Connect with us

Southeast Asia

Will There Ever Be Justice For Rohingya Muslims?

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

There is an image engraved in our minds of a stoic, reserved, elegant Aung San Suu Kyi unbending in her struggle against Burma’s generals for democracy, and we assumed for human rights.  Last year, when the refugees streamed out of her country in the wake of atrocities, it blocked all UN agencies from delivering food, water and medicine to affected civilians; her office accused aid workers of helping terrorists.

Her iconic stature long gone, she made a public appearance the day after the International Fact-Finding Mission released its initial 20-page overview to the UN Human Rights Council on August 27, 2018.  The damning evidence of murder, rape, torture, persecution, burned villages, landmines along escape routes reported on by NGOs and news media over the past year had been confirmed.  Elegant and patrician as usual, Aung San Suu Kyi discoursed on poetry and literature.  No mention of the genocide or the UN report.  No longer an icon, there have been calls to relieve her of the Nobel Peace Prize.

The UN group criticized her for her continued refusal to condemn the genocide.  The full report detailing unspeakable horrors in its 440-page account has now been released (September 18, 2018).  What might surprise people is a simple shocking fact:  This is not the first UN report on Rohingya massacres.

On February 3, 2017, the UN issued a detailed account of the military’s operations in north Maungddaw with “the very likely commission of crimes against humanity.”  It recounted the murders, rapes and tortures that have now become the trademark of military operations against the Rohingya.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al Hussein is quoted as saying ” … what kind of hatred could make a man stab a baby crying out for his mother’s milk.  And for the mother to witness this murder while she is being gang-raped by the very security forces that should be protecting her.”

There were no major consequences for Myanmar then and what happened the following summer was the same magnified over Rakhine state.  As a result we have 700,000 refugees, and they are still coming — “11,342 new arrivals as of mid-June this year,” Mr. Zeid has noted.

Will this time be different?  Following the UN Commission’s summary report, 160 British parliamentarians across party lines signed a petition to Prime Minister Theresa May to refer the Myanmar military to the International Criminal Court (ICC).  The UN report accuses the military of genocide, and identifies six generals, singling them out for investigation and prosecution.  They are, the senior general who heads the military, the commander of the army, and four operational commanders.

ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has now been authorized to begin a preliminary investigation to gather evidence before launching a full investigation.  Myanmar is not a signatory to the Rome Statute establishing the ICC but Bangladesh hosting the refugees is, thus giving the court jurisdiction.

Marzuki Darusman providing details of massacres and unmentionable atrocities said in reporting to the Human Rights Council, “I have never been confronted by crimes as horrendous and on such a scale as these.”

If the UN Security Council is to be stymied by veto — China preventing any action against Myanmar — will the ICC effort also fizzle out in practice if not in theory?  Justice remains tenuous for the weak and powerless in our world.

Author’s Note:  This article first appeared on counterpunch.org

Dr. Arshad M. Khan is a former Professor based in the US. Educated at King's College London, OSU and The University of Chicago, he has a multidisciplinary background that has frequently informed his research. Thus he headed the analysis of an innovation survey of Norway, and his work on SMEs published in major journals has been widely cited. He has for several decades also written for the press: These articles and occasional comments have appeared in print media such as The Dallas Morning News, Dawn (Pakistan), The Fort Worth Star Telegram, The Monitor, The Wall Street Journal and others. On the internet, he has written for Antiwar.com, Asia Times, Common Dreams, Counterpunch, Countercurrents, Dissident Voice, Eurasia Review and Modern Diplomacy among many. His work has been quoted in the U.S. Congress and published in its Congressional Record.

Continue Reading
Comments

Southeast Asia

Lost Malaysian Hopes and the Pakatan Catch 22

Prof. Murray Hunter

Published

on

It took the Malaysian opposition more than a generation to topple the Barisan Nasional government, led by the now-discredited United Malays National Organization. Throughout mosques, coffee shops and markets in Malaysia, there has been an atmosphere of hope and anticipation by many for change that goes all the way back to when Mahathir Mohamed dismissed Anwar Ibrahim as deputy prime minister back in 1998 and jailed him in a trial regarded universally as trumped up.

From that day on Anwar Ibrahim became synonymous for reform in Malaysia. The charismatic opposition leader, from jail and out, managed to unite a wide diversity of NGOs and mostof the opposition parties against the Barisan. But it took 20 years and reports by the Sarawak Report, the Wall Street Journal, Asia Sentinel and others to expose what is now known as the 1Malaysia Development Bud scandal which tainted Prime Minister Najib Razak as a complete crook and his wife as a grasping harridan. Najib shut down critical parts of the local media and sacked the Attorney General before charges could be laid against him.

Mahathir, in quasi-private life through two administrations, once again mobilized forces to remove Najib, creating Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM) with the help of defectors from UMNO and joining the Pakatan Harapan coalition led from prison by his nemesis Anwar.

The 2018 election became a Mahathir-vs-Najib contest, where Najib was almost universally expected to hold onto power. There seemed to be an air of disillusionment with the electoral process and apathyduring the campaign. However, voter turnout was more than 82 percent. The Pakatan Harapan coalition defeated Najib, who was prevented from fleeing the country in a private aircraft for Indonesia. The surprised public instantaneously became euphoric, celebrating in the streets. Many Malaysians believed they would now get the reform and change they had long hoped for.

The Pakatan Catch 22

However, the defeat of the Barisan exposed a very complex electorate. Different groups of voters made their decisions for different reasons. Non-Malays saw the removal of the Barisan as the end of a dark apartheid era in which every citizen would be regarded as equal, as was promised by sections of the Harapan manifesto. In contrast, many urban, professional and middle-class Malays hoped that Mahathir would clean up the mess the country was in. Voters in rural Malaysia, particularly in Kelantan and Terengganu, didn’t switch at all. They went to the rural Islamist Parti Islam se-Malaysia, or PAS. The small northern state of Perlis remained staunchly Barisan. 

There is now a deep polarization in the Malaysian electorate between those who want a Malaysian Malaysia and those who want a Malay Malaysia. This is a massive dilemma for the reform government.

A major part of the electorate sees reform as a threat to special privileges that they have received since the advent of the New Economic Policy, an affirmative action policy for the Malay majority, in 1971. Three generations of education and political narrative have created this sense of privilege, which is deeply engrained in rural Malays. These sentiments are being played upon politically to the point where the government has had to stall decisions about child marriage and reverse its decision to ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). 

In addition, the Pakatan government is being subjected to pressure from sections of the Malaysian royalty, which led to the reversal in ratifying the Rome Statute, a prelude to joining the International Criminal Court, and the resignation of Johor Chief Minister Osman Sapian.

The government now faces a situation in which any future policy decisions and reforms must be framed from a Bumiputera perspective and agreed in royal circles. This is particularly the case as the government is extremely slow with any electoral reform, which would effectively weaken opposition to policy reform, through adopting the principle of “one vote, one value.”  Without electoral reform, any policy reversals will favor the newly formed UNMO-PAS alliance with its narrative pandering to the rural Malay electorate.

The Pakatan government needs to very quickly undertake electoral reform to counter the strength of the conservative electorate. Currently a rural vote can be worth anything up to four times an urban one. It is this imbalance that is providing UMNO-PAS with a powerful base from which to prevent the government pushing through any reform agenda.

However the latest news on electoral reform is that the Election Commission and UNDP will only make a joint study about the electoral system in the coming months, far too long for something that is threatening the very long-term livelihood of the government. 

More of the same

With this inaction on electoral reform, it could be argued that the May 9 general election was not about vital reform needed in the country, but rather replacing one leadership group with another. In many respects the Pakatan government is acting just like its predecessor. The reform report handed down by the Council of Eminent Persons (CEP) has been suppressed by the Official Secrets Act, indicating the new government doesn’t place a high priority on transparency.

The Sedition Act has not been repealed and is in fact being used to prosecute political opponents. The Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC) still cannot decide who to prosecute independently. Cabinet ministers have had corruption charges quickly dismissed against them. Political appointees are still being appointed to government-linked companies and statutory bodies.

Mahathir’s Parti Bersatu and Parti Keadilan Rakyat, the two Malay parties in the Pakatan Harapan coalition, both strongly resemble UMNO right down to the internal politics and squabbles. With defectors from UMNO freely running across to Parti Bersatu, the parties are looking more like a new UMNO.

In defense of the Pakatan Government, Mahathir has worked hard to form an operational government from a broad group of parties. However many within the cabinet are very inexperienced, and there is a strong sense of inertia and apathy coming from the largely ethnic Malay civil service, with stories of sabotage against the new government.

Even with Mahathir back in power, changing institutions that have been inefficiently built and harboring wasteful cronies of the previous government is very difficult. However what is sad to see is that many of these cronies are still being reappointed to positions of power.

The old guard still are very clearly in charge of the new government, which has a “back to the future” quality about it. Old rivalries continue. The Anwar-Mahathir power struggle continues from the 1990s. Gamesmanship seems to be a trademark of the new government. There are many disappointed with not being given plumb jobs and important positions within the new administration.

Consequently, the Pakatan ministry is more a transition than reform one. The country must mark time until Anwar takes over from Mahathir to become prime minister. The country is waiting for someone who currently has no position in government. The country is waiting for someone they don’t really know very well.

Anwar Ibrahim was the education minister who introduced Malay medium at schools, which many claimed was a major setback to the country’s education system. Anwar advocated IMF intervention in the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Anwar is well known for saying different things to different audiences.

From Anwar’s actions and stands taken over the years, he seems to be more a pragmatist rather than a visionary leader. Most of the policies he has advocated are populist, even though they may not be in Malaysia’s best interests such as the abolition of the goods and services tax that Najib put in place, denying the government a critical source of revenue, and maintenance of fuel subsidies. Anwar’s politics have been high in gamesmanship at a time the country really needs to get down and focus on the social, economic, financial, and institutional problems facing it.

As a sideshow, Najib, still active despite charges against him for looting 1MDB, is looking for a political solution to his problems rather than a legal one. Current electoral demographics favor him. The UMNO-Pas alliance will enable Najib to skillfully exploit the insular side of the electorate. The Pakatan government’s mistakes have shown up electorally in the last two by-election results.

Najib also knows, if he can say out of jail, that he will not be facing Mahathir in the next election. Most probably he will be facing Anwar, who has made many strategic blunders over the years in election campaigns.

Malaysians are very quickly losing hope in their new government, especially with the Malay-Malaysian narratives that are creeping into the arena. With the Pakatan government waiting for its new leader and its current leader going back to his old policies of the 1980s and 90s with flying cars, the Singapore aggravation, looking East, privatization and a secretive executive government, real economic and market reforms are not on the agenda, even though some of these reforms are very doable.

Institutionalized discrimination appears to be strengthening rather than being eliminated. The new narratives Pakatan members talked about during the election have all disappeared. The national mindset is going back to an insular view of the world.

Author’s note: Originally published in the Asia Sentinel

Continue Reading

Southeast Asia

Sustainable development by 2030: Achievable in Cambodia and Asia and the Pacific

Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana

Published

on

Cambodia’s recent development story has much in common with the broader region. Phenomenal growth has changed its economy and society beyond recognition. Yet as in the rest of Asia and the Pacific, progress must be accelerated if sustainable development is to be achieved by 2030. The additional investment needed is significant but is still within Cambodia’s reach. Especially if the economy’s transformation is managed to reduce poverty, and small and medium-sized businesses led by women entrepreneurs can flourish.

At the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), we take a regional approach to supporting our member States achieve sustainable development. We work with the whole UN family to overcome challenges which cut across borders and to achieve a sweeping set of economic, social and environmental objectives captured by the United Nations 2030 Agenda. I am meeting the Cambodian leadership this week with these objectives in mind. To build on our region’s successes and join forces to accelerate progress.

This approach is crucial because our analysis demonstrates the region must strengthen its effort to achieve sustainable development. Asia and the Pacific has made progress towards eradicating poverty and providing universal education. Measures are underway to achieve affordable clean energy. Yet on its current trajectory, the region needs to do more to achieve all 17 Sustainable Development Goals. When it comes to providing clean water and sanitation, decent work and economic growth, and achieving responsible consumption and production, urgent action is needed to change course.

Cambodia’s impressive economic growth, above seven percent for over two decades, has reduced poverty significantly. Life expectancy has markedly increased, child and maternal mortality declined sharply, the incidence of infectious diseases reduced, and universal primary school enrollment achieved. This is an impressive achievement. Yet as in many parts of Asia and the Pacific, the proceeds of growth have not always been equitably shared. The focus must now be on improving the lives of the 4.5 million people who remain poor or at risk of falling back into poverty.

If Cambodia, and Asia and the Pacific, are to achieve the 2030 Agenda, increased investment is needed. We estimate the additional investment required across the whole of the Asia-Pacific region to be some $1.5 trillion a year. Our analysis shows that the region has the fiscal space to afford this. Yet while possible, mobilizing the additional resources will be challenging. Reforms to increase the tax-take and private sector investment will be necessary in many countries as overseas development assistance declines. In Cambodia, $3 of additional investment is required per person per day to achieve the SDGs. 5.4 percent of GDP a year could end poverty by financing cash transfer payments and universal social protection.

How can Cambodia take steps to make this happen? Effectively managing the structural transformation of the economy – shifting employment to more productive and diverse activities – will increase the resources available for sustainable investment and reduce poverty. Already, the share of agricultural employment has declined significantly and is now on par with the industrial sector. Services employ nearly half of the workforce. Now, the focus must be on improving labour productivity and supporting new, more advanced, higher value sectors. This would reduce the labour force’s vulnerability to the automation of unskilled, labour intensive tasks. For this, we need to create an ecosystem which is supportive of innovation and entrepreneurs; especially micro, small and medium size enterprises (MSMEs).

MSMEs represent 99 percent of companies in Cambodia. It is a vibrant sector dominated by informal micro businesses predominantly owned by women. Yet MSMEs face a financing gap equivalent to 21 percent of GDP. We want to complement government efforts to improve their access to finance through an initiative focused on promoting female entrepreneurship, because the evidence shows that women-led MSMEs support gender equality and sustainable development. Women employ other women and spend more on their families. So, we are working to increase women entrepreneurs’ access to technology and innovative financing solutions. We are supporting these activities with deeper gender analysis of the MSME sector, including in Cambodia. We want to ensure that the business environment is genuinely gender responsive, one that works for women, powered by women.

Cambodia has a major role to play in our region’s effort to achieving the 2030 Agenda. The country’s Sustainable Development Goals Framework which translates global commitments into national delivery efforts is a positive step, as is mainstreaming goals into its National Strategic Development plan. I am looking forward to working with Cambodia and its National Committee for ESCAP to strengthen its long-term development partnership with the UN family. To ensure the resourcing and financing of SDGs is as efficient and effective as possible, to support the productivity and successful economic transformation needed to initiate the least developed country graduation process, and to encourage women entrepreneurs as catalysts for a more inclusive and prosperous society.

UNESCAP

Continue Reading

Southeast Asia

Will the Voters protest be able to win Prabowo-Sandi?

Igor Dirgantara

Published

on

In literatures on 2019 political campaigns and elections in Indonesia, popularity is a condition for image-building. When image is no longer effective, survey results can be instruments for opinion-building, as well as image recovery.  Ideally, the electability of the incumbent must be above 50% with 20% distance from its competitor (the wider the distance, the better). The level of satisfaction of the incumbent’s work performance must also get a high approval rating from the community. The goal is to create trust and establish bandwagon effect that the incumbents will be re-elected based on their performance. Incumbent came off strong because of the evidence of the work he did. Control over state resources, media and bureaucracy reinforces this argument.

On the other hand, incumbents can also be defeated if there is a survey of the level of public satisfaction towards the incumbent’s performance to be 70%, with the electability is only 50% (or even <50%), which will not be proportional. This could mean that there are voters that are satisfied with the incumbent’s performance, but will not vote for him/them/the incumbent. Or it can also be assumed that the voter is a swing voter. If not, then maybe the bubbles migrate to the undecided voters position, or become Golput (non-voters or abstainers). A separate survey is needed to determine how many the prospective voters (or non-voters) that can be influenced by the results of a survey.

Unlike the results from other survey institutions, Kompas and SPIN (Survey & Pollling Indonesia) stated that the electability of incumbents was below 50% (Kompas 49.2%, SPIN 49%). Clearly this is a warning for the incumbent that there is an indication that a portion of Indonesia’s population (50%) in actuality provides opportunities for its competitors. In other words, incumbents and competitors have the same potential and opportunity to win and to lose (50:50). It can be assumed that some of the subjects in the survey wanted change. This is an indication of protest votes against the government. A protest vote is that someone vote for party usually support in order to disapprove of something they are doing or planning to do.

Public perception on the current economic situation is very important. If it is good, the incumbent will be re-elected. But if it is bad, then the opponent will be able to take advantage. Economic issues are the most important issues that can cause incumbents to lose. The percentage is 50:50. SPIN’s survey results stated that Jokowi’s focus in choosing development priorities was a mistake, thus created opportunities and momentum for Prabowo-Sandi as competitors to pursue and boost their electoral potential. While Kompas’ survey results saw that there was a decrease in society satisfaction towards government performance.

However Jokowi is still a strong candidate to win the presidency. If incumbents are strong, but are in a state of low level of confidence, then their strength will be based on logistics and bureaucratic instruments or other state institutions in mobilizing its support. Whereas the opposite party will rely far more on powerful militancy. It is predicted that the 2019 presidential election will be close. Because the pair of candidates have the same opportunity. Even though incumbent (Jokowi-Ma’ruf Amin) is still superior, but the gap is narrowing, instead of getting wider. Right now, the pair of Prabowo-Sandi from the opposition party are catching up. So, whoever candidate wins, it will be very close.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy