2015-2016 News

On the eve of the historic vote, Asia Centre convened a roundtable to discuss perspectives and predictions on the outcome of the US Presidential Elections. Entitled, “The 2016 US Elections: Change At Last?” the event was held in partnership with the Asian American Journalists Association (AAJA). The roundtable panel featured a former US ambassador, academics of various nationalities and disciplines and a journalist. All discussants provided their insight and analysis on the campaign period, what they saw as key determinants of the election and the impact the results would have on Asia. Margaret MacMillion, Former Ambassador of the United States to Rwanda discussed the foreign policy implications. Kevin Downey form Thammasat University and Jerimiah Morris from Mahidol University International College, both American nationals living and teaching in Thailand, discussed the political system in the US and political discourse in a “post-fact” world. Pablo Ramirez, Bangkok University, a Mexican national, examined campaign rhetoric towards hispanics and its meaning for Mexico – US relations. Mike Raomanachai from AAJA shared his experiences covering the Democratic convention during previous elections and discussed the role that media coverage and social media in particular has played. Salient points raised during the discussion included: The dissonance between the elites and the electorate; The inherent two-party nature of the US electoral system and the adaptability of the Republican Party despite current internal difficulties; As during the Brexit debate in the UK, the American electoral campaign  discourse was far removed from facts on the ground; The pressures imposed by populist forces on the independence of media in a post-fact world; The global uncertainty that would accompany a Trump presidency in the form of a more isolationist and burden sharing relationship with US allies and The disaffection with the United States felt across Latin America in light of the anti-hispanic and anti-Mexican rhetoric that was crassly exploited for political gain. During the Q&A session, participants pondered the impact of FBI investigations into Hillary Clinton’s emails, how the rhetoric of the campaign was being received outside US and the continued viability of a two party system given Trump’s candidacy on the Republican party. Much attention was also focused on the rise of highly populist political discourse in an age of austerity and the willingness of the disaffected and disenfranchised middle classes to accept post-factual discourse, often driven by a “fake news” originating over social media. Consistent with polling, panelists at the Asian Centre roundtable predicted a Trump defeat. However, the result has shown otherwise.  The Centre will continue to monitor the impact of the Trump presidency in Asia.

A United Nations initiative reviewing human rights records of countries around the world is indirectly strengthening civil society organisations in Southeast Asia by allowing them to participate in the process. But the groups are still blocked from ensuring human rights are meaningfully protected in their countries. The UN General Assembly established its Human Rights Council and introduced the universal periodic review of the human rights situation in member countries in 2006. The ten Southeast Asian countries that make up ASEAN – Brunei Darussalam, Myanmar, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam – have now undergone two cycles of review, while a few remaining nations are awaiting the second round. Under the process, states report to the commission every four-and-a-half years and receive its recommendations. Reviews focus on the evolution of human rights in that state, and its implementation of previous recommendations. The state under review may either “accept” or “note” the suggestions. Recommendations that states tend to accept are those around improving gender equality, accessibility for those with disabilities, and children’s rights, which has gained particular prominence during the review. Recommendations that aren’t as acceptable tend to involve hard political issues related to civil and political liberties. Unsurprisingly, it’s usually the latter that are detailed in submissions by civil society organisations. A role for civil society Civil society participation in the universal periodic review of ASEAN countries has increased markedly over the two cycles. Some 592 such organisations participated in the first cycle in 2008-2012, with 188 submissions; the second cycle (2012-2016) saw a strong increase, with 811 groups submitting 310 reports (personal, unpublished research). The rise has put civil society groups at the centre of the UN human rights improvement process. But this isn’t the first time such groups have been at the heart of human rights advocacy in the region. Civil society groups, such as the coalition known as the Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, helped push individual countries to join the 2009 ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), and the 2012 ASEAN Declaration on Human Rights. But since the establishment of the AICHR, civil society has disappeared from the process. Instead, the commission follows a secretive peer-review process in which such groups have no formal role. Although AICHR is supposed to be engaged in human rights promotion and protection work, in reality it is unable to provide any actual protection. It is not mandated to receive complaints on human rights abuses, and does not have the power to investigate and hold perpetrators accountable. In fact, the bulk of AICHR activities revolve around meetings, discussions and research that have a consensual approach. Similarly, national human rights institutions also cannot realistically contribute to the region’s protection arsenal. Research shows that, just like the AICHR, national institutions are not able to perform their protection function effectively. These weak mechanisms raise the question of whether national human rights institutions in Southeast Asia can fill the protection gap. They also make human rights protection in the region weak, and in dire need of improvement and enhancement. Given the weakness of AICHR and national human rights institutions, engagement with the universal periodic review is critical to the advancement of human rights in Southeast Asia. Being clever about it Since the establishment of the universal periodic review process, civil society groups in the region have been receiving training, preparing submissions, and even making their way to Geneva. In 2015, for instance, five civil society groups from Singapore went on a trip to Switzerland to discuss human rights in the city-state. Civil society groups have become involved in monitoring state recommendations and their implementation, as well as speaking on the review process itself. Many have attracted international donor funding and support for this work. US-based The Carter Center, for instance, has published a document titled Universal Periodic Review: Training Manual for Civil Society. While states in the region espouse the rhetoric of engagement with civil society groups over the review process, they are, at the same time, cautious of them. Governments often only pay lip service to human rights mechanisms and the periodic review is no different. This issue was raised in 2015 by local civil society groups against the Laos government, over the disappearance of activist Sombath Somphone and persecution of Lao Christians. Overall it seems that states favour the current arrangement because they can use it to control the participation of civil society organisations in the process. They can create legal obstructions, target organisations, place restrictions on civil society activities, and harass and intimidate activists. In a 2015 report, civil society body CIVICUS discussed cases from Cambodia, Malaysia, Philippines and Vietnam, in which governments have responded with misinformation, arranged for voluminous submissions by government-organised NGOs, and conducted consultations only with partisan groups, while refusing to work with civil society groups that are more critical of government policy. Some have enrolled supportive organisations to speak during sessions at the adoption of the working group report by the commission. While others, such as Vietnam, have objected to the granting of consultative status to some NGOs. Nonetheless, for Southeast Asian civil society groups, the review has been an effective mechanism for putting human rights issues on the agenda and engaging their governments in conversation about critical issues, such as LGBTI rights in Indonesia. But systemic problems remain for engaging others. These include following up on recommendations and the review’s ability to address difficult political issues, such as the lese majeste law in Thailand, which forbids citizens from defaming or insulting the kind, and other freedom of expression issues. To have the review make a real impact, civil society organisations will need to think about what they’ve been doing and develop more strategic approaches for the third cycle, which begins in 2017. They will need to go beyond coalition-building and organising submissions to determining how they can make human rights protections actually enforceable. Dr. James Gomez- Executive Director, Asia Centre & Pro Vice Chancellor, Canadian University of Bangladesh Reproduced from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/un-human-rights-review-is-largely-toothless-but-its-giving-a-boost-to-asian-civil-society-groups-65644

From October 14 to 17 2016, Asia Centre in partnership with International Forum for Inter-Media Art and Brack organised a cross-sector collaboration workshop. Conceptualised by Asia Centre Associate and iFima founder Dr Jay Koh, the 4 day conference cum workshop; explored how to stir civic consciousness and foster open social structures through public participation and engagement. The opening session on the 14th of October featured a discussion on Engaged Listening Across Fields of Practice with Dr Patama Satawedin (Som), Director of the Master of Communication Arts Programme at Bangkok University and Dr Jeremiah F. Morris, lecturer in Media and Communications at Mahidol University International College. Participants were very much engaged in the discussions which continued on at the welcome dinner later that evening. The following two days of the conference proper featured panel discussions designed to facilitate critical engagement. Presenters gave short presentations on their research and projects, this was followed by feedback and input from respondents before the discussion was open to the floor for further input. Each panel explored a different aspect of artistic engagement, praxis and research, covering the following areas: Art Praxis in Public: Engaging “Others” Contemporising Art History with Current Practices Innovation, Education & Sustainability: Citizen Science, Arts Management and Social Entrepreneurship Art Praxis in Public: Participation & Collaboration Artistic Research: To Ground a Constructive & Progressive Praxis Arts & Health: Clients, Victims & Participants   The final day featured a participant-led workshop using Open Space and World Cafe methods of participative and consultative processes. Participants then explored two case studies of collaborative projects, the first being the Bangkok based 3C – Canal, Cycling, Community project designed to engage the community living by the canal through art and cycling. The second case study considered was a research project on Art in Action, focused on using art strategies to initiate, support and engage social transformations. This gathering of artists, educators and practitioners from countries in the Asia Pacific region and beyond provided a space for diverse and different perspectives.

New York-based Japanese photographer and anti-death penalty activist Toshi Kazama held a photo exhibition and discussion of his work on 11 October 2016 at The Sukosol Hotel. Asia Centre facilitated the discussion and networking session following Mr Kazama’s presentation which focused on how he uses photography as a tool to express his point of view on human rights and specifically on the death penalty. A diverse crowd of about 35 people came together to listen to Mr Kazama narrate the stories behind each picture exhibited; those of people on death row and the execution methods in various countries. Asia Centre’s Dr. Robin Ramcharan managed the audience’’s queries on Mr. Kazama’s perspective on the use of the death penalty in the ASEAN region. Key questions from the audience centred around events in the Philippines and Indonesia that have reignited the debate on the the use of the death penalty to tackle crime. Other issues raised by the audience touched on the morality of the death penalty and the role of the media. This audience discussion was followed by a networking session where participants could view the  photo exhibition and further their conversations with Mr. Kazama. The Focus on Life discussion and photo exhibition was part of the End Crime Not Life regional campaign against the death penalty which will continue its tour through major cities in ASEAN. You can learn more about the campaign at the following link: http://www.endcrimenotlife.com/ The photo exhibition, discussion and networking was a parallel event to the SEAHRN 4th International Conference on Human Rights and Peace in Southeast Asia facilitated by Asia Centre.

From 19 to 30 September 2016, Asia Centre held a Media & Communications Workshop for students from the University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh. The two week experiential learning programme was designed to give students an introduction to the Asian media landscape, hone their practical skills and undertake a multimedia project of their own. The programme kicked off with an orientation to the course and brainstorming for their media project under the guidance of Asia Centre’s Dr. James Gomez and Dr Robin. Ramcharan. The group then participated in a team building scavenger hunt to help them work together and learn to navigate Bangkok. Classroom sessions during the first week were focused on understanding the marketing and communication strategies for businesses. Bamboo Labs, a social media and digital marketing start-up introduced students to their latest software designed to help people who are learning English. They introduced their product and discussed some of the challenges in getting it to the target markets. Students also participated in a session facilitated by Brice Degeyter from The Football Agency, a sports sponsorship and activation company using the platform of football to attract, connect and engage with the consumers in Asia. Beyond the classroom, students were able to network with journalists, political commentators and academics at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand. The highlight of the event was a panel discussion on Religious Tolerance in Thailand featuring Mrs Angkhana Neelapaijit, a Commissioner from the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand. They also visited the ASEAN Cultural Centre which provided an excellent introduction to the diversity of the region and the historical linkages between Southeast Asian countries through trade as well as the spread of religion and colonisation.  Beyond the fun of the interactive exhibitions on national costumes and glimpses into the food and flavours of Southeast Asia, the visit also provided critical information on the populations, politics and present day conditions in the region. Their introduction to the Thai media landscape came in the form of a visit to Voice TV, one of the country’s most popular news and variety channels. Students got the opportunity to tour the studios, witness a live broadcast and field their questions to Voice TV’s lead news anchor Teerat Ratanasevi. Week one of the workshop rounded off with students pitching their projects to their advisors who provided advice and critique on their objectives and strategies for carrying out their multimedia projects. In the second week of the workshop, a visit to the Thai Public Broadcasting Service allowed students to understand some of the challenges of producing critical content in the context of shrinking civil and political space for discourse. They also toured the studios and spoke with staff in the television and radio broadcasting departments. They were able to network with students and faculty at Stenden University, Thailand during a discussion on academic and industry collaboration. Students spent much of the week venturing out into the big city to conduct their interviews and take photos and videos for their final project. Navigating the bustling alleyways of Chinatown was an excellent opportunity to understand the dynamics of the different communities within Bangkok and to contemplate the impact of China on the region. They also toured areas relevant to their particular subject matter. At the end of the week the students presented their findings to a panel of experts including journalists, media and communications experts and lecturers. The topics covered in the multimedia projects displayed a diverse and nuanced appreciation of Bangkok, from its train system to the everyday experiences of Muslim minorities and the off the beaten track adventures of backpackers. Presented through storytelling, short videos and photo essays, the students also made efforts to uncover lessons that could apply to their own lives in Bangladesh, from developing Bangladesh as the next budget travel hotspot to inclusive urban planning strategies. The workshop was structured to include learning  and practical components with in-class activities complemented by learning visits to media companies and opportunities to network and interact with industry professionals. At the end to two weeks the students displayed critical thinking, developed insight into the media landscape and understood the context surrounding each story. They also demonstrated their professional skills and competencies in interviewing, photography and video editing in the execution of their projects. Asia Centre will be running the Media & Communications Workshop on a regular basis, if you are interested in honing your professional skills as a budding journalist, building your network in media and communications and  learning to think critically about issues facing the region, sign up for our next workshop from 9-20th January 2017.

The UPR has been an effective mechanism for putting human rights issues on the agenda and engaging states in conversation about critical issues. However, systemic problems remain with regards to engagement with other stakeholders, the implementation of recommendations by governments, the efficacy of follow up processes and the UPR’s ability to address hard political issues. These were key takeaways from Asia Centre’s conference, Universal Periodic Review in Southeast Asia: An Evidence-Based Regional Assessment, held from 15 to 17 September 2016 at Asia Centre’s premises in Bangkok. Asia Centre’s first international conference on the Universal Periodic Review in Southeast Asia was held in partnership with Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, Heinrich Böll Stiftung Southeast Asia, and Stenden Thailand.  Asia Centre Conferences: Designed For Discourse The conference hosted thirteen presenters and upwards of fifty participants whose discussions were structured around thematic clusters on stakeholder involvement, minority rights, civil and political freedoms and the death penalty. It included country specific discussions on Indonesia, Timor-Leste, Malaysia, Laos, Singapore, Myanmar, Brunei and Thailand. Researchers were provided slots to present their findings (See Conference Proceedings). The conference’s program can be found here. Watch the conference’s video here.  Day One: The Conversation Is Key  The first day of the conference saw over 30 participants from diverse backgrounds including members of civil society organisation, national human rights institutions, academia, the United Nations, as well as students. Some of the key discussion points to emerge from the first day of discourse, included the value of the UPR as a platform for dialogue, interaction with other UN and regional human rights mechanisms, patterns of enhanced CSO engagement with the process as well as the role that other stakeholders such national human rights institutions can play in monitoring the implementation of recommendations. There were also issue specific discussions on the role of the UPR in pushing for the abolition of the death penalty and the efficacy of the process in addressing past human rights abuses in Timor-Leste. Day Two: Emerging Patterns & Trends in Engagement The second day of the conference saw more in-depth discussion on how specific countries were engaging on contentious issues. This covered freedom of expression in Thailand, freedom of religion and belief in Indonesia and civil and political rights in Singapore. The discussion on how minority rights were raised under the UPR centred on the experiences of the Hmong community in Laos as well as a regional overview of the particular challenges faced by LGBTIQ human rights, defenders prepared by Destination Justice. One critical discussion point on day two was the approach to engagement, with the Lutheran World Federation backing making the most of the non-confrontational nature of the UPR dialogue to push for solutions rather than naming and shaming. The plenary session provided an overview of emerging patterns and trends in interaction with the UPR such as greater CSO participation and coalition building efforts.It also called into question the efficacy of mid-term reporting and follow up processes. Day Three: Southeast Asia & the UPR: All Talk & No Action? The final day of the conference was an  open forum discussion titled Southeast Asia & the UPR: All Talk & No Action? This session was open to members of the public and it attracted an audience over 25 people. The panel featured Imesh Pokharel from Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights(OHCHR) Regional Office Bangkok, Michael J V White from the New Zealand Human Rights Commission, Celine Martin from Destination Justice and Gymbay Moua from the World Congress of Hmong People. The panelists shared their first hand experiences of engaging with the UPR process, highlighting key challenges faced and offering input on some of the best practices from their respective organisations. It was a very interactive discussion, moderated by Asia Centre’s Robin Ramcharan and it provided a unique entry point into the UPR for members of the public who were interested in understanding the process. Overall Asia Centre’s inaugural conference was successful in creating a platform for participatory discourse among different stakeholders who are actively engaged in with the UPR. It provided all present the opportunity to identify trends and patterns of engagement with the UPR over the two cycles and provided critical analysis of the UPR’s achievement in Southeast Asia. There was also discussion of establishing an evidence-based UPR network with the conference participants forming a core The conference inspired Asia Centre’s publication: The Universal Periodic Review of Southeast Asia: Civil Society Perspectives. Published in 2018, it identifies the trends and patterns of engagement with the UPR over the two cycles, provides analyses of the UPR framework’s achievement specific to Southeast Asia, and forecasts the likely developments in the 3rd cycle.

UK voters were not properly informed by political leaders about the functions, institutions and powers of the EU, which has made a great contribution to the prosperity of the UK and peace in Europe. As a result, Britain’s referendum vote of 23 June 2016 ended up with a “leave the European Union (EU)” result – aka ‘Brexit’. This was the key conclusion from Asia Centre’s roundtable which attracted some 50 participants from academia, international organizations, the media, the NGO community, the public sector and the private sector.   The panel (L-R) was moderated by Asia Centre’s Dr Robin Ramcharan and featured Alexandra Demetrianova, Thammasat University; Dr. David Moore, Portland State University;Dr. Kenneth Houston, Webster University and Dr.Peter Shearman, Chulalongkorn University.         Among the other points made, the panellists noted that the Brexit vote was predictable and that it reflected voter dissatisfaction with political elites in Britain. However, the vote testifies to the enduring power of nationalism even as the world globalizes.  Local identities still matter, as evidenced by demands for local autonomy in parts of the UK.   But early indications are that the UK will not trigger its Article 50 notice to leave the EU until first quarter 2017 at the earliest. From that point, two years is allowed for the negotiation of post-Brexit trade, military, diplomatic, legal and social policy and legislation changes (amongst others) before the full exit happens.     So – the earliest possible exit date is end of 2018. More likely, it will be later. Hence, the Brexit saga is expected to continue for some time. While the EU will endure, it will be weakened by Britain’s eventual exit. This makes the EU very vulnerable to forces of fragmentation moving forward. In order to stem such challenges, the EU needs to better sell itself across generations and across Europe.

Cause lawyers set themselves apart in their profession by using the law as tool for social justice. They protect the rights of marginalised communities and bridge the gap between law as it is written in the books and the law as it is lived and experienced.   This was how our panelists described the linchpin role that cause lawyers play in advocating for justice. Cause Lawyering: In Conversation With Regional Advocates was held on 14 May 2016 and attracted about 20 participants.   Mr. Henning Glaser, Director of the  German-Southeast Asia Centre of Excellence for Public Policy and Good Governance at Thammasat University provided an overview of how lawyers work to achieve justice for marginalised communities.  The panel also explored on the role that lawyers and advocates play on the issue of the death penalty, with human rights lawyer and anti-death penalty advocate M.Ravi sharing his personal experiences fighting against Singapore’s draconian death penalty laws. Akanit Horatanakun from Amnesty International Thailand providing an update on the use of the death penalty in Thailand.   The event also saw the Bangkok launch of M Ravi’s critically acclaimed autobiography Kampong Boy. His book, Kampong Boy,was shortlisted for the 2014 Singapore Literature Prize. It is on sale at Asia Centre.