 |
| AICHR members together with Asean CSOs at the Bangkok Review Meeting (2014) |
During the recent Asean
Inter-governmental Human Rights Commission (AICHR), Terms of Reference (TOR)
review meeting at Bangkok from June 27 & 28, 2014 I had four opportunities
to briefing intervene on matters pertaining to the AICHR TOR.
I was invited in my capacity
as Secretary General of Proham and also in my capacity at KITA-UKM. I had to
raise my own flights and cover the cost of the accommodation while in Bangkok. It
was a very good meeting and felt that AICHR was very open to suggestions and
the Review process ensured that all stakeholders were important partners of the
review process.
This is indeed commendable
and inspiring. It is promising for what can be achieved in the process. The
system of seating arrangements and movements over the two days is also
indicative of the partnership approach adopted by AICR. This is an approach
that must be adopted by all Asean governments to ensure constructive discussion
and input.
Civil society and academics participated
within the constraints of time. This review was unique as there were
representatives from AICHR, International and regional bodies associated with
the UN as well as regional and national civil society organisations
represented. There were a number of academics from Asean countries especially
Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand
I had four such
opportunities to intervene ie between 1 minute and five minutes. It is
unbelievable what you can pack in within 1 or 2 minutes. This granting of the
space for interaction and sharing of ideas is much appreciated in seeking a
human rights friendly ASEAN especially with our vision in building a One Asean
community by 2015
LISTED
BELOW SOME OF THE POINTERS
Session
1 AICHR & INTERNATIONAL
AGENCIES
A number of Asean countries
have not ratified the core human rights conventions and while they have jointly
set up AICHR a dominant discourse relates to Asean values. Singapore, Malaysia,
Brunei and Myanmar keep reminding the rest of this theme. In addition the principle
of non-interference is another hindrance for the protection of human rights in
Asean. It seems to make AICHR powerless and voiceless on critical human rights
violations in Asean.
While Malaysia has held
firmly to Asean non-interference however on a number of cases Malaysia has
creatively responded to areas of violations within Asean as in the case of the
Rohingya situation in Myanmar or on matters affecting Muslim minorities in both
South Thailand and Minadano. Why not make this more transparent within the TOR
as is in the case of the UPR process at the UN or convention obligations.
How can we make the TOR more
specific and consistent with the UDHR and remove from within the TOR reference
to contextual matters which might condone some aspects of human rights
violations. These provisions are read is a very restrictive way. However can
the TOR be more compliant to UDHR and UN conventions & declaration
pertaining to human rights? How can we ensure Asean leaders do not cover up
human rights violations under the veil of Asean values and cultural specific
Session
2 AICHR & National Human
Rights Institutions
When I served on the
Malaysian Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) we received a complaint from an
Indonesian NGO on human rights violations committed by a Malaysian plantation
company which owed a plantation in Indonesia. I think the Indonesian side could
not do anything as it was a foreign company and the Malaysian side was restricted
in its investigations by geographical location, being located outside Malaysian
shores.
This kind of violations
could increase within Asean as many companies are now cross border business.
Individual NHRI might not be able to investigate and make appropriate recommendations
for action but these are the kind of complains that AICHR could undertake with
the support and assistance of both the Human rights commissions.
The TOR 4:8, 4:9 and 4:10
could be read in a way to facilitate this process mentioned. The TOR could be
redrafted to give provisions for this intervention at the Asean region
especially when human rights matters cut across nations within Asean as illustrated
in the Indonesian-Malaysia business & human rights violations.
Session
3 AICHR & CSO
Let me make reference to
some ways in which AICHR representative could play an active role at the
National levels especially in the countries they represent. They could enlist
CSOs at the national level including academics and the NHRI. They could develop
a directory which could then be complied across Asean of human rights CSOs as
well as best pratices.
In the Malaysian context,
Proham hosted a discussion on the Asean human rights declaration when it was in
the final stages and the Malaysian representative was the chief guest. This coming
July 2 and 3, 2014 Proham together with the Global Movement of Moderates is
inviting the AICHR Indonesian representative and the Malaysian represntative to
address the theme of Religious Freedom in the Asean region especially a set of
guidelines prepared by the Indonesian CSO- HRWG. These are some examples on how
AICHR can raise its profile at the national level and also encourage
cooperation among AICHR partners.
On the question of AICHR as
an extension of Asean governments and that the representatives are first
representatives of their government as AICHR is an Inter-governmental human
rights commission, there might be some need to review the TOR on this matter
especially 5.2 which notes accountable to appointing governments and 5:7 which
reads “impartially”. In this context too the Asean Foreign Ministers so as not
to undermine the independence of AICHR
While AICHR representatives are appointed by
their governments through some selection and impartial process, they must be people
with a good experiences & expertise in human rights matters. Once appointed AICHR
representatives must be pro human rights working from within the Asean TOR, Asean
Human Rights Declaration & UDHR. They must not just be an extension of
their Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The Paris principles which
are applied to NHRI could be the benchmark for AICHR and the Asean states must
observe this principle. This principle should be drafted into the AICHR TOR.
Session
4 AICHR & FUTURE
My recommendation is
specific to how AICHR representatives could take up a thematic area and even
set up working committee or focus groups. AICHR could interpret TOR provisions
such as 4:8, 4:9 and even 4:12 to empowerment to take up thematic Asean
regional concerns.
AICHR could invite
representatives from NHRI and CSO to join in, including academics researching
in these areas. Ten themes could be adopted let me highlight four cross cutting
regional themes.
First, the theme of
religious freedom, we are facing many issues such as majority religions verses
minorities in many countries such as Buddhist majority and issues with
minorities as in Myanmar among the Rohingyas’ or religious freedom issues in
Malaysia such as shariah and civil court jurisdiction concerns.
Second, the issues
pertaining to migrant workers especially between sending and receiving Asean
countries and issues affecting the rights of workers and their families
Third, issues pertaining to
human tariffing and both Malaysian and Thailand have been downgraded by the United
States on this matter recently. AICHR could assist or work together with Asean
member states to ensure this is reduced in the Asean region
Fourth, issues pertaining to
forest based communities and indigenous people group within the Asean region. There
are similar issues across Asean especially pertaining to sustainable forest
management and this has many cross cutting issues pertaining to business, human
rights, sustainable development & environment.
There are many other issues
and concerns. Therefore AICHR representative can each take up a regional
concern and establish creatively focus groups which can also undertake site
visits and report writing. I am sure some of the CSOs and academic institutions
could raise some funds to cover the core cost for an Asean focus. 
