoured. The rights to free expression, opinion, association and assembly remain strictly curtailed and the judiciary is under tight state control, as are the press, civil society, and religious groups. Any expression of dissent is harshly punished by state authorities, either directly or through state-sponsored thugs. Hundreds of human rights, environmental or labour activists, lawyers, religious figures and bloggers have been convicted or otherwise detained for the peaceful exercise of their freedom of expression, in application of a draconian penal code which explicitly criminalises criticising the government.
Against this background, we regret that negotiations for the EVFTA and the IPA did not lead to more tangible human rights commitments from the Vietnamese authorities than the meagre ones included in the EVFTA’s sustainable development chapter, and that even for those there is no binding timeline nor penalties foreseen in case of failure to comply. Furthermore, we are concerned about the monitoring of the implementation of those agreements, which the EVFTA’s text assigns to independent civil society from both sides, overlooking the fact that there is hardly any independent civil society in Vietnam, and certainly none which at this stage could openly emerge and thoroughly exercise such monitoring role without fear of repercussions. Finally, we remain deeply concerned about Vietnam’s reluctance[1] to revise its penal code, whose provisions criminalising peaceful criticism of the government render de facto impossible the full enjoyment of the rights enshrined in the International Labour Organisation’s Conventions to which Vietnam is or has pledged to become a party.
If and once the agreements will be in force, threats to suspend them for human rights violations pursuant to the link with the EU-Vietnam Partnership and Cooperation Agreement would lack any credibility: firstly, there are no EU precedents of FTAs suspended on human rights grounds; secondly, the suspension of the deal, especially of the IPA, could be extremely harmful to EU businesses and investments in the country; thirdly, Vietnam currently benefits of unilateral trade preferences through the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP)[2], and the country’s failure to uphold its numerous human rights obligations under the scheme is yet to result in any meaningful reaction by the EU, which has instead intensified negotiations for the EVFTA; fourthly, human rights violations in the country are already so widespread and severe that, were the agreements in place at the time of writing, there would arguably already be grounds to suspend them.
For all these reasons, the ongoing procedure at the European Parliament, which has to decide whether to grant, deny or postpone consent to the EVFTA and IPA, represents the last, powerful opportunity to leverage these deals to secure concrete human rights improvements in Vietnam.
Taking the same approach last used by the previous European legislature in March this year in relation to the EU-Turkmenistan Partnership and Cooperation Agreement[3], Members of the European Parliament should put the Vietnamese government on notice that they will consider giving their consent to the deals only once a series of human rights concerns have been duly addressed by the state authorities. In particular, MEPs should ask Vietnam to:
- Release all political prisoners and detainees and, pending their release, as an immediate confidence-building measure, allow access to prisoners and detainees by families, legal counsel, and outside observers from the EU as well as international humanitarian and human rights groups; among the most prominent cases are human rights, labour, religious and environmental activists, journalists and bloggers, including Le Dinh Luong, Tran Huynh Duy Thuc, Ngo Hao, Luu Van Vinh, Ho Duc Hoa, Tran Anh Kim, Nguyen Van Tuc, Nguyen Trung Ton, Nguyen Trung Truc, Truong Minh Duc, Le Thanh Tung, Nguyen Bac Truyen, Nguyen Van Duc Do, Tran Thi Nga, Tran Thi Xuan and Ho Duc Hoa;
- Publicly and unequivocally announce its commitment, with a clear timeline, to repeal or amend articles 109, 116, 117, 118 and 331 of the penal code and articles 74 and 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, bringing the criminal legislation in conformity with the country’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR);
- Put an end to the harassment, forced denunciation of faith, arrests, prosecutions, imprisonment, and ill-treatment of people because they are followers of disfavoured religions, and release anyone currently being held for peaceful exercise of their rights to freedom of religion, belief, expression, assembly and association; and ensuring that all domestic legislation addressing religious affairs is brought into conformity with international human rights law;
- Allow the publication of uncensored, independent, privately-run newspapers and magazines; remove filtering, surveillance, and other restrictions on internet usage, and release all people imprisoned or detained for peaceful dissemination of their views over the internet; publicly announce a timeline to revise the Law on Cyber Security and bring it into compliance with international human rights standards;
- Immediately recognise independent labour unions; publicly announce a detailed timeline for the ratification of ILO Conventions No. 87 (Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize) and No. 105 (Abolition of Forced Labour); and immediately and unconditionally release all persons detained for peaceful activities to promote workers’ rights;
- Accepting outstanding requests for invitations by UN Special Procedures;
- Adopt a de facto moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to progressively abolish it.
Furthermore, MEPs should ask the European Commission to:
- Set up an independent monitoring and complaint mechanism to address the human rights impacts that the EVFTA and the IPA may have and that can be used by affected individuals and communities and their representatives; and
- Specify which Vietnamese independent civil society groups will compose the Domestic Advisory Groups (DAGs) foreseen by the Agreements, and what measures will be in place to ensure that they can exercise their role independently, impartially, thoroughly, and safely.
Yours sincerely,
Actions by Christian for the Abolition of Torture (ACAT)
ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR)
Bau Bi Tuong Than Association
Boat People SOS (BPSOS)
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
Defend the Defenders (DTD)
Human Rights Watch
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
Legal Initiatives for Vietnam
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Swiss-Vietnam Committee (COSUNAM)
The 88 Project
Vietnam Association of Independent Journalists
Vietnamese Professional Society (VPS)
Viet Tan
Nov 9, 2020 | BHR, CCHR, Opinion Articles
By Mercy Barends
MP, Indonesia
Our oceans are facing a daunting crisis: They are being filled with plastic. Many of us are well aware of this environmental and human rights catastrophe, but we are yet to rise to the challenge. In Southeast Asia, our seas and rivers are clogged by plastic waste and maritime species are washing up on our shores with kilos of plastic in their stomachs. I should know, I am an MP from the second-worst plastic polluter in the world: Indonesia.
That is why today, on World Maritime Day, I would like to see my country reverse this position and become one of the world’s leaders in tackling this global issue. This will not be easy but it is a challenge we can no longer ignore.
This year Indonesia made headlines when it decided to send back containers of plastic waste coming from Australia and other Western nations. It was joined by other regional neighbors such as Malaysia and the Philippines. In June 2019, ASEAN member states also adopted the Bangkok Declaration and Framework of Action for combating marine debris.
While such decisions are welcomed, they only scratch the surface. Our lives are anchored to plastic: from what we eat, the cosmetic products we use, the streets we walk on. In Southeast Asia, millions of people’s livelihoods are entirely dependent on plastic: from waste pickers to plastic production workers.
In this context, declarations of good intentions will not be enough, nor fast enough. We need a combination of awareness-raising, behavioral change at the societal level and to take difficult but necessary policy decisions at the national level to tackle the issue from production right through to waste management. Countries must create a mechanism that binds countries into action. But countries also need not forget a — too often overlooked — major aspect of this issue: gender.
Let us take the example of the plastic production process. The few studies that were undertaken on this issue point out that female plastic workers are at increased risk of infertility and breast cancer. At the consumption level, women and girls are more likely to be exposed to microplastics, as they are widely used in makeup, nail polish or period products.
Now let’s look at recycling. In Southeast Asia, you are likely to see women handpick plastic from piles of waste for recycling. These informal waste pickers are a crucial part of the recycling system in the region. In Vietnam, China, the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand, 85 percent of the plastic extraction for recycling occurs at the waste-picking stage, rather than at home. But because there is no formal recycling system, waste pickers often have low incomes and little protection against chemicals.
Finally, what of the impact of plastic pollution? In coastal communities in Southeast Asia, primarily men go out to sea to catch fish while women collect crabs, shellfish, and small fish at the shore. When beach litter increases, women’s income shrinks. When marine plastic litter increases, men’s income shrinks.
However, despite mounting evidence, this gendered dynamic has been ignored by governments and policymakers. In Asia less than 20 percent of parliamentarians, like myself, are women. The patriarchal society in which we live means that we, women, have been excluded from decision-making at all levels. This is also true when it comes to plastic pollution. A flagrant illustration is that the recent ASEAN Framework of Action on Marine Debris makes no mention of gender.
Because women play a unique role in plastic management and face a different — and sometimes greater — impact of plastic pollution, there can be no comprehensive and durable solutions without their contribution.
As a region made up of some of the worlds’ top plastic polluters, notably, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, it is time that ASEAN steps up its commitments. The ASEAN Framework of Action on Marine Debris is not enough. It focuses on waste management over plastic production, is not binding on states and does not integrate gender.
Today reminds us of the importance of our oceans, and of the urgency with which our governments must react. It is now time for the next step: ASEAN must take binding regional action that tackles the differentiated and gendered impacts of plastic on people, from its production to pollution.
This article was originally published in The Diplomat.
