Myanmar casts spotlight on neighbours

Yap Mun Ching
28 March 2012

ON several occasions since 1997, the original six member states of Asean (Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Thailand, Singapore and the Philippines) have had to face unpleasant criticisms over their decision to widen the grouping to include the four remaining Southeast Asian states. Most problematic was the membership of Myanmar which brought about accusations that the association condoned the former ruling junta’s harsh treatment of the civilian opposition as well as the widespread rights violations that took place across conflict areas in the country’s minority areas.

Two pieces of news this month brought about a change in the balance of this equation. In early March, Myanmar’s opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi was allowed to make her campaign speech on state-controlled media channels. Under sweeping political changes, Myanmar’s new Constitution allows all contesting political parties 15-minute slots on television and radio.

To further burnish its reform pledge, the government invited observers from Asean, the EU and the US to monitor its upcoming April 1 by-elections which will see Suu Kyi contest in a Yangon area seat.

These reforms suddenly put to shame not a few of the Asean members states which only until recently felt compelled to criticise Myanmar for the treatment of its dissidents. Although the new freedoms in Myanmar remain tightly framed (candidates are allowed to speak of their campaign agenda but not criticise the previous military government), the impact was powerful when Suu Kyi appeared on national TV speaking of the importance of media freedom and calling for a reform of the judicial system to ensure that it is independent and just.

For the first time since Myanmar’s turbulent post-independence period, developments in the country cast the spotlight on its neighbours for their own weak guarantees of democratic freedoms.

Other than Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand, no other Asean country provides channels for legitimate opposition parties to broadcast campaign speeches on national television. Rather, public funded media have become not channels for the information of the electorate but tools serving the interests of the incumbents. Consequently, the integrity of the political systems of all Asean countries are compromised to differing degrees because of the unequal access of political parties to the media as well as the lack of freedoms for media organisations to practise unbiased journalism.

Myanmar’s openness to accepting foreign election monitors also focuses attention on the fact that an election can only be a true reflection of the people’s vote as long as fairness prevails. Elections must not only be free of violence but independent institutions must be available to safeguard the integrity of the system. In Myanmar’s case, the presence of foreign monitors will address its weak institutional capacities and enable confidence building with the international community.

As for Asean, Myanmar’s invitation for regional observers to be present during the upcoming by-election cannot but highlight the irony of Asean observers inspecting other’s conduct when polls in their own countries barely stand up to scrutiny. Election violence still occurs in Cambodia and Thailand while allegations of gerrymandering, vote-buying and/or blatant cheating are widespread in other countries, including Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines. Come April 1, it would do well for Asean representatives tasked to “observe” the polls in Myanmar to also pick up some good practices that can be implemented in their own countries.

Dipetik dari - theSundaily