Nov 9, 2020 | BHR, DFF, FoRB, Opinion Articles, RM
By Kasit Piromya
Former MP, Thailand
Human rights are increasingly under attack in Southeast Asia. Atrocities against the Rohingya minority in Myanmar and extrajudicial killings through President Rodrigo Duterte’s “war on drugs” in the Philippines likely amount to crimes against humanity. In other countries, crackdowns on the press or attacks on human rights defenders are just some of the issues plaguing the region.
The good news is that ASEAN has a regional body meant to address such crimes under international law. The bad news, however, is that this body has so far proven wholly ineffective and fundamentally incapable of protecting human rights. Instead, Southeast Asian governments have been able to stay silent and stand firm in inaction when it comes to addressing atrocities in neighboring countries.
ASEAN’s human rights mechanism, the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), was established in 2009. At that time, Thailand was the chair of ASEAN and I served as the country’s foreign minister. I led the ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting (AMM) to iron out the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the AICHR.
Despite much debate, little common ground could be found, mainly because of ASEAN’s non-interference principles and the emphasis on “consensus”.
Reluctantly, I had to announce to the public the fruit of our labors — a body whose mandate meant that it was likely to become politicized, ineffective and toothless.
This disappointment has remained over the years. AICHR’s ToR prevents it from effectively protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms. Its mandate is too weak and broad, and there are no monitoring and complaint mechanisms, meaning people in ASEAN cannot approach it directly to seek redress for violations.
Nor is it mandated to carry out any country fact-finding missions or peer reviews of ASEAN states’ human rights records. AICHR holds hundreds of activities every year to promote human rights and numerous closed-door meetings, but there is little transparency about what is discussed.
The selection process of AICHR representatives is also highly problematic. In most countries — Indonesia and Malaysia are notable exceptions — representatives are not democratically or transparently elected. This has meant that most representatives remain accountable to their own governments and are more interested in protecting their home states, rather than human rights in general.
There are notable exceptions of conscientious, genuine human rights activists who have served as representatives, but unfortunately the bigger picture has meant that their impact has been limited.
It is difficult to name any worthwhile intervention over the past decade. AICHR’s silence following the forced disappearance of Lao development leader Sombath Somphone in 2012 has been deafening. AICHR has also buried its head in the sand in the face of the Myanmar security forces’ horrific crimes against the Rohingya, for example.
Last year, a joint statement was issued by the Indonesian and Malaysian representatives calling for action to address the situation in Rakhine State. This was not an official AICHR statement, however, but only issued by two individual representatives “going rogue”. The statement also conspicuously failed to mention the word “Rohingya”, further undermining its credibility.
The result has been a mechanism that has achieved little and has had no real positive impact on improving human rights in Southeast Asia whatsoever. This is a blunt, but sadly realistic, assessment echoed by many across the region.
AICHR’s ToR prevents it from effectively protecting human rights and freedoms.
As this year marks the 10-year anniversary of AICHR and Thailand holds the ASEAN chair again, it is a good time to reevaluate its relevancy.
I recently spoke at a High Level Dialogue event on AICHR in Jakarta, where CSOs, government officials and others came together to discuss a way forward for the regional body. The feedback from civil society was overall bleak. Currently 28 NGOs have formal consultative status with AICHR. Although a seemingly promising initiative, accredited CSOs raised concerns about the amount of resources spent on very little genuine engagement.
The selection process for consultative status is also secretive and lacks transparency, meaning that some CSOs have been rejected on arbitrary lines, or even simply because they have criticized ASEAN’s human rights record.
At the event in Jakarta, CSOs raised these concerns with some of the new AICHR representatives who began their terms this year. As individual representatives, they are well-respected for being strong and vocal public advocates for victims and CSOs. But within the context of AICHR’s restrictive mandate, there is not much they can do.
As AICHR marks its first decade of existence, it is time to start asking some tough and uncomfortable questions. Should civil society engage with AICHR at all? Is it more effective to engage directly with international NGOs, governments and parliamentarians to seek advocacy goals, and bypass AICHR completely? Does a toothless AICHR’s continued existence merely mean that ASEAN has given itself a cloak of legitimacy on human rights that it barely deserves? Does it deflect legitimate human rights concerns and CSO resources away from those that have the real authority to respond? Is AICHR capable of being reformed with its existing format or would it be better to consider a new, fresh approach?
ASEAN rightly prides itself on having a diverse group of governments and cultures, but its human rights mechanism is clearly not able to stand up for the rights of its citizens. From the killing fields of Rakhine State to the slums of Manila, the people of Southeast Asia deserve — and need — better.
This article was originally published in The Jakarta Post.
Nov 9, 2020 | BHR, Opinion Articles
By Mu Sochua
Former MP, Cambodia
Before becoming a forest ranger, Theun Soknay was a student at a boarding school in Mondulkiri province. He later worked as a tour guide at the Bunong Place, and obtained a bachelor’s degree, before working at the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) for four years, where he developed the Jahoo Gibbon Camp. In 2017, his passion for preserving the environment led him to pass the national exam to become an official ranger with the Ministry of Environment.
From the Bunong indigenous community, he was determined to protect his ancestors’ forest. But Soknay was gunned down on January 30 as he was on patrol, along with Thol Khna, a staff member of Wildlife Conservation Society Cambodia, and Sok Vathana, a military police officer.
The authorities are now claiming an alleged confrontation as the cause of the murders and have arrested six suspects, charging them with premeditated murder. This sounds eerily familiar to the alleged circumstances surrounding well-known environmental activist Chut Wutty’s death back in 2012, and to that of many other forest rangers killed since without any independent investigations having been undertaken. Unfortunately, those arrested are not always the real killers, and even less often those who are truly responsible for the dangerous conditions in which Soknay and his colleagues find themselves in.
The real cause of these tragedies lies in the illegal logging industry in Cambodia that supplies China’s insatiable demand for rosewood timber to be turned into luxury furniture. This industry was valued at a whopping $2 billion by the London-based Environmental Investigation Agency in 2014, with Cambodia occupying the fifth place in the list of biggest contributors.
[easy-tweet tweet=”The illegal logging industry in Cambodia that supplies China’s insatiable demand for rosewood timber to be turned into luxury furniture” user=”aseanmp” hashtags=”cambodia”]
Despite Prime Minister Hun Sen’s promise to give his life to stop illegal logging, a government ban on timber exports to Vietnam in January and the creation of a high-level task force headed by National Military Police Commander Sao Sokha in early 2017, illegal logging continues in Cambodia’s national parks, in community protected areas, in areas designated as land concessions, and in wildlife sanctuaries.
This is all happening under the full control of business tycoons like Try Pheap and Kith Meng, who have close links with the ruling party. Millions of dollars are paid as bribes to provincial and district governors and officials in the armed and police forces to protect the industry. Impunity reigns, while ministry officials point fingers at one another. Meanwhile, proud foot soldiers, border patrol agents, and hardworking forest rangers on patrol have become easy targets for high-ranking officials working for the big companies.
Saving what remains of Cambodia’s forests will be even harder now that the ruling party has effectively hijacked the country and cracked down on free speech, dissolving the main opposition party, labelling human rights workers and environmental activists as part of a “colour revolution”, and shutting down independent media.
But that doesn’t mean we should give up the fight. We must remind those responsible – such as the minister of environment – that this is not about party politics. Regardless of who wins the elections or who is in charge, protection of our environment and of our natural resources must be a priority.
[easy-tweet tweet=”Protection of our environment and of our natural resources must be a priority.” user=”aseanmp” hashtags=”cambodia”]
The murder of those who seek to protect our forests must be investigated independently, so that no doubt may arise over the real circumstances of their deaths. The minister of environment should be the first to lead this fight, to show that the murder of Soknai – one of his own staff – will not go unpunished.
Meanwhile, we all have a part to play in honouring these heroes who believed in saving Cambodia’s forests and paid for it with their lives. Forgetting them would mean giving up the fight.
This article was originally published in The Phnom Penh Post.
Nov 9, 2020 | BHR, DFF, FoRB, RM, Statements
JAKARTA – Ten years since its establishment, AICHR has yet to fully function as a regional human rights mechanism that meets the expectations of civil society. The High Level Dialogue on Human Rights in ASEAN, organised by Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) and Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) expresses grave concern about the ineffectiveness of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) to provide protection for the human rights of the peoples in Southeast Asia.
The event calls on the AICHR and ASEAN Member States (AMS) to significantly and meaningfully improve the human rights commission in order to strengthen its protection mandate so that it can truly benefit all peoples in the region.
From 2010 to 2018, AICHR spent over six million USD conducting 121 activities approved by the AMS. Unfortunately, these activities have not resulted in any significant improvement in the human rights situation on the ground, or for the peoples of ASEAN who need its protection. Southeast Asia has faced frequent numerous human rights violations and abuses, ranging from the worst crimes against the Rohingya and other religious and ethnic minorities in Myanmar, to numerous enforced disappearances across the region, to extra-judicial killings in the Philippines, attacks on independent media, dissolution of the legal opposition, and the shrinking of civic space and freedom of expression in the region. The human rights situation in the region is deteriorating, but all the issues remain unaddressed by AICHR.
Despite having protection-related provisions in its Terms of Reference (TOR) that can be creatively utilised to meaningfully address the situation, AICHR tends to succumb to the political will of ASEAN Member States. The human rights commission chooses to hide behind the non-interference principle of ASEAN and to sideline the rule of law, democracy, and respect for fundamental freedoms. This has resulted in the grave neglect of fulfillment human rights on the ground and continually resulted in the irrelevance of AICHR and ASEAN as a whole to address people’s struggles.
It is evident that individually and collectively, the AICHR, AMS and ASEAN have failed to create or develop a viable human rights mechanism. The mechanism is considerably weaker compared to those in Africa, the Americas, and Europe, which have the power to investigate and consider complaints. States often respectfully submit their positions to these bodies, and the mechanisms take steps to prevent and stop violations, provide redress and accountability, and ensure that violations are not repeated.
As there must be transparency and accountability to the peoples, we call on the AICHR to actively and publicly respond to human rights crises, including through the creation of a robust complaint mechanism that is accessible to vulnerable individuals and groups, and the enhancement of engagement with CSOs as equal partners for the promotion and protection of human rights in the region. Further, we demand AICHR to push the agenda to revise its TOR to the AMS, particularly the ASEAN Foreign Ministers. AMS, on the other hand, need to ensure that the revision of AICHR’s TOR will include a more elaborate and detailed protection mandate, that it upholds professionalism and independence of AICHR representatives, and an innovative decision-making procedure that overrules the current non-interference and consensus building principles in the event of grave human rights violation.
Ten years of silence is enough. If the AICHR would like to be relevant to the struggle of the peoples of Southeast Asia and merit to be called a human rights commission, it needs to make major institutional changes, and take genuine steps towards the promise behind its creation.
For a PDF version of this statement, please click here.
Nov 9, 2020 | BHR, DFF, Statements
On the eve of the sixth anniversary of the enforced disappearance of Lao civil society leader Sombath Somphone, we, the undersigned organizations, reiterate our calls for the Lao government to conduct an independent, impartial and effective investigation to reveal his fate and whereabouts.
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, within minutes, 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 fact that police officers were present at and witnessed Sombath’s abduction and failed to intervene strongly indicates state agents’ involvement in, or acquiescence to, human rights violations committed against Sombath, which include the crime of enforced disappearance. Later that evening, witnesses reportedly saw Sombath at a police holding facility in Vientiane yet to date officials have provided no information about what he was doing there and subsequently what happened to him.
For the last six years, the Lao government has failed to provide any credible answers with regard to the disappearance of Sombath Somphone. In its most recent pronouncements, made during the review of Laos’ initial report by the Human Rights Committee (CCPR) in July 2018, the Lao government said it had been “trying very hard” to investigate Sombath’s fate and whereabouts. However, this statement has been contradicted by the government’s refusal to accept international assistance in conducting the investigation and to provide any details about the progress of its investigation. Lao authorities have failed to disclose any new findings from their investigation of Sombath’s case to the public since 8 June 2013 and have met with his wife, Shui Meng Ng, only twice since January 2013.
Despite the government’s recent claim that police had the “capacity and techniques” to reveal Sombath’s fate and whereabouts, we remain extremely concerned by the lack of progress in the investigation by Lao authorities into his case and reiterate our call for Vientiane to allow international assistance towards conducting an independent, impartial and thorough investigation according to international law and standards.
The Lao authorities have international legal obligations to conduct such investigations and to bring persons responsible for serious violations to justice under treaties to which they are party, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture.
We also urge the Lao government to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which Laos signed in September 2008, to incorporate the Convention’s provisions into the country’s domestic legislation, and implement it in practice.
Until Sombath Somphone’s fate and whereabouts are revealed, we will not stop demanding that Sombath be safely returned to his family and we will continue to ask the Lao government: “Where is Sombath?”
- 11.11 Belgium
- Action from Ireland (Afri)
- Addison Road Community Centre Organisation (ARCCO)
- All India women Hawker Federation
- Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma (ALTSEAN-Burma)
- Amnesty International
- Armanshahr/OPEN ASIA
- ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR)
- Asia Pacific Movement for Debt and Development (APMDD)
- Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD)
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia)
- Attac France
- Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED)
- Bank Information Center
- Borneo Dayak Forum International
- Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino – BMP (Workers Solidarity Philippines)
- Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR)
- Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC)
- Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO)
- CCFD-Terre Solidaire
- Centre for Environmental Justice
- China Labour Bulletin
- Christian Development Alternative (CDA)
- CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network)
- CNCD-11.11.11
- Coalition against Trafficking in Women-Asia Pacific
- Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS)
- Community Action Network (CAN)
- Community Resource Centre Foundation (CRC)
- Corner House
- EarthRights International
- Ecologistas en Acción
- Environics Trust
- Equitable Cambodia
- Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières (ESSF)
- Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND)
- FIAN International
- FIDH – International Federation for Human Rights
- Finnish Asiatic Society
- Focus on the Global South
- Fresh Eyes — People to People Travel CIC
- Function 8
- Fundacion Solón
- Global Justice Now
- Human Rights Commission Pakistan (HRCP)
- Human Rights in China (HRIC)
- Human Rights Watch
- Indian Social Action Forum – INSAF
- International Coalition Against Enforced Disappearances (ICAED)
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- International Peace Bureau
- International Rivers
- Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw)
- Jagaran Nepal
- KATARUNGAN (Kilusan para sa Repormang Agraryo at Katarungang Panlipunan)
- Kesatuan Nelayan Traditional (KNT)
- Keshav Gore Smarak Trust
- KRuHA – People’s Coalition for The Right To Water
- Labour Education Foundation
- Land Watch Thai
- League for the Defence of Human Rights in Iran (LDDHI)
- Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center–Kasama sa Kalikasan/Friends of the Earth
- LILAK (Purple Action for Indigenous Women’s Rights)
- Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)
- Maldivian Democracy Network
- Manushya Foundation
- MARUAH
- Migrant Forum in Asia
- National Hawker Federation
- Network for Transformative Social Protection
- New Trade Union Initiative
- NGO Forum on ADB
- Nomadic Livestock Keepers’ Development Public Fund (NLKDF)
- Nouveaux Cahiers du Socialism
- Odhikar
- Pakistan Bhatta Mazdoor Union
- Pakistan Kissan Rabita Committee
- Participatory Research Action Network- PRAN
- Peace Union of Finland
- People’s Health Movement
- People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy(PSPD)
- People’s Watch
- Progressive Labour Federation
- Progressive Voice
- Project SEVANA South-East Asia
- Project X
- Resonant Strategic
- Rural Poor Institute for Land and Human Rights Services, Inc. (RIGHTS, Inc.)
- Solidarité des Jeunes Lao
- South Asia Alliance for Poverty Eradication (SAAPE)
- Stiftung Asienhauses
- Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
- Sustainability and Participation through Education and Lifelong Learning (SPELL)
- Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR)
- Tameer Nau Women Workers Association
- Thilak Kariyawasam, Sri Lanka Nature Group
- Think Centre
- Timor-Leste Institute for Development Monitoring and Analysis
- Transnational Institute
- Ulu Foundation
- Union Syndicale Solidaires
- Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR)
- Woman Health Philippines
- Women’s Legal and Human Rights Bureau (WLB)
- World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
- World Rainforest Movement
- York Psychotherapy Centre
Individuals
- Ajaya Kumar Singh, India
- Ame Trandem, The Netherlands
- Andrew Nette, Australia
- Anne-Sophie Gindroz, Switzerland.
- Anuradha Chenoy, India
- Chansophearet, Cambodia
- Charlie Thame, Thailand
- Chayan Vaddhanaphuti, Thailand
- Christophe Aguiton, France
- Colin Archer
- Corazon Valdez Fabros, Philippines
- Cristina Machado, Portugal
- David Bruer, ICanada
- Edeliza P. Hernandez, Philippines.
- Elenita Daño, Philippines
- Glenn Hunt, Australia
- Jenina Joy Chavez, Philippines.
- Kamal Chenoy, India
- Kirsten Han, Singapore
- Maria Elena Grace D. Katigbak, Philippines
- Mary Ann Manahan, Philippines
- Mika Levesque
- Miriam Lang, Ecuador
- Mu Sochua, Cambodia
- Murray Hiebert, U.S.
- Nicolaas Bakker, Portugal
- Paul-Emile Dupret, Belgium
- Radhika Balakrishnan, USA
- Raffy Simbol, Philippines
- Rajeev Patel, USA.
- Randall Arnst, USA
- Rosanna Barbero, Australia
- Saturnino M. Borras Jr., The Netherlands
- Soren Sondergaard, Denmark
- Tony Salvador, Philippines
- Walden Bello, USA
- William H. Dangers, USA
Nov 9, 2020 | BHR, DFF, Statements
JAKARTA — Regional MPs today condemned the killing of indigenous, environmental activist Ricardo Pugong Mayumi in the Philippines earlier this month and called for a prompt and thorough investigation into his murder.
ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) said the killing highlights the increasingly hostile climate faced by activists in the Philippines, and reflects broader regional and global trends that have seen a rising tide of threats and violence against land and environmental rights defenders. APHR also urged the Philippine government, along with all ASEAN member governments, to do more to promote and protect the rights of indigenous communities.
“This case is emblematic of the grave dangers faced by Filipinos, particularly those from indigenous communities, who choose to exercise their fundamental rights as they seek to protect their land, natural resources, and livelihoods. We urge the relevant authorities in the Philippines to undertake a full investigation and bring perpetrators to account. Justice must be served,” said APHR Board Member Eva Kusuma Sundari, a member of the Indonesian House of Representatives.
Mayumi, an indigenous person and environmental rights defender, was shot dead on 2 March at his home in Ifugao province in the Philippines. As a leader of the Ifugao Peasant Movement (IPM), he had been involved in organizing opposition to a major hydropower project planned for the area. He and other IPM members reportedly had been receiving death threats since at least 2012.
Parliamentarians noted that Mayumi’s case is only one of a large number of similar killings. The Philippines has been the deadliest country in Asia for land and environmental rights defenders in the past three years, according to statistics from the NGO Global Witness, and 2017 alone saw 41 of them killed in the country, out of a total of nearly 200 murdered globally. Hundreds more have faced judicial harassment, intimidation, and threats, including from top government officials.
“It’s dangerous to be an environmental rights defender anywhere in the world these days, but especially in the Philippines, where large corporations are increasingly trampling on community lands and livelihoods, and impunity too often reigns. It is also deeply distressing that the government appears actively hostile to the idea of protecting human rights defenders,” Sundari said.
In a related development, MPs also expressed concern about the inclusion of UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, along with other indigenous activists from the Philippines, on a list of alleged members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA), following the recent submission by the Justice Department of a petition to list these entities as “terrorist organizations.”
“This is a deeply dangerous move by the government. In a context where indigenous people put their lives on the line each and every day to defend their rights, labeling them as ‘terrorists’ adds insult to injury and further undermines their security and basic rights,” said APHR Board Member Walden Bello, a former Philippine Congressman.
APHR noted that the problem of impunity for similar attacks also extends beyond the Philippines, with indigenous and environmental activists killed, imprisoned, and threatened across the ASEAN region. In Cambodia, for instance, three people, including conservation workers, were shot dead after confronting illegal loggers in January. Last year also saw the extra-judicial killing of an indigenous activist in Thailand, an incident which has yet to be properly investigated, despite calls from APHR and other groups. In addition, pursuing justice in cases where powerful individuals are caught undermining environmental protection efforts is often an uphill battle, APHR said, highlighting the recent case of a construction company mogul in Thailand caught poaching in a wildlife sanctuary.
“These corporate elites see the environment as a poaching ground. As ASEAN integration proceeds apace, we must work as a region to make sure that the benefits do not accrue only to the elite and corporations, but also to people at the grassroots. Safeguards are needed to ensure that local communities do not continue to be victimized and attacked for demanding their rights,” Bello said.
“Lawmakers have a duty to help put such safeguards in place. Multinational corporations, which all too often are connected to these incidents, need to take responsibility as well,” he added.
Nov 9, 2020 | BHR, DFF, FoRB, RM, Statements
JAKARTA – Southeast Asian leaders meeting in Singapore this week must address pressing regional human rights concerns, including by taking steps to reform and strengthen ASEAN’s human rights mechanisms. That was the call from ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) today in a letter to heads of state in advance of the 32ndASEAN Summit.
“As regional integration proceeds, it is imperative for ASEAN to ensure that a focus on human rights is included in all pillars and sectors of the organization. ASEAN must also strengthen the protection mandates of its human rights bodies, if it seeks to be seen as a credible and outward-looking regional bloc,” the letter reads.
The letter comes on the heels of a series of setbacks for democracy and human rights in Southeast Asia in the past 12 months. APHR has previously highlighted concerning situations in a number of countries, including a brutal military campaign in Myanmar against the minority Rohingya, an unprecedented assault on independent civil society and the opposition in Cambodia, and attacks on press freedom from governments across the region.
“In the last year, we have seen an especially alarming regression of democracy and human rights protections region-wide. It is deeply worrying that ASEAN has largely stood by silently as the problems have mounted, and that mechanisms such as the AICHR and ACWC still lack the mandate or capacity to properly address them,” said APHR Chairperson Charles Santiago.
Singapore, as Chair of the bloc for 2018, has prioritized efforts to address emerging security challenges and promote economic integration through innovation, which are expected to be key themes for discussion at the upcoming Summit on 26-28 April. While supportive of these priorities, APHR emphasized in its letter the importance of addressing these challenges holistically.
Parliamentarians stressed the need to tackle a broad set of emerging security concerns, including those that emanate from a lack of accountability and adherence to the rule of law within states, highlighting, in particular, the plight of the Rohingya.
“In recent weeks, Malaysia and Indonesia have seen the arrival of boats carrying Rohingya fleeing longstanding persecution in Myanmar; this is clearly a regional concern. ASEAN can help put an end to this crisis, but it must address rights abuses in tandem with the multitude of other security challenges concerning member states,” said Indonesian MP Eva Kusuma Sundari, an APHR Board member.
In the context of economic integration, MPs highlighted concerns about the rights of local communities, including indigenous communities, as well as the need for better safeguards for migrant workers, calling on ASEAN leaders to ensure that the ASEAN Community is able to become a truly people-centered one.
“As ASEAN’s integration effort accelerates, we must push harder for economic development that is inclusive and sustainable. It’s time for ASEAN to send a strong message that economic growth at the expense of the welfare of the people, is unacceptable and cannot be considered progress at all,” Charles Santiago argued.
MPs also urged their leaders to return to and strengthen core elements of the ASEAN Charter, adopted during Singapore’s previous Chairmanship in 2007.
“This is an opportune time for Singapore to continue what it started and take the lead towards achieving the human rights aspirations laid out in the Charter,” Eva Sundari concluded.
“The ASEAN Charter mandates that member states respect and promote democracy, good governance, sustainable development, and human rights, honorable promises that ring hollow unless proper mechanisms are put in place, including the identification and implementation of strategic indicators.”
Click here to read the letter
Read the statement in Thai or Bahasa Indonesia
คลิกที่นี่เพื่ออ่านแถลงการณ์เป็นภาษาไทย
Klik di sini untuk membaca pernyataan ini dalam Bahasa Indonesia
