ASEAN’s Skeletons and the Quest for Transparency
On a recent podcast episode, Adelina Kamal points out that ASEAN’s credibility is compromised by the "skeletons in its own closet." Human rights violations, corruption, and undemocratic practice are not uncommon, such as the military's influence in Thailand, political repression in Vietnam and Laos, and corruption in Malaysia and the Philippines. ASEAN countries with these challenges are reluctant to address similar problems in other member states like Myanmar, fearing exposure of their own problems. This weakens ASEAN’s moral authority and its ability to enforce regional norms. Kamal argues that for ASEAN to effectively tackle crises like Myanmar's, it must first address its members’ internal inconsistencies. A commitment to transparency, accountability, and genuine democratic reforms within ASEAN states is crucial, for only then can they legitimately advocate for human rights and stability outside their borders, and the organization enhance its regional leadership.
“ASEAN is lacking in leadership that will allow a critical environment to be embedded in its working culture. At the end of the day, when the body of the fish stinks, it starts from the head.”
Going back to my words on how ASEAN have skeletons in our own closet... We do not want to expose our ongoing mistake nor the mistakes of the past. This is why it is very difficult for ASEAN to transform into a human rights-based organization where democracy’s respect for human rights prevail. If we truly are what our own ASEAN Charter says about us, we would be a people-centered government organization. If you ask me why not, this is what I see. ASEAN stands against any form of colonization. On the basis of non-interference on domestic matters of ASEAN countries, even in the situation of Myanmar’s experience of a new kind of colonization from within, they practice indifference and ignorance. They say ASEAN is not complicit in the crimes against humanity committed by the Myanmar military junta. By ignoring the situation of Myanmar, they are also rejecting the reality! It is a balancing act. They are trying to make sure that they're not going to be accused of the same thing.
This is where the importance of the people fit in. The value of independent outfits and independent individuals who have nothing more to lose. The definition of people-centered government, as highlighted in the ASEAN Charter, means the sovereign power is in the hands of the mass. Maybe we do not need to revise the charter; we should just do what needs to be done with what we have. From there, we use the momentum and at same time, take the lessons from Myanmar crisis into the 2025 visioning and drafting exercise of ASEAN. Unfortunately, ASEAN has been too secretive and it is mostly confined to the elites. We do not even have access to the discussion. Even when I was working in ASEAN, I was an outsider. I don't like to saying this but the political-security pillar of ASEAN is in the first class while the rest of the three pillars are the other second class. It cannot be like that. If the pillars do not have separate mindsets when it comes to dealing political crisis, having different pillars under ASEAN is meaningless. We would all be just blindly following whatever decisions the political-security pillar makes, go where they say the humanitarian assistance is needed with no follow-up questions.
If the ASEAN organization is in nature a humanitarian foundation, then we have to switch on our hearts. We cannot just solely use our brains and the hand. We must follow our heart and allow for dissenting opinions to arise within the three pillars. How many organizations are there in the world, outside of ASEAN, and even within the body of the UN that allow dissenting opinions leading to positive change. How many of them are successful organizations?
Other regional organizations that I know, apart from UN and ASEAN, have not been as successful as ASEAN. Being the most successful humanitarian organization, ASEAN could have even won the Nobel Prize in 2017, as claimed by the book I mentioned above, written by Kishore Mahbubani. The book was published before the coup, and we should win the Nobel Prize in 2017. We are doing the best compared to other regional organizations, especially in the field of economic integration and community building among the ASEAN countries who are not at war with each other. The successful practices and achievements of ASEAN are recognized but we cannot get overwhelmed with all those wins. We cannot say we are doing okay, because we are not. We are not doing okay when it comes to the Myanmar crisis. The foreign minister of Indonesia said that we don't want to be overshadowed by the Myanmar crisis. However, we already are! ASEAN’s legacy and relevance will be defined through our way of dealing with the Myanmar crisis. Unless the leaders of ASEAN change the current approach, and really apply their heart, brain and hand altogether, then there will be progress.
I understand it is hard for a governing body consisting of different political actors to put their hearts into decision-making process. I think the privilege of being independent, like myself, is being able to follow my heart easily. Personally, I have always followed my heart even when I was working in ASEAN and made myself vulnerable by connecting with those with different opinions from mine. I had to remind myself to listen intently first before I respond. By switching on my heart, I was able to work independently without worrying about the power dynamics at play and my job position. Again, I know not everyone has the privilege to voice out dissenting opinions. There can be people inside the organization who allows to have dissenting opinion. There are leaders who allow that kind of critical environment. On the contrary, in the context we are working with currently, ASEAN is lacking in leadership that will allow a critical environment to be embedded in its working culture. At the end of the day, when the body of the fish stinks, it starts from the head. So I always blame it on the leaders because they hold the power to do something different. They have the platform, resources and privileges to change the course of history in ASEAN. In fact, it is both a privilege and a responsibility of the ASEAN, on which they have yet to utilize properly.
If they argue that they have tried their best, then be open about it. Why was the implementation plan the five-point consensus never shared to the public beforehand during its making? ASEAN should at least consult the plan with the representatives of the civil society, who has been asking for the consensus to be revised and reframed. There are specific recommendations coming from the civil society and the people of Myanmar. Why is the implementation plan of the five-point consensus that concerns the future and the life of the people of Myanmar never shared to the public? So, this nature of ASEAN being secretive, doing things in a linear manner and a resource heavy process, will have to be changed.
That transformational change can only happen if there is an external power pushing. Inspired by the Star Wars, the rebellion versus the Emperor, all disruptive change in history occurred only when it was driven by an external force, from outside of the system. Now, I rarely see any meaningful change coming from those inside the system. In my view, we should dismantle the humanitarian system under ASEAN. I asked them to dismantle the humanitarian mechanism because it is seriously being tweaked by the political leaders of the whole organization. Being a loving critic and critical lover of ASEAN, I am not asking for ASEAN to be dismantled entirely but I am asking for transformational change within the body of ASEAN. If the drafting of the 2025 charter goes ahead without any transformational change within ASEAN, our organization will become a camp follower and not a trend-setter. If we want to have meaningful, drastic and transformational change, only external powers can do that. The external power in question is the independent outfits who are part of the civil society. They are the ones who are able to say things bluntly because they have nothing to lose. They're not afraid. The worst that can happen to them is losing the funds from donors, but they can always go for other donors. Those external forces are the power of the people. So people to people, solidarity is important here! If we want to bring back ASEAN to the path of democracy, then it has to be the people of ASEAN that make it happen. If you want ASEAN to go back to this so-called people centered organization where the people is the ultimate sovereign power, then the people of ASEAN need to do more.
We are caring more on what's happening in Palestine rather than the Myanmar and the Rohingya!
I mean, we the people also are not doing enough. It's not only our governments. So how can we actually accuse of governments of not doing enough if we are not pressuring them to our parliament. Right now, people of ASEAN are not doing enough, just like the ASEAN organization. So everybody has failed the people of Myanmar, including the people of ASEAN.
Going back to how transformational change requires a leadership and external force to happen, outsiders of ASEAN and our partners from the Americans, the Australians, the Europeans and the Japanese should exercise their influence on the matters of ASEAN. The transformational change happen if there is a pressure from the outside and acceptance from the inside. Outside and insight. All in all, if the Myanmar is experiencing an existential crisis, and so is ASEAN. If the people of ASEAN don't even get that even care on what's happening in ASEAN, how can we expect that progressive transformation to happen? Governments will just sit and relax. So the people of ASEAN, what can we do? The civil society need unity here. Get together as the people society. As part of a civil society, ask yourself, ‘have you done enough?’.