2017 Centre News

Asia Centre and Monash University co-hosted a roundtable on the Rohingya Crisis on 15 December 2017, which was held at the National Centre for South Asian Studies at Monash. Experts and discussants pondered the causes and the future of the humanitarian efforts, including the November 2017 agreement between Bangladesh and Myanmar for the return of over 700,000 Rohingya to Rakhine State. Whereas the UN and wider international community have responded within constrained parameters, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) appears to be impotent in the face of one of the worse cases of gross and massive violations of human rights in recent times. Even if the Rohingya in Bangladesh return to Rakhine, the core underlying causes of the crisis still remain – their statelessness and consequent lack of rights in Myanmar. In October of this year Asia Centre also hosted a human rights dialogue which saw  the Ambassador of Bangladesh highlighting the Bangladesh response to the Rohingya crisis.  The Centre aims to pursue further work on the situation of the Rohingya in 2018.  

The desperate plight of the Rohingya people in Myanmar was raised by the Ambassador of Bangladesh, H.E. Ms. Saida Muna Tasneem during an address at Asia Centre to youth from South Asia and Thailand. As Bangladesh bore the brunt of the influx of refugees, Ambassador Tasneem made an impassioned plea for the world and Southeast Asia to both care about and act resolutely to address the humanitarian crisis in Myanmar, which the international community has called “Ethnic Cleansing”. The United States has also labeled the situation ‘ethnic cleansing’.   It will be recalled that over 600,000 Rohingya refugees have fled into Bangladesh and some to other parts of the world since the latest exodus started following violence in Rakhine State on 25 August 2017. Mostly women and children have made it to Bangladesh in refugee camps of Kutupalong and Nayapara, as well as in makeshift sites. Overall, since October last year some 700,000 have fled to neighbouring countries due to the Myanmar Government’s ‘clearing operations’. Despite a recent agreement between Bangladesh and Myanmar on the return of the Rohingya to Myanmar, based on a 1992/93 repatriation pact, history suggests that any return will be a very long term process and the thorny issue of their citizenship will remain.   The Rohingya people have faced discrimination and persecution in Myanmar for decades. The Myanmar government maintains that they are ‘Bangladeshis’ who migrated in recent times to Myanmar and withdrew their citizenship rights in 1982. This condition of statelessness has seriously aggravated their livelihoods, as they are thus prevented from enjoying their most basic rights, including religious freedom. Amnesty International noted that the Rohingya lived under state-sponsored, institutionalized discrimination that amounted to apartheid, in a November 2017 Report.   Women in particular have borne the brunt of the atrocities being committed. A United Nations women’s rights panel has requested the Myanmar to report within six months on allegations of sexual violence by its Security forces. This ‘exceptional report’ by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, was issued because the committee felt very compelled to do so due to “reports of sexual violence, rape, torture, mutilation” that women were allegedly being subjected to.  Nobel Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s silence on the Rohingyas, universally condemned by her international peers, is even more striking in this context.   The Ambassador, while stressing her country’s compassionate response to the crisis despite its many existing challenges, also made a plea to the youth assembled at Asia Centre, in late October 2017, to never let this happen again. She emphasized that it was youth activism for human rights in other parts of the world, notably young people in Southern United States in the 1940s and 1950s, whose courage led to the greatest advances in human rights in that country.   This was critical in the context of international and regional political mechanisms that appear to be ineffective in responding to crimes against humanity, despite the nascent ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine. His Holiness Pope Francis’s well intentioned visit to Myanmar in late November 2017, was undertaken with great trepidation as he too was advised against the use of the word “Rohingya”, out of fear that there could be backlash against Christian minorities. The Pope made a necessary visit, especially as the Myanmar government denies any faith based conflict on its territory, for peace and harmony among all faiths and for reconciliation.

On Thursday 30 November, Asia Centre participated in the SDG (Sustainable Development Goals) Week organized by UN’s Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.     This year’s event focused on innovation – integration – inclusiveness and implementing the 2030 agenda for sustainable development in Asia and the Pacific. The SDG Week brought together government organizations, intergovernmental partners and agencies, regional organizations, businesses, think tanks, academia and other stakeholders to engage in discussions on effective implementation of the SDGs.   Throughout the SDG week Asia Centre showcased its work at the Pavilion of Partnerships alongside other social enterprises, civil society organizations and universities among others. Asia Centre’s Michelle D’cruz and Tessa Alleblas also joined discussions in the Bazaar of Ideas where social enterprises and start-ups presented innovative solutions to economic, social and environmental problems and to promote sustainable development. These included projects on social housing, tackling the waste problem by providing biodegradable alternatives, and removing waste from the ocean and turning this into clothing and accessories.   Asia Centre continues to follow discussions on SDGs closely and remains committed to promoting sustainable development through its work on human rights. As part of this commitment, the Asia Centre will organize an international conference on business and human rights in July 2018.  

Four speakers came forward to share their research interests in their respective fields at AsiaCentre’s third International Faculty Club (IFC) Night. They spoke on a variety of topics, including niche areas such as on representations of Tibetan Buddhism in contemporary China, women’s entrepreneurship and digital technologies and linguistics.   Jingyu (Forrest) Huang, introduced his study on a three-dimensional Buddhist Mandala in Pule Temple, in Chengde, China, and the understandings of these works in contemporary China. He shared his keen interest in the art history of Tibetan Buddhism.  He is a Master’s student at the College of Religious Studies of Mahidol University.   Gender, migration and entrepreneurship was discussed by Puja Singh who is pursuing a doctorate focusing on this theme. She highlighted the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and enterprise performance with women’s empowerment as mediator. Her ideas solicited much discussion and interest in the models that she is developing.   Research into linguistics for second language learners using digital technologies is Willard Van De Bogart’s area of expertise. He is a lecture and researcher at Bangkok University and offered his insights into this cutting edge research field.   Youth engagement and empowerment also featured in the evening’s discussions as Hamsa Mohamed, a student at Stamford International University, introduced his work with and the role of AISEC in generating future leaders with innovative solutions to world challenges.   The evening saw new faces joining the IFC community of academics, researchers and students.Held on 23 November at Asia Centre, IFC attracted over 20 participants for the line up of speakers.     Asia Centre will continue to engage with the community through the IFC in 2018 and to seek new, innovative research and projects being undertaken in Bangkok and beyond.   Meeting Spaces

Asia Centre is pleased to announce its membership in ADPAN, which works towards abolishing the death penalty in Southeast Asia and beyond, on the occasion of the 15th world anti-death penalty day on October 10, 2017.  Southeast Asia has seen a resurgence in the use of the death penalty in recent years, notably in Malaysia and Singapore. Whereas it has been abolished in the Philippines since 2006, the current government seeks to re-instate its use. Indonesia and Vietnam appear to use this sentence liberally. Moratoria remain in other parts of the region. The right to life is guaranteed under international human rights law.  The death penalty for all types of offences runs counter to this fundamental right. Powerful arguments against this penalty have been advanced: 1) That the practice of the death penalty – an ‘eye for an eye’ approach – by States is not a good basis on which to build a peaceful society; 2) That this sentence is used mostly against poorer segments of society and vulnerable communities, such as the LGBTI community for the act of gay sex; 3) That it does not deter crime; 4) That miscarriages of justice may occur as many on death row may in fact be innocent; 5) That various methods of execution involve much pain and suffering to those sentenced (as powerfully depicted in the work of anti-death penalty artist Toshi Kazami); and 6) That long periods on ‘death row’ inflicts cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment on those thus sentenced and causes and pain on their families. The United Nations (UN) has urged states to respect the rights of those facing the death penalty, to progressively restrict its use and to reduce the number of offences for which this sentence is used. UN Secretary General (SG) Antonio Guterres has stated that there was “no place for the death penalty in 21st Century” during an anti-death penalty event of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on 10 October in New York.  Globally, some 170 countries have either abolished or stopped using the death penalty. The SG noted that four countries only were responsible for 87 per cent of all remaining executions and expressed concern over a worrying trend towards reversing long-standing moratoria. Asia Centre has supported initiatives in line with ADPAN’s mission, which is to work for the abolition of the death penalty primarily across Asia and the Pacific and the world at large. The Centre organized a regional panel on the death penalty in 2015 and facilitated a discussion on Toshi Kazami’s exhibition in Bangkok in October 2016.  TheCentre participated in ADPAN’s General Assembly as an observer on 20 July 2017 in Kuala Lumpur and also contributed to the subsequent two-day National Conference on the Abolition of the Death Penalty in Malaysia and in Asia-Pacific. During the National Conference the Centre’s Dr. Robin Ramcharan called attention to the need for better and more strategic use of the Universal Periodic Review in efforts to advocate for abolition of the death penalty. Likewise, National Human Right Institutions have a vital role to play. Asia Centre engages in evidence-based research on regional human rights issues and mechanisms, including on the death penalty. In July 2018, Asia Centre will examine, inter alia, the capacity of regional human rights instruments to contribute to the elimination of the death penalty.

The opportunities for greater engagement and exchange between Africa and Asia are numerous and can lead to mutual benefit for the regions. This was key-takeaway from Africa-Asia roundtable held at Asia Centre on 5th October 2017. Bandung Revisited: Africa-Asia Relations in the 21st Century was convened in partnership with Stenden University Thailand and attracted a diverse audience of over 30 including members of the African diaspora in Thailand. H.E Ambassador Geoff Doidge, Embassy of the Republic of South Africa to the Kingdom of Thailand, opened the event by looking back at the contributions of the 1954 Bandung Afro-Asian conference, which championed the cause of freedom in Africa as colonial empires waned after World War II. The Ambassador called for the regions to rekindle the Bandung spirit of mutual cooperation and peaceful coexistence in addressing contemporary development  and security challenges. Dr. Sarut Wittayarungruangsri from Bolliger & Company (Thailand) Ltd then provided an economist perspective on Africa-Asia relations, noting opportunities for collaboration, technological transfer and increasing intra and inter regional trade and investment.   Disaster Management expert, Mrs Rene Oosthuizen from Stenden University South Africa provided insight on the lessons that Asia might learn from Africa in the areas of disaster preparedness and protecting vulnerable communities.     Rounding up the discussion was Dr. Roland Amoussou-Guenou of Vovan & Associates Bangkok who pointed to the greater level of regional integration in Africa and lessons and opportunities for the regions.       The Q&A session was moderated by Ms. Chiedza Mutsaka Skyum, a lecturer from Stenden University Thailand and also an Asia Centre Associate, sparked conversations on the role of China and the African nations. With the low level of awareness and engagement on Africa-Asia relations in this region, Asia Centre’s roundtable discussion help to this bring issue into the public domain. Asia Centre looks forward to working with Stenden University Thailand and engaging in African issues as they relate to Asia.   

Asia Centre’s International Faculty Club gained momentum as people gathered for the second installment dedicated to interdisciplinary discourse and networking. Held on 1 Sep at Asia Centre’s premises, the event attracted about 25 participants from different academic and professional backgrounds, all keen to engage on subject matters outside of their comfort zones. Six speakers took to the floor to share their research and experience on a range of issues from philosophy to architecture,  to fundraising and on environmental governance. Eva Rappoport, a Mahidol University Ph.D student, presented her research on spirit possession in Javanese culture, set to the backdrop of a collection of photographs on the subject that she had taken while in Java. This niche area of research definitely struck a chord with the participants who were interested her insight into the connection with Islam, the role of youth in such activities as well its intrinsic value to the community. Dr Taro Mochizuki, a visiting professor at Chulalongkorn University’s Faculty of Arts introduced his passion for the development of Southeast Asian philosophy while Jonathan Rhodes, an independent environmental consultant, gave an overview of his work in environmental governance. Another hot topic for the evening was captured in a presentation by Francisco Garcia Moro, an architect who is researching urban governance in Southeast Asia. His presentation captured some of the resilience and often unheard of struggle for survival of informal and illegal developments in bustling cities, with the Klong Toey slum being one such example. Abdullah Al Noman, a law lecturer from ASA university in Bangladesh introduced his efforts at developing and attempting to mainstream a human rights curriculum. The final presenter for the night, fundraising expert Faz Yusof, addressed some of the hard questions he often faces as a fundraiser for international NGOs including the importance of accountability and winning the public trust. The presentations were followed by questions and pointed discussions on the topics, which carried on during the networking segment of the evening. The next IFC Night is set for Thursday, 23 November 2017. Asia Centre welcomes presenters and co-organisers interested in becoming a part of the IFC.

After the Second World War, Japan’s search for a guiding framework for renewed relations with Southeast Asia led to the adoption, 32 years after the end of the war, of the Fukuda Doctrine on 18 August 1977. The doctrine had at its core a “heart to heart” approach to its foreign policy in the region. However, forty years later, at Asia Centre’s roundtable discussion on Japan-ASEAN Relations in a Multipolar World, it became clear that Japan needed to develop a human rights dimension to its foreign policy with Southeast Asian countries in order to distinguish itself from other major Asian powers, such as China and India, who also are increasingly engaging with the region.   The doctrine’s goal of a “heart to heart” relationship came on the heels of significant anti-Japanese protests across Southeast Asia in the preceding years over unsavoury Japanese business practices. Japanese companies, and American, had started to go offshore in the late 1960s and Southeast Asia was a natural destination for their companies. However, large protests against Japanese companies at the time highlighted problems with human resource practices and the lack of skills, knowledge and technology transfer to the local communities. The benefits of the economic relationship appeared to be one-sided. An ‘ugly Japanese’ image resulted and easily so given the ravages of war-time occupation between 1941 and 1945.  The latter, as noted by Dr. Teewin Suputtikun of Chulalongkorn University, was addressed in the Fukuda Doctrine by announcing a non-hegemonic, non-military role, with the added reassurance of Japanese domestic constitutional constraints and external constraints through the Japan-US Security relationship.  The Doctrine enabled a greater role for Japan in the Cold War competition between the US and the Soviet Union by helping Southeast Asia through increased trade, development assistance and a “heart to heart” relationship.   A deepening trade and investment relationship followed during Japan’s peaceful rise since then.Japan was the number two trade partner for the 10 members of ASEAN in 2016 and a major source of FDI in the region. While large companies, such as Toyota, have been firmly entrenched across the region for some time, the majority of newer investment features small and medium sized enterprises. All are attracted to the prospect of an increasingly integrated ASEAN Economic Community.   With such deepening business ties, there is a logical concern in Japan for peace and security in the ASEAN area, as noted by Dr. Takashi Tsukamoto of Thammasat University. Moreover, he noted a demand in the region for Japan’s services as a security provider on hard security issues in the context of an increasingly assertive Chinese presence in the South China Sea.  Japan will have taken note of China’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ initiative that seeks to tie ASEAN’s economies closer China’s economy.   The adoption of a human rights dimension to Japan-ASEAN economic and business relationship will provide greater traction for Japan in this regional political economy.  Ms Akiko Sato from the United Nations Development Programme Regional Office in Bangkok noted concerns related to environmental degradation and labour practices resulting from Japanese firms’ business operations in Southeast Asia. Japan, as other powers, also needs to pay heed to ASEAN’s 2007 Charter, which adopted norms of democracy, rule of law and the promotion and protection of human rights.   In this context, the principles of protection, respect and provision of remedies as outlined in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights will likely feature increasingly in the Japan-ASEAN relationship. States have a duty to protect human rights, corporations have a duty to respect and victims of violations have a right to a remedy. The Human Rights Council unanimously endorsed the Guiding Principles in 2011. Japan also announced in 2016, that it intended to elaborate a national action plan in this area in the coming years. An effective plan will ensure sound, ethical and rights-based business practices by Japanese firms operating abroad.   Asia Centre aims to explore further the theme of business and human rights through its July 2018 international conference on human rights in Southeast Asia, its policy papers and in future roundtable discussions.   You can view photos from the event here. This event was held with the support of the Japan Foundation, Bangkok.

An effective national human rights institution (NHRI) requires a creative, purposive interpretation of the mandate, and a proactive approach to implementation, this was one of the key takeaways from Asia Centre’s International Conference on National Human Rights Institutions in Southeast Asia: Challenges of Protection held on 13 and 14 July at the Centre’s premises in Bangkok, Thailand. The conference brought a diverse group of participants including representatives from United Nations, NHRIs and civil society for critical discourse into the effectiveness of the regions NHRIs. The conference also featured the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, Ms. Cecilia Jimenez-Damary who will be presenting a report to the UN on NHRIs and displacement. As independent, state-funded bodies with broad, internationally-endorsed mandates to protect and promote human rights, NHRIs serve as a vital bridge between the government and civil society, and play a distinct role in ensuring the effective implementation of international human rights standards at the national level.  However, as conference discussions revealed the regions NHRIs are inundated with implementation challenges, ranging from opaque appointment processes to funding shortfalls to the lack of political will to investigate abuses. In Southeast Asia, NHRIs find themselves established in transitional or repressive regimes, posing unique obstacles to their promulgation of mandate. Often, the effectiveness of the NHRI comes down to the initiative of the leadership and membership. As highlighted in several conference presentations, this initiative can be manifested in several ways, including making more regular, coordinated use of social media, increasing engagement with civil society, and developing greater sensitivity to issues of mental health, climate change, internal displacement, indigenous peoples, sexual orientation and gender identity, interreligious tension, and armed conflict. There are also opportunities to be explored on the regional level that will become increasingly relevant as some of the recently-established NHRIs mature, and as debates over the role of NHRIs continue to take place. The Centre’s second conference was held in partnership with ASEAN-China International Studies Program and The Lutheran World Federation. It was supported by the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy. Asia Centre Conferences: Designed for Discourse The boutique conference assembled over 44 participants from across the ASEAN, New Zealand, Nepal, India, the U.S. and the U.K. Two of the six Southeast Asian NHRIs—the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission (MNHRC) and Indonesia National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM)—were in attendance along with representatives from the New Zealand National Human Rights Commission. The two day conference’s program can be found here. Watch the conference’s video here.  The nine panels were grouped thematically with presentation of research followed by questions and answers, feedback and discussion. The role of NHRIs was explored in different contexts, including in its relationship with civil society and regional human rights mechanisms, in achieving transboundary justice, and in various political and social environments. Country-specific discussions were held on Indonesia, Timor-Leste, Malaysia, Singapore, Myanmar, Thailand, Nepal, and the Philippines.  Day One The first day focused on the mandate and broad principles underlying NHRIs, as well as the limitations and opportunities that they afford to NHRIs. Participants discussed the central question: to what extent are NHRIs limited by their mandate, and to what extent by other factors? In opening the conference, Cecilia Jimenez-Damary, UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons, highlighted the distinct advantage of NHRIs over academics and civil society in human rights protection, noting that they have a stamp of legitimacy in both the national and international context. Asia Centre Director Robin Ramcharan emphasized that while the mandates for NHRIs are generally broad, NHRIs will be ineffective unless they implement their mandate “creatively, purposefully, and proactively.” The major takeaway here was that NHRIs, despite their limitations, can do more in terms of improving their advocacy and follow-up (such as by making better use of digital media) and that it is largely up to them to set higher standards. Participants brought up examples of best practises from around the world, including Kenya and New Zealand. The role of other stakeholders in the protection of human rights was also discussed. Participants explored the potential of regional mechanisms like ASEAN and its Intergovernmental Human Rights Commission (AICHR) in helping to strengthen NHRIs, as well as the role of corporations in protecting communities near resource extraction sites. Participants also debated the best approach for various sectors of civil society to take in interacting with NHRIs on human rights issues–how best to present criticism in a constructive manner? Overall, the need for greater, systematic coordination between different stakeholders and NHRIs was apparent. Day Two The second day honed in on the political and social contexts that constrain and inform the work of NHRIs. Participants highlighted the need for NHRIs to develop greater sensitivity towards the rights of marginalized peoples, including the LGBT communities in Thailand and Malaysia, religious minorities and the mentally disabled in Indonesia, drug-affected populations in the Philippines, Filipino migrant workers in Japan, as well as internally displaced persons throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Through country-specific discussions on Timor-Leste, Singapore, and the Philippines, participants asked more fundamental questions about the future of NHRIs: Why would a state undergoing political crisis, or one that avowedly rejects human rights values, establish and promulgate an NHRI? Why would any state be incentivized to establish such an institution? Are NHRIs necessary in all states? Some of the questions challenged the very founding principles of NHRIs: Is independence necessary to an effective NHRI? To what extent should NHRIs take into account local laws? The questions opened up the floor to discuss alternative pathways for rights protection. Participants explored the role of domestically-mandated investigative bodies, as well as the importance of participatory research in human rights investigation. Alternative conceptions of the role of NHRIs were also discussed. Michael White from the New Zealand Human Rights Commission and Dr. Khoo Ying Hooi, senior lecturer at the University of Malaya and co-convenor the conference, emphasized that full independence for an NHRI is unlikely given their essential status as state apparatuses. Going further, they argued that independence is

  On 12 May 2017, Asia Centre launched the International Faculty Club (IFC) with some 40 academics, researchers and graduate students in attendance.   The event filled a gap in the Bangkok social landscape that brought together people across different tertiary institutions allowing those from diverse academic disciplines to dialogue, share innovative ideas and forge friendships in a convivial setting.     The evening turned out to be an engrossing academic networking event as the inaugural gathering saw a series of speakers taking to the floor to share their ongoing research and interests.   These included: Evgeniia Sidorova, Thammasat University, who made a visual presentation about urban space and the importance of incorporating the human element in design. Mike Raomanachai, Voice TV, who spoke about press freedom and hands-on opportunities in New.Next.Now Media Conference on May 19-21 in Hong Kong. Jennie Williams, a human rights researcher and legal consultant, discussed the issue of consent and its implication on sex worker’s rights and women’s rights.   Those present had plenty of questions and comments for the presentations, this was followed by an impromptu open mic session that saw several more speakers sharing their views.     The next IFC gathering is on 4 August 2017 at 6pm at the Asia Centre and it welcomes participants and speakers.   For those interested, the format of the event is very simple, you just need to prepare a short presentation and appear on the stated date at the Asia Centre’s premises to speak, meet and greet.   Do not miss out – book your spot!  Sign up for the next event here or email contact@asiacentre.co.th.  Do tell your friends and colleagues about it. We look forward to seeing you at the next IFC!  

A rare public articulation of Russia’s grand strategy in the Asia-Pacific was expounded at Asia Centre by H.E. Kirill Barsky, Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the Kingdom of Thailand on 30 March 2017. Entitled “Russian Grand Strategy in the Asia Pacific: What Role for ASEAN?”, Asia Centre convened the roundtable to discuss Russia’s dramatic resurgence in international politics and explore its foreign policy goals in the region.   Asia Centre’s moderator, Ms. Alexandria Demetrianova posed a key question to kick start the roundtable – Does Russia, a great power of the past few centuries, have a clear strategy for the Asia-Pacific region and for ASEAN in particular?   Ambassador Barsky’s keynote presentation on the pillars of Russian foreign policy and its respect for international law and the principles of the UN Charter set the context. He went on to expound that Russia sought better economic and trade relations with ASEAN in order to cater to its domestic economic transformation. Ambassador Barsky noted that Russia’s ties with Southeast Asia preceded the formation ASEAN, as Cold War Russia supported various national movements in the region and provided security assurances at that time. Post-Cold War, he pointed out Russia has been engaged in a dialogue relationship with ASEAN over the past 20 years and seeks to expand its connectivity with the region.   Dr Peter Shearman, an expert on Russian foreign policy from the Institute of International and Security Studies at Chulalongkorn University spoke on Russia’s role in light of an emerging multipolar structure and as a possible balancer between China and the USA. Dr Pavel Slutsky, Associate Professor at Chulalongkorn University, characterised the Russia-ASEAN relationship as unpredictable, lacking a clear strategy and largely shaped by external forces. Dr Takashi Tsukamoto, Associate Dean (International Affairs) Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University provided insights into Russia’s role in shaping Japanese foreign policy on ASEAN. Collectively, the panel of experts raised a number of salient points, namely: the current ‘soft’ geopolitical footprint of Russia on Southeast Asia as countries continued to look to the American security umbrella; the modest economic engagement with the region – principally on military, energy (nuclear) and fossil fuels; a lack of clear strategy towards the region and a confusing articulation of the place that ASEAN occupies in Russian foreign policy; and the emerging diplomatic friendship between Japan and Russia that has emerged in light of structural realities: competition between China and the USA.   The roundtable attracted an audience of 40 participants including representatives from the diplomatic corps. An active question and answer between the audience and speakers followed the presentation. It was an event that lasted well over two hours and Asia Centre was pleased to convene this public articulation of Russia’s long term goals in the region.

Asia Centre promoted its internship opportunities at Webster University’s Career Fair held on 29th March 2017. Asia Centre’s internships, which have been popular, attracted a flow of interested students from International Relations as well as from communication and business studies.    Dr Robin Ramcharan and research intern Francesco Franzoi from Switzerland represented Asia Center at the Fair to introduce Asia Centre’s work, projects and activities. For example, our current interns assist with the preparation, research and marketing of the Centre’s upcoming International Conference on National Human Rights Institutions in Southeast Asia: Challenges of Protection in July 2017.   Asia Centre’s had a busy day at the fair as many students gathered at the Centre’s desk to collect information. Starting the next day, several Webster University students applied for internships at the Asia Centre.  

A discussion on access to justice in Southeast Asia was undertaken by a panel of women lawyers on 29 March 2017 at the Asia Centre. The session, jointly organised by Asia Centre and Akin Asia, offered the opportunity to understand some of the systemic problems with regards to rule of law and access to justice that affect women in the region. It was also an opportunity to better understand the roles that different players in the legal process play. The event was attended by over 30 participants, many with a legal background, keen to engage with the panel of top female legal professionals.   Celebrating Women in Law featured Emi Rowse, an Of Counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills; Sheila Varadan, a barrister/solicitor with over 12 years experience; Chayanich Thamparipattra, a social entrepreneur and a labour rights lawyer and Wipanan (Eve) Prasompluem, a Senior Associate at Allen & Overy and adjunct lecturer at Chulalongkorn University. The discussion was led by Emma Day, a human rights lawyer and co-founder of the International Child Redress Project (ICRP), a new startup non-profit organisation which is aiming to improve access to remedies for child victims of sexual exploitation The panelists discussed access to justice in the context of the domestic courts system and the international human rights framework. They shared their personal experience as well as expert opinion during the lively Q&A. The discussion touched on a range of issues including:  Challenges to rule of law and a culture of impunity in many parts of Southeast Asia Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms Transitional justice Creating a culture where the notion of justice and the rights of the victim are valued Improvements in the law to enable access to justice The Q&A was followed by a networking session in which participants were able to interact with the panelists and further their discussions. Celebrating Women in Law was a platform to engage on critical issues impacting the region and showcase the role that women play advocating for justice. Asia Centre has organised a number of activities related to women’s rights such as Entering Femininity: Reporting Rituals and Violations and women’s political participation in A Political Utopia Called Singapore. The Centre will continue to convene activities on the role of women in law, human rights and development as a prelude to developing an Asia Centre gender programme.