A shifting neighbourhood

JUST as the tectonic plates under us rearrange our borders, the region too is shifting and going through change albeit on a different level and in different directions.

When the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) formed in 1967, the five founding member states plotted varying governing styles. Running through the range of political characteristics of authoritarian, military rule to dictatorships, Leninist states, a sultanate and budding democracies, this motley crew of now 10 member states shared a common desire for a stable region. By the 80s and 90s some member states were seen to be significant examples of democratisation in the developing world.

One year shy of turning 50 and there is glaring change among member states. Countries that were once seen to be leading the pack in the democracy currency are now regressing at a rapidly steady pace and states that were strong armed by dictators and military rule are today seen to be adhering to the very democratic principles espoused in the Asean Charter.

In Jakarta last week, a two-day government organised symposium titled “Dissecting the 1965 tragedy” took place in an attempt to reveal the truth about the massacres of an anti-communist purge between 1965 and 1966 where at least 500,000 people were killed or imprisoned without trial. The event, a step in national reconciliation was held to “prevent such a tragedy from happening again in the future”.

It would have been unimaginable to think of such a symposium taking place even a few years ago, but Indonesia and the country’s leaders have recognised a very basic need to openly acknowledge the history and the urgency to seek its truth for more than reconciliation but to learn from the past and heal. What perhaps shows greater maturity is that the Indonesian people are able to have an open dialogue about this, something that is inconceivable today in many of the “socalled” leading democracies of the past.

There may be many flaws with the symposium and this may well be an isolated event but nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction. A direction that says, the history of the country, the memory of the people and the wrongdoings of the past need to be acknowledged and reconciled in some way today to move forward.

Myanmar is also shifting, and a lot has been written about this country in transition. After years of military rule, today’s new form of governing as a unitary parliamentary republic is miles away from its former isolated junta self. While there are many grievances and missteps, there is a sense that things are progressively being put right. The past few months have seen the release of hundreds of political prisoners. The charges against them were also dropped.

The Myanmar government stated that these release of the political prisoners matched their commitment to promote national reconciliation. The new president reiterated that the government’s commitment to prevent “those who act legally for political causes or for their own conscience from being imprisoned”.

Even a year ago, this would not be imaginable remembering the violent crack down on student protesters. This year, action changed the rhetoric of speeches to make a new reality.

Again there is a long way to reconciliation especially for their careless disregard of the atrocities against the Rohingya people but these two countries are standing on the other side of history looking back at some of the mistakes of past regimes and making way for some resolve.

So where do the budding Asean democracies of the past stand in comparison?

Thailand’s junta leader warned about a 10year imprisonment and a fine up to US$5,600 for those who campaign for or against the country’s newest draft constitution that will be put to a vote in August.

One has to wonder how democracy will fare when the draft constitution is drawn up by the very people who led the coup. How fair a constitution is it, if there is an imprisonment clause leaving no room for open discussion without the threat of imprisonment or a fine?

Then there is Malaysia, where the Sedition Act is used to arrest and/or investigate lawyers, human rights defenders, journalists, academics, activists and opposition leaders who are critical of the federal government. Laws that allow for arbitrary detention violating the constitutional guarantee for a fair hearing have ironically been part of a law reform in the country. Amnesty International reported earlier this month that at least 91 people were investigated, arrested or charged in 2015 under the Sedition Act.

Asean member states are slowly changing their personalities and while it may seem like it is an organic movement of sorts or an invisible guiding, these neighbourhood shifts are important to each member state and their population to know what the future holds.

The Philippines is going through an election year, and Human Rights Watch has come up with a list of 10 questions that is distributed to all presidential candidates. The objective is to obtain the candidates’ views on the most important human rights challenges, ideas and how to address them so that voters are more informed of the candidates views.

Wouldn’t it be great if this was an exercise that could happen in every country and not only during election time?

These shifts in political characteristics are important not just for Asean as a grouping. How did the countries that showed the most promise of democratising regress? Why did this happen but most importantly, is this what we as an Asean community and citizens want?

We should be more active in how our own country functions. These shifts may have seemed gradual but if we look back, the change is worrying.

In 50 years’ time, we should not be worse off than we are today.