Myanmar’s Rohingya plight faces jihadist hijacking

Author: Iftekharul Bashar, NTU

On 9 October 2016, 200 armed attackers from the Aqa Mul Mujahidin — an organisation with links to the Rohingya Solidarity Organisation (RSO) — carried out a surprise attack on Myanmar’s police at the Maungdaw border, killing 9 police officers. The attackers were from Myanmar’s northern Rakhine (Arakan) State. They seized weapons, ammunition, bayonets and magazines. According to the Myanmar government, the attackers received funding and support from foreign terrorist organisations.

Since the attacks in October, heavy-handed counter-insurgency campaigns have begun and reports have emerged of serious human rights abuses. Myanmar soldiers have been accused of killing Rohingyas and burning their villages, but the government has denied these allegations. The state media has put the death toll at almost 100 people, although advocacy groups claim that more have been killed. More than 20,000 Rohingyas have fled to neighbouring Bangladesh in the past two months.

The Rohingyas are denied citizenship and viewed by the Myanmar government as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. Tens of thousands of internally displaced Rohingyas, following ethnic violence in 2012, live in decrepit camps where travel is restricted. Following regional and international protests, an emergency ASEAN meeting was held in early December to discuss the crisis.

The plight of the Rohingya minority has attracted the attention of regional and international extremist and terrorist groups.

The so-called Islamic State (IS) has expressed its intention to target Myanmar via Bangladesh. In the fourteenth issue of its propaganda magazine Dabiq, a Bangladeshi jihadist called on others to join him to help the oppressed Rohingyas. Aung San Suu Kyi was also singled out by IS as a possible target in a ‘kill list’ sent to Malaysian police in August. In November 2016, Indonesian police thwarted an attempt by a local pro-IS extremist group to carry out a bombing attack on the Myanmar Embassy in Jakarta.

If IS were to firmly establish a foothold in Bangladesh, it would not be difficult for the group to expand its operations into Myanmar. The porous border between Bangladesh and Myanmar provides suitable terrain for insurgent operations. Should IS declare a new wilayat in South Asia, it is likely to include Myanmar’s Rakhine State. IS may capitalise on its contacts with the Bangladeshi militant group known as Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), which already has a pro-IS faction.

Al Qaeda has also shown interest in the Rohingya issue. Al Qaeda’s South Asia chapter, Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS), listed Myanmar as one of its key targets in 2014. Abu Zar al-Burmi, a key Pakistani Taliban leader of Burmese origin, condemned Myanmar’s new government for failing to protect Rohingyas and called for armed jihad. A new AQIS magazine released in September 2016, Al Balagh, also urged Muslims to join their fight against oppression. Through its Bangladeshi affiliate, the Ansarullah Bangla Team (ABT), Al Qaeda has provided training and support for the Rohingya militants and maintained ties with RSO. More recently, on 10 December 2016 al-Qaeda’s Bengali media platform (known as Titumir Media) has released a video in Bengali calling for taking revenge of the persecution of the Arakan Muslims through an armed struggle.

In cyberspace, regional online extremists have sought to capitalise on the issue, pledging their support through profile pictures with the IS flag and the hashtag ‘Pray for P_A_R_I_S’ which refers to the conflict areas of Palestine, Africa, Rohingya areas, Iraq and Syria. Online extremists in Indonesia have expressed a desire to mount ‘jihad’ on behalf of the Rohingyas and made reference to their hopes of bringing the ‘mujahidin’ (jihadi fighters) into Myanmar. These online jihadist flare-ups suggest that the Rohingya issue is being hijacked by global jihadism.

A group that has recently emerged is Harakah al-Yaqin, or the Movement of Certainty, which is said to consist of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh who crossed the border into northern Rakhine State. Videos of the group first surfaced on the internet in October 2016. The men spoke in a mixture of Bengali, Arakanese and Arabic and were armed with AK-47s. They called on foreign Rohingyas and jihadists to join them in northern Rakhine State to resist Myanmar’s forces. The existence of Harakah al-Yaqin may lead to an escalation of conflict in the region between the Rohingyas and Myanmar’s armed forces.

The RSO, who have been blamed by the Myanmar government for recent violent attacks, is a little-known militant group with an active regional and international presence. Based in Karachi, its members also operate in countries in the Middle East, Bangladesh and India. A significant faction of RSO has close operational ties with fundamentalist extremist and terrorist groups, namely Laskar-e-Taiba in Pakistan, Indian Mujahideen in India and JMB in Bangladesh. Some of the RSO’s leaders received combat training in Pakistan and are active along the Bangladesh–Myanmar border.

Active networks of IS, as well as AQIS, currently pose a threat to Myanmar’s security. A festering Rohingya crisis will create opportunities for exploitation by regional and international terror groups. Myanmar must develop a robust counter-terrorism strategy and beef up its counter-terrorism intelligence to enable authorities to prevent future attacks.

It will also have to bring the Rohingya community on board as strategic partners to alert authorities of terrorist or insurgent activities and to facilitate conflict resolution. Myanmar must begin to manage relations between the Buddhists and Muslims in the country. The government must urgently address the plight of this impoverished minority as they struggle to fulfil their basic needs.


Sumber - East Asia Forum

KENYATAAN RASMI PRESIDEN NDP MENGENAI ISU KEZALIMAN TERHADAP UMAT ISLAM ROHINGYA

Baca atau muat turun kenyataan rasmi Presiden NDP (format pdf) di pautan berikut,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2OXPABIfo1gc0VuRUdqclJWLW8/view?usp=sharing

Burma: New Wave of Destruction in Rohingya Villages

820 Newly Identified Destroyed Buildings; UN-Aided Investigation Urgently Needed

(New York) – New satellite imagery of Burma’s Rakhine State shows 820 newly identified structures destroyed in five different ethnic Rohingya villages between November 10-18, 2016, Human Rights Watch said today. The Burmese government should without further delay invite the United Nations to assist in an impartial investigation of the widespread destruction of villages.

Updated Damage Assessment of Affected Villages in Maungdaw District. Human Rights Watch identified
a total of 820 destroyed buildings in five villages of Maungdaw District from an analysis of very high resolution
satellite imagery recorded on 10, 17 and 18 November 2016. These damages are in addition to the 430 destroyed
buildings Human Rights Watch identified earlier and represent a second, more destructive round of arson attacks
occurring between 10 and 17 November 2016

The latest images bring the total number of destroyed buildings documented by Human Rights Watch in northern Rakhine State through satellite imagery to 1,250. US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, at a November 17 UN Security Council meeting on the deteriorating situation in Rakhine State, called for international observers to be allowed to investigate and for aid groups to have their access restored. After a short visit by diplomats to the area, Yanghee Lee, the UN special rapporteur on Burma, said on November 18, “The security forces must not be given carte blanche to step up their operations under the smokescreen of having allowed access to an international delegation. Urgent action is needed to bring resolution to the situation."

“These alarming new satellite images confirm that the destruction in Rohingya villages is far greater and in more places than the government has admitted,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The apparent arson attacks against five Rohingya villages is a matter of grave concern for which the Burmese government needs to investigate and prosecute those responsible. UN participation is crucial for such an investigation to be credible.”

Human Rights Watch identified a total of 820 destroyed buildings in five villages of Maungdaw district from an analysis of very high resolution satellite imagery recorded on November 10, 17, and 18. This damage is in addition to the 430 destroyed buildings Human Rights Watch identified from satellite imagery on November 13. Of the 820 destroyed buildings, 255 were in the village of Yae Khat Chaung Gwa Son; 265 in Dar Gyi Zar; 65 in Pwint Hpyu Chaung; 15 in Myaw Taung; and 220 in Wa Peik (in addition to the 100 which were destroyed earlier in the village).

Human Rights Watch also reviewed thermal anomaly data collected by environmental satellite sensors that detected the presence of multiple active fires burning in the village of Pwint Hpyu Chaung on November 12, in Dar Gyi Zar on November 13, and in Yae Khat Chaung Gwa Son on November 13, 14, and 15. Dense tree cover may have concealed a limited number of additional buildings that were destroyed, making it possible that the actual number is higher.

At a press conference on November 15 in response to Human Rights Watch’s November 13 statement, the Burmese government admitted widespread burning but claimed that the total number of buildings destroyed was significantly lower. The government cited helicopter flyovers of the area to arrive at its figures and blamed unspecified “terrorists” for the burnings.

Rohingya Muslim children stand in U Shey Kya village outside Maungdaw in Rakhine state

The new imagery shows village destruction that far exceeds the figures released by the Burmese government, Human Rights Watch said. On November 15, the Burmese military reported that militants burned down 60 homes in Dar Gyi Sar, while the State Counsellor Office’s newly created “Information Committee” reported on November 16 that only 30 buildings were destroyed in the same town. The new imagery shows that 265 buildings have been destroyed in Dar Gyi Zar alone. The State Counsellor’s information committee press release on November 16 mistakenly attributed a claim that all buildings were destroyed in Dar Gyi Zar to Human Rights Watch.

Both the military and the State Counsellor’s information committee reported that 105 buildings were destroyed in Wa Peik village. Satellite imagery collected by Human Rights Watch between November 10-17 shows that an additional 220 buildings were destroyed. This newly documented destruction, coupled with the 100 buildings Human Rights Watch imagery determined were destroyed from images collected between October 9 and November 3, brings the total to 320 buildings destroyed in Wa Peik village.

“On November 15, a government spokesperson suggested that Human Rights Watch was part of a ‘conspiracy’ to harm Burma’s image,” Adams said. “Instead of responding with military-era style accusations and denials, the government should simply look at the facts and take action to protect all people in Burma, whatever their religion or ethnicity.”

The crisis follows violence on October 9, in which gunmen attacked three police outposts in Maungdaw township near the Bangladesh border, leaving nine police officers dead. The government said that the attackers made off with dozens of weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition. The Burmese government asserts the attack was carried out by a Rohingya group, but actual responsibility remains unclear. A second attack on a border guard post that resulted in the death of a police officer reportedly occurred on November 3.

Immediately after the October 9 attack, government forces declared Maungdaw district an “operation zone” and began sweeps of the area to find the attackers and lost weapons. They severely restricted the freedom of movement of local populations and imposed extended curfews, which remain in place. With the area sealed off to observers, local sources reported that government forces committed serious human rights abuses, including torture, rape, extrajudicial executions, and widespread destruction of buildings, including mosques.

On October 28, Reuters published interviews with Rohingya women who allege that Burmese soldiers raped them. The government also allegedly pressured the Myanmar Times to fire one of its editors who reported allegations of rape by Burmese army soldiers.

The Burmese government conducted a government-supervised tour of some impacted sites in Maungdaw on November 2 and 3 with a nine-member delegation of foreign ambassadors, including the UN Resident Coordinator. The delegation conducted no formal investigation or assessment, but confirmed that they saw burned structures in several towns and spoke with several villagers. Allegations of reprisals against those who spoke to delegation members surfaced shortly after the trip concluded.

Another outbreak of violence reportedly began on November 11. The government reported the deaths of 69 alleged militants and 17 security force personnel. Local groups reported significant civilian casualties, but the lack of access makes all casualty reports difficult to verify. The Burmese military said that helicopter gunships called in to provide air support to its troops were attacked by hundreds of militants.

According to humanitarian aid groups, tens of thousands of people have been displaced by the recent violence, with hundreds attempting to flee to Bangladesh.

The government has responded with blanket denials to allegations that the security forces have committed abuses. Officials maintain that terrorists are responsible for the destruction of the buildings and urge that international journalists investigate the claims. However, the government has continued to block journalists, humanitarian aid workers, and human rights investigators from traveling to the impacted areas.

Burma is obligated under international law to conduct thorough, prompt, and impartial investigations of alleged human rights violations, prosecute those responsible, and provide adequate redress for victims of violations. Standards for such investigations can be found, for example, in the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, and the UN Guidance on Commissions of Inquiry and Fact-Finding Missions. Burma’s failure to conduct such investigations in the past underscores the need for UN assistance, Human Rights Watch said.

In early November, the government granted the World Food Programme (WFP) one-time access to four villages for a one-time food delivery. However, humanitarian aid groups continue to be denied full access, placing tens of thousands of already vulnerable people at greater risk.

Thousands of people impacted by the violence in the villages of Maungdaw have been without aid for six weeks. Despite assurances from the Burmese government that aid access to all impacted areas would be restored, many of the most significantly affected areas remain sealed to humanitarian assessment teams and human rights groups.

“After six weeks of violence with virtually no aid reaching tens of thousands of highly vulnerable people, the government needs to act decisively to assist them,” Adams said. “A government with nothing to hide should have no problem granting access to journalists and human rights investigators.”


Sumber - Human Rights Watch

Taking the Rohingya Insurgency at Face Value

By Richard Potter

Much of the speculation about the recent attacks miss a simple truth about the plight of the Rohingya.

Following deadly attacks on three police outposts that killed nine police officers along the Myanmar-Bangladesh border, speculation about the perpetrators has spread wildly, both from the Myanmar government and the media. The attack was apparently carried out by a massive group estimated at 400 people that coordinated simultaneous assaults on three separate border guard police posts near the city of Maungdaw, in Myanmar’s Rakhine State. The attackers were believed to belong to the country’s long oppressed Rohingya Muslim minority. Speculation has been rampant in the wake of the attacks and subsequent military crackdown, ranging from claims that the assailants were trained by the Pakistani Taliban, to those in opposition claiming the entire affair has been orchestrated by the military to seize resources, regain control of the government, and expel the Muslim minority. What seems clear is that much of what happened and who is behind it is lying in plain sight, but very few have been willing to acknowledge it.

Rohingya Muslim men stand at U Shey Kya village outside
Maugndaw in Rakhine state, Myanmar October 27, 2016.

The initial speculation by government and media sources was that the attack was carried out by the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO), even though that group has been defunct since they were disarmed by the Bangladeshi government in the early 2000s. Rumors have abounded that the group in fact remains active, even as the RSOs leadership – and indeed the leaderships of nearly all Rohingya militant groups – have gone into exile and taken on more diplomatic roles. Whatever remnants of the RSO do remain in Bangladesh are a toothless version of what once was. This doesn’t eliminate the potential for militarization of Rohingya in the region, but relies heavily on rumors to explain what might be happening.

Within a few days of the attack unconfirmed videos began to appear online of men insinuating their connection to the attacks, calling for Muslims and Rohingya to join them in combat against the military and government. The group identified itself as al Yakeen in several of the videos, and elsewhere as Harakat al Yaqeen, which was translated to me by fluent Arabic speakers as well as Rohingya familiar with the group as “The Movement of the Faith” or alternatively “The Movement of Hope.” In the first videos released several adult men in civilian clothes can be see holding assault rifles and small pistols. In a later video they appear marching and say their emir, or spiritualist leader, has been injured but is continuing on while asking for others to join them. The camera then pans to show a wider shot of the entire militia walking. Their numbers are so great they are unable to show all of them, but they are apparently in the hundreds. What is beyond striking, though, is that only a handful of the men are adults with guns; the rest are children who appear to be 12 years old or younger armed with swords, sticks and farm tools. The feeling quickly sinks in that these children are being marched to their deaths for something they aren’t even old enough to understand. Frankly, it is horrifying.

The president’s office later released a statement regarding the attacks which attempted to clarify previous unconfirmed statements in a single account of facts. The statements described the leadership of a little known group called “Aqa Mul Mujahadeen,” whom they said was trained by the Pakistani Taliban over the course of six months through an RSO contact. “Aqaa Mul Mujahideen” means “Those who stand as Mujahideen (Muslim warriors)” in Arabic, and reads more as a generic reference than any kind of official name. The statement said that this organization was funded by Middle East backers.

The trouble with these statements is that they make very little sense in light of what information is available. While the government is describing an overwhelming force of well trained and well funded Taliban-tied militants, the reality for them is far more embarrassing: Their police posts were overrun by a militia composed mostly of small children led by downtrodden men armed with farm tools, who stole their guns and quickly vanished. Neither the military nor the police can find them. The insurgency the government is trying to identify is more of an uprising, albeit a well coordinated one. Evidence of funding and links to clandestine groups may prove true over time, but at the moment evidence suggests the attacks were local to the areas near the Naf river, the attackers were only armed with swords and tools before robbing the police posts of their guns, and that their initial tactics were sophomoric at best. The Rohingya they’re fighting now are living in the same conditions as the Rohingya who knowingly fled with human traffickers two years ago that could – and often would – kill, rape and sell them in to slavery, in the hope they might escape the circumstances inside of Myanmar and the Bangladesh refugee camps. It is not a jihadist invasion of Myanmar; It is an act of desperation. But unlike the Rohingya who fled on boats, those fighting believe they preserve some sense of autonomy and dignity after decades of having been denied both.

In one of the videos posted on a channel called “The Faith Movement,” the same men seen in the previous videos appear, but a voice is dubbed over, and seemingly modulated perhaps to hide the identity of the speaker. The dubbing is in English and calls for a restoration of rights and that a number of grievances be immediately resolved. They deny any links to terrorists groups, or any outside influence at all. They clearly express a feeling of abandonment by the international community, and perhaps most unexpected of all they call on the Myanmar government to end its civil war with the ethnic minorities in the country, many of whom have been fickle allies, if not outright political opponents to the Rohingya. While the dubbing of this video can’t be verified yet, when compared to what facts on the ground are known they stand well enough to take seriously. Within all the chaos that has happened since the initial attacks no Buddhist civilians have been targeted or attacked. Whether or not the video itself can be verified, it does seem that those involved in this conflict do want to avoid the label of terrorists, and like the other ethnic groups, they may be seeking to gain legitimate political power through guerrilla fighting as the Kachin Independence Organization and Karen National Union have done in the Kachin and Karen ethnic regions.

As few facts emerge about the conflict journalists have also scrambled to gather information on the militants, but with limited success. Surely if hundreds of men and boys left to go fight the government someone would know about it. Yet, the Rohingya have remained incredibly silent on the issue, and one has to imagine how disheartening it must be to be approached by journalists who have often ignored or minimized cries for help from the community but are suddenly now are interested in a sensational story that risks demonizing them even as they watch dozens of their own die in the crackdown. It confirms in the worst way that their grievances are taken more seriously by the world when they are armed than when they are victims.

On October 11, four Burmese soldiers were reportedly killed in a skirmish in Maungdaw. Accounts varied between government and Rohingya sources about who initiated the fight, but given the high number of casualties of well armed Burmese soldiers it seems likely they were ambushed, which may be a dreadful sign of things to come.

In my conversation about the insurgency with Rohingya I feel swept with guilt for exactly this, and few would open up to me, though they were plainly aware of exactly who al Yakeen was. A small few did agree to talk, and it’s with regret they see their people having run out of options. It is desperation, pure and simple. It can’t be justified, and while listening I am painfully aware of how significantly these events will worsen the suffering of the Rohingya, but it is still imperative to understand where these beliefs came from, how they spread, and how they might be resolved.

As the military and government seek to calm the situation and restore order, they are operating with a heavy hand. Civilian casualties are already high, and credible reports are emerging of Rohingya men dying in police custody, under circumstances that are questionable at best. The situation could easily worsen as resentment and hopelessness increase among the population. The Rohingya have long tried to address their grievances through political means, and the vast majority would prefer to still do so, but lack any course or mechanism. If State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi and her party’s new government wants to legitimately restore peace they should be aware their best tool now is compassion. Any acknowledgment of the Rohingya’s humanity, of their suffering, and an offering of a way to dignity and autonomy will do more to reduce violence than any army is capable of. Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy need only to have the courage to do so.


Sumber - The Diplomat

Annan's commission faces Rohingya conundrum

Former UN secretary general Kofi Annan and Myanmar's leader Aung San Suu Kyi
talk during their meeting in Yangon on Monday

Nehginpao Kipgen

In an attempt to find a sustainable solution to the complicated issues between Muslims and Buddhists in Myanmar's Rakhine state, former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan is visiting the Southeast Asian country this week.

Mr Annan, who is scheduled to visit Rakhine state today and tomorrow, is head of the nine-member State Advisory Commission formed last month by the Myanmar government. Mr Annan was the UN secretary-general from 1997-2001.

The other international members of the commission are Ghassan Salame, a scholar from Lebanon and former adviser to Mr Annan, and Laetitia van den Assum, a diplomat from the Netherlands and a former adviser to the UN Programme on HIV and AIDS. The other six members are Myanmar nationals, with two Rakhine Buddhist members, two Muslim members and two government representatives.

The commission has been tasked with finding conflict-prevention measures, ensuring humanitarian assistance, rights and reconciliation, establishing basic infrastructure, and promoting development long-term plans in the restive state. It has been given a year to conduct research and submit its findings.

The commission was formed due to the protracted and lingering tensions between the Buddhists and Muslims (mostly Rohingya) in the wake of the 2012 violence in Rakhine state that left over 100 dead and has resulted in some 125,000 Rohingya Muslims living in designated camps where their movements are restricted.

The timing of Mr Annan's visit is important for the Myanmar government as it happens when the attention of the international community is relatively high on the Southeast Asian nation.

First, Mr Annan's visit comes right after the highly vaunted 21st century Panglong conference where the Myanmar government is seeking to secure peace and reconciliation with the country's ethnic minorities. Several dignitaries, including current UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon, attended the conference.

Second, the commission's first visit comes days before Myanmar's de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi's planned visit to the US where she will meet President Barack Obama and address the 71st session of the UN General Assembly. By making some progress in the peace process with the country's ethnic armed groups, as well as by taking certain initiatives with regard to the Rohingya issue, Ms Suu Kyi has a strong case to present during her meeting with Mr Obama and her address to the UN. She is expected to make efforts to convince the international community about her government's positive initiatives and urge for patience and continued support.

Despite some positive developments, there are challenges. The first is the opposition of the commission's composition. Since its formation on Aug 24, two political parties -- the Arakan National Party and the Union Solidarity and Development Party -- have called for its cancellation or the removal of the international members on the grounds that they could not be expected to understand the local context or that their involvement would amount to interference in internal affairs.

Whether these political parties will gradually accept and recognise the role of the commission or continue with their opposition remains to be seen. The acceptance or non-acceptance of the commission may also depend on how its work progresses and the strategy it pursues.

The issue of identity will perhaps be the greatest challenge of the commission. Although the Muslims in Rakhine call themselves Rohingya, the Buddhists in Rakhine, and many across Myanmar, call them illegal Bengali immigrants from Bangladesh. In an attempt to pacify both sides, the government chooses to refer to them as the Muslims of Rakhine.

During his recent visit to Myanmar, Mr Ban chose to use the controversial term "Rohingya" in his speech. While the Muslims in Rakhine want to be identified as Rohingya, and the strong opposition from the ultra or nationalist Buddhists of its usage, it is still unclear as to what name the commission would use to address these people in its report.

Another major challenge will be the question of citizenship for the Rohingya. As of now, the government's position on the issue is not much different from its predecessor. The government wants to address this sensitive question in accordance with the 1982 citizenship law, which would have made many of the Rohingya ineligible for citizenship.

According to the 1982 citizenship law, there are three categories of citizenship: citizen, associate citizen and naturalised citizen. Citizens are descendants of residents who lived in Myanmar prior to 1823 or were born to parents both of whom were citizens. Associate citizens are those who acquired citizenship through the 1948 Union Citizenship Act. Naturalised citizens are people who lived in Burma before Jan 4, 1948, and applied for citizenship after 1982.

Because of the continued allegation of being illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, whether the advisory commission would talk to the Dhaka government in the course of its mission remains to be seen. A compounding complicated issue is that Bangladesh, which already hosts about 300,000 Rohingya, has rejected them as its citizens.

The Myanmar government's appointment of the commission is not the first of its kind. In February 2014, the president Thein Sein appointed a 10-member commission to probe the death of a policeman which had sparked what was described as revenge killings of at least 40 Rohingya Muslims by Buddhist mobs in Rakhine state.

Prior to the appointment of the commission, former Myanmar foreign minister Wunna Maung Lwin also announced a separate inquiry by three government-appointed groups into the circumstances that led to the 2014 violence. The Central Committee for Rakhine State Peace, Stability and Development Implementation; the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission; and the Rakhine Conflict Investigation Commission conducted separate investigations into the killings.

Neither the commission nor the separate investigations found a lasting solution. The initiatives partly failed because the government lacked substantive plans to address the core issues of identity and citizenship of the Rohingya.

In light of these failures and the continued pressure from the international community, the participation of foreign experts may help bring new ideas which may pave the way for a possible solution.

In any case, the task of the Annan-led commission, is to conduct research and give its recommendations to the government. With foreign nationals in the commission, it may engender a neutral idea that could be mutually acceptable.

Reconciliation will have a chance to succeed if Rakhine state Muslims and Buddhists are willing to compromise and respect each other's identity and culture. The government and the public must be ready to embrace the Rohingya if any genuine reconciliation is to be achieved.


Sumber - Bangkok Post

China sekat minoriti daripada berpuasa

BEIJING, 6 Jun – China telah menandakan permulaan Ramadan dengan tegahan lazimnya ke atas kakitangan awam, para pelajar dan kanak-kanak di rantau Islam itu daripada ikut serta berpuasa, menurut laman web kerajaan ketika bulan suci bermula hari ini.

Parti pemerintah Komunis China berfahaman ateis dan selama bertahun-tahun telah menegah kakitangan kerajaan dan kanak-kanak daripada berpuasa di Xinjiang, rumah kepada lebih 10 juta puak minoriti Islam Uighur. Ia juga mengarahkan restoran-restoran untuk beroperasi seperti biasa.

Rantau itu sering melihat pertempuran biasa antara puak Uighur dan pasukan keselamatan kerajaan, dan Beijing telah menyalahkan serangan maut di sana dan tempat lain di China ke atas militan yang mencari kebebasan bagi rantau sumber kaya itu.

Kumpulan hak asasi kemanusiaan menyalahkan ketegangan ke atas pengehadan beragama dan budaya yang dikenakan terhadap Uighur dan minoriti Islam lain di kawasan luas terbentang, yang bersempadan dengan Asia Tengah.

Beberapa jabatan kerajaan di Xinjiang menyiarkan makluman dalam laman web mereka pada minggu lalu mengarahkan penyekatan berpuasa semasa Ramadan.

“Anggota parti, kader, kakitangan awam, para pelajar dan kanak-kanak tidak perlu berpuasa pada Ramadan dan tidak mengambil bahagian dalam kegiatan keagamaan,” menurut notis yang disiarkan pada Khamis pada laman web bandar Korla, tengah Xinjiang.

“Semasa bulan Ramadan, perniagaan makanan dan minuman tidak akan ditutup,” tambahnya. – AFP


Sumber - Media Permata

Eliminating Statelessness in Southeast Asia

ASEAN can take some reasonable measures to address the plight.

By Michael Caster

The government of Myanmar has come under fire this month following Aung San Suu Kyi’s rebuke of U.S. Ambassador Scot Marciel’s reference to the Rohingya, the estimated one million stateless Muslim inhabitants of Myanmar’s Western Rakhine State. Aung San Suu Kyi’s government refuses to fully confront the issue of the Rohingya, who have been denied equal access to citizenship since the passage of the 1982 Citizenship Law. The denial of citizenship has compounded human rights abuses, rising to the crime of genocide, according to an October study by Fortify Rights. The persecution of the Rohingya has deservedly captured increasing international attention in recent years, although greater awareness and mobilization is needed. The plight of statelessness remains a universal challenge.

Around the world, there are an estimated 15 million stateless people. According to the UNHCR, somewhere a stateless child is born every 10 minutes and within the countries hosting the 20 largest stateless populations some 70,000 stateless children are born every year. In 2014, the UNHCR announced its Campaign to end Statelessness in ten years. The same year, the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion reported that more people in Asia and the Pacific are affected by statelessness than in any other region of the world. How ASEAN addresses this challenge will be key to achieving the UN’s objective of eradicating statelessness by 2024.

The Right to Have Rights

Hannah Arendt, in The Origins of Totalitarianism, calls citizenship the right to have rights, a sentiment which entered jurisprudence in 1958 through U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, who wrote that the denial of citizenship is the denial of all claims to protection from any nation.

Modern notions of nationality emerged following World War I through a series of League of Nations treaties, which granted States total freedom to determine how individuals obtained or lost nationality. Such absolutism of State sovereignty changed following World War II with the realization of the degree of harm caused by discriminatory nationality laws, such as the Nuremburg Laws. This realization gave rise to Article 15 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, granting everyone the right to nationality.

Also in 1948, the United Nations commissioned the Study on Statelessness, released a year later. The Study affirmed that eradicating statelessness requires that, “Every child must receive a nationality at birth” and “No person throughout his life should lose his nationality until he has acquired a new one.”

The Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, adopted in 1954, provides the legal definition of statelessness as “a person who is not considered a national by any state under the operation of its law.” The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness followed with more guidance. However, both Conventions remain poorly ratified with only 86 and 65 state parties respectively. The Philippines is the only ASEAN country to have ratified the 1954 Convention.

The right to nationality was further codified in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). However, Brunei, Malaysia, Myanmar, and Singapore are not State parties. On the other hand, all ASEAN member states are parties to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Together they prohibit gender discrimination in matters of nationality, require immediate birth registration, and place an obligation on states to respect the right of the child to preserve identity and nationality.

Statelessness in ASEAN

The 2009 ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human rights (AICHR) and 2010 ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children (ACWC) are both mandated with developing strategies for the promotion and protection of human rights. ACWC is furthermore empowered “to advocate on behalf of women and children, especially the most vulnerable and marginalized, and encourage ASEAN member states to improve their situation” and “to propose and promote appropriate measures…for the prevention and elimination of all forms of violation of the rights of women and children.”

Stateless people are indisputably among the most vulnerable and marginalized and international norms make explicit reference to women and children’s equal right to nationality. As such, AICHR and ACWC appear to have a mandated obligation to play a leading role in the elimination of statelessness in ASEAN, especially in ensuring birth registration and the elimination of gender discrimination in nationality laws.

One of the challenges to a regional approach is the lack of a unified definition of statelessness in domestic laws. The 1954 Convention provides the legal definition but the failure to ratify or implement in domestic laws provides countries with maneuverability. The Philippines offers the best example, having enacted the Convention and definition into domestic law in 2012. Vietnam and Laos provide a definition for stateless persons but do not go as far as the Philippines in implementing protections. The refusal to implement the accepted international definition in Myanmar, for example, has contributed to the State narrative that Rohingya do not qualify for protection as stateless because they are migrants from Bangladesh.

Birth registration, a human right vital for protecting against stateless, is not equally guaranteed throughout ASEAN. Cambodia provides a best practice in birth registration campaigning. In 2000, only around 5 percent of Cambodian births were registered. The Ministry of Interior, with support from UNICEF and others, initiated a pilot program involving more than 13,000 people who had received specialized training in birth registration. Within the first ten months of the program over 7 million adults and children were registered. Subsequently birth certificates were issued free of charge within 30 days of birth and only a small fee was incurred for late registration.

However, the 1996 Nationality Law offers no definition for statelessness and ambiguity in language implies that Khmer ethnicity may be a prerequisite for citizenship. Despite birth registration campaigning, several thousand stateless people remain in Cambodia.

Prohibitive costs for birth registration, requirements for documents that are sometimes unavailable or nonexistent, and associated costs of transportation or hospital fees, contribute to statelessness as well. Such obstacles often remain even after well-meaning policies have been adopted.

In Thailand, the 2005 National Strategy on Administration of Legal Status and Rights of Persons and 2008 changes in the Nationality Law ostensibly provided undocumented and migrant children, including stateless children, the right to attend primary and elementary school. Unfortunately, transportation or uniform costs continue to make education prohibitively expensive. Similarly, according to Children of the Forest, a child protection organization that works with stateless children and trafficking victims at the Thai-Myanmar border, among the common ways that children there become stateless is that parents will leave the hospital before registration because they couldn’t afford hospital services. Failure to register at the time of birth significantly increases the burden of registration at a later date. In 2015, the Thai government reported that over 18,000 previously stateless people had been given Thai nationality over the preceding three years. However, concerns over remaining obstacles in Thailand and elsewhere remain.

Gender discrimination in nationality laws is a significant contributor to statelessness. In Malaysia, although men and women confer nationality equally, children of Malaysian mothers born abroad only obtain citizenship at the discretion of the Malaysian Government. Mothers in Brunei have no right to pass nationality to their children. In a positive move, Singapore, in 2004, and Indonesia, in 2006, amended their nationality laws to permit mothers to pass citizenship to their children.

Three Approaches for the Elimination of Statelessness

The UNHCR acknowledges that some of the safeguards within the 1961 Convention have been enacted by ASEAN Member States. Still, accession to the two Conventions would provide the clearest framework for adapting national laws and policies to identifying, protecting, and eradicating statelessness within ASEAN. Although this is unlikely any time soon, there are three arguably more achievable measures that would strengthen the efforts to eradicate statelessness: empowering regional human rights bodies; emphasizing birth registration; and eliminating gender discriminatory nationality laws.

ASEAN created and empowered the AICHR and ACWC with a relatively robust mandate but they suffer from the lack of independence and weak enforcement capabilities. ASEAN’s Commitment to human rights, as expressed through the 2004 Vientiane Action Program and subsequent treaties, calls for strengthening such mechanisms.

This includes encouraging and working with States to withdraw reservations and amend laws that violate the right to nationality and birth registration, and localizing the legal definition of statelessness.

While civil society organizations are sometimes invited to regional consultations, the AICHR and ACWC remain under government authority. State representatives are largely coordinated by respective ministries of foreign affairs and not by national human rights institutions. Of course, national human rights institutions are not necessarily independent, as demonstrated in Myanmar and Thailand. However, AICHR and ACWC representatives from Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines have attempted to work around certain political obstacles by involving civil society and individual human rights defenders in the drafting or evaluation process, at times, and should be encouraged to do more so in terms of nationality issues.

Empowering regional human rights bodies to take a more active role in the identification and elimination of statelessness may also require the improvement of complaints mechanisms. Specifically, regional human rights bodies with a mandate over CEDAW and CRC should have specialized training and procedures for hearing complaints of arbitrary denaturalization, denial of nationality at birth or obstacles to birth registration.

The establishment of a regional human rights court would provide another forum for investigating and prosecuting the widespread or systematic arbitrary denial of nationality or grave human rights violations arising from the denial of nationality.

Registration at birth is of paramount importance. The ACWC mandate implies a role for the organization in birth registration campaigning and, in cooperation with child protection and gender experts, it should arguably take a more active role in harmonizing birth registration laws and advising campaigns throughout the region.

Drawing from Cambodia, efforts at raising awareness through television and radio should be maintained while other channels should be investigated and utilized. Public education during popular holidays would likely reach larger audiences. Because of challenges of birth registration campaigns reaching hill tribes or remote regions of Thailand, for example, efforts should be made to identify new strategies for locations or times of greatest community congregation. Registration campaigners should also concentrate around markets, where women may be likely to congregate. Campaigning should be increased around holidays when people from more remote areas are most likely to be present or when weather is more amenable to travel.

In order to address financial and administrative obstacles, a regional funding mechanism could be piloted to offset the costs of birth registration, including associated transportation costs. A period should be designated when birth registration is free, and after that waivers should be made available for the extremely poor.

There is also a role for innovative technology. Digital birth registration programs point to innovation in improving registration and archiving records.

A robust regional investigation into gender-based discrimination in nationality laws is a fundamental component of addressing statelessness. A widespread gender-based assessment of equal access to nationality should be conducted throughout ASEAN. Member states, especially Singapore and Indonesia, should work with Malaysia and Brunei to amend their Nationality Laws to abolish gender discrimination. Based on their mandates, this presents a strong opening for AICHR and ACWC involvement.

Admittedly there remain serious social and political obstacles to eradicating statelessness. Such obstacles have been reproduced through decades of structural violence and historical narratives of exclusion. The involvement of United Nations experts or foreign governments is not always greeted with fanfare. But ASEAN has made specific commitments and empowered regional bodies with a mandate to promote and protect human rights. Identifying and eradicating statelessness in ASEAN cannot be seen as a foreign imposition, as the government of Myanmar claims, but as an obligation inherent in the ASEAN Charter and within the mandate of regional bodies for the full realization of human rights for all.


Sumber - The Diplomat

Brunei drops to 155th of 180 on World Press Freedom Index

Darren Chin
BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN

BRUNEI has dropped 34 places in the annual Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index to rank 155th out of 180 countries in 2016, its lowest ranking since 2009.

The rankings, released on Wednesday, showed that Brunei scored 53.95 points out of 100 (with 100 being the worst possible result) which is down 17.09 points from last year’s 36.76.

Among all countries on the index, Brunei and Tajikistan recorded the biggest decline, with both dropping 34 places.

Brunei also lost its crown as ASEAN’s best performing country in the index, placing third-worst out of the 10 countries in the regional bloc, with only Laos and Vietnam ranked below the sultanate at 173rd and 175th, respectively.

A statement from Reporters Without Borders said that the 2016 index showed there has been a deep decline globally in respect for media freedom at both the global and regional levels.

“The 2016 World Press Freedom Index reflects the intensity of the attacks on journalistic freedom and independence by authorities, ideologies and private-sector interests during the past year,” it said.

“The climate of fear results in a growing aversion to debate and pluralism, a clampdown on the media and reporting in the privately-owned media that is increasingly shaped by personal interests,” it said.

Timor-Leste was the only country from Southeast Asia to rank inside the Top 100 at 99th place, up four places from last year.

Finland retained its position at the top of the index for the eighth year in a row, followed by the Netherlands and Norway while Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eritrea remain unmoved from last year in the bottom three.

As posted on the Reporters Without Borders’ website, the index is determined by compiling responses from questionnaires sent to media professionals, lawyers and sociologists around the world.

The questionnaire covers a range of criteria including pluralism, media independence, transparency, legal framework, the environment that the media operates in and the level of abuses against journalists.


Sumber - The Brunei Times

It's way past time to stop mistreating Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar

A Rohingya Muslim man who fled Myanmar to Bangladesh to escape religious violence cries as he pleads from a
boat after he and others were intercepted by Bangladeshi border authorities in Taknaf, Bangladesh, in June 2012.
Bangladesh had been returning thousands of Rohingya Muslims, according to human rights groups.

By Syed Hamid Albar

There are more refugees and displaced people today, driven from their home by war, persecution, poverty, and climate change, than at any time since World War II. In America, perhaps, it is the Syrian refugee crisis that earns the most attention. But there is another crisis which also speaks deeply to the Assn. of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, and to the Muslim world: the plight of the Rohingya.

The Rohingya are the indigenous people of southwestern Myanmar, or so-called Rakhine State. For years now, they have taken to overcrowded and leaky boats on the open sea, submitted to dangerous human trafficking networks, and seen their families split apart in a desperate bid to find safety somewhere, anywhere. Like many of the world’s refugees, they are Muslim.

But Myanmar is not Syria, torn apart by civil war. Last year, Myanmar’s economy was the fastest-growing in the world. Myanmar is entering a widely heralded new era of democracy, under the direction of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi. Some of the praise she and her country receive is deserved. But much of it overlooks the unacceptable treatment of her Muslim citizens, who have suffered an ongoing and accelerating process of "otherization" and dehumanization that is deeply frightening to watch.

For decades, the Rohingya have been subject to strict restrictions. Since 1982, they were summarily rendered stateless. Today they have been herded into detention and internment camps, stripped of their valuables, denied freedom of movement, and left impoverished and lacking in even basic healthcare. It is no wonder that so many thousands make such risky journeys across treacherous waters. The plight of the Rohingya may not be well known in the West, but it is well known in the ASEAN and Muslim world.

In fact, it is one of our highest priorities.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, the world’s second largest intergovernmental organization after the U.N., has appointed me as special envoy to Myanmar. It is a sign of how seriously we take the systemic Islamophobia of Myanmar’s government, and the inexplicable silence of Aung San Suu Kyi--otherwise a champion of the dispossessed and distressed--over this treatment.

Last week in fact, heads of state from more than 30 Muslim countries, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Pakistan, among others, and delegations from the remaining OIC member states, gathered in Istanbul for the 13th Islamic Summit. They reiterated their support for the Rohingya and called on the new government of Myanmar, under Aung San Suu Kyi, to begin a national reconciliation process, to restore to the Rohingya the rights they deserve, to honor the potential and promise of this new era in their history.

Indeed, national reconciliation and reintegration of the Rohingya is the only feasible, practicable way of addressing the humanitarian crisis created by years of discriminatory policy and exclusion. Should Myanmar truly wish to re-enter the international community, and realize the full potential long denied it by years of isolation and exclusion, then the question of the Rohingya must be addressed. The country has much to lose, and much to gain.

We hope the lessons of the past years, and the potential of years ahead, encourages the government of Myanmar to move in the right direction. For our part, the OIC is committed to leveraging the full diplomatic, economic and political resources of the Muslim world to that end - a commitment that was also made at last week’s Islamic Summit in Istanbul.

We remind the government of Myanmar, too, of all the ways in which they have worked with, benefited from, and built ties to our member states.

Myanmar is already a member of ASEAN, which groups 10 Southeast Asian countries together, forming what would be the world’s seventh-largest economy, and third-largest country. Three of ASEAN’s members are OIC member states--Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei. Of these, Indonesia is the world’s largest Muslim country and largest economy. Sixty percent of the world’s Muslims live in the Asia Pacific area, meaning that Myanmar is at the heart of a growing region, and a fast-growing Muslim market, which is developing strong links between the Gulf region and Southeast Asia, for which Myanmar could be a potential hub.

We hope, too, that the government of Myanmar can see the undeniable benefits of a long-term partnership with the Muslim world. A resolution of the status of the Rohingya would open the door to deeper ties with the Muslim world, which bring political, economic and national security benefits to Myanmar. A close relationship between Myanmar and the Muslim world is common sense. As Myanmar opens to the world, it welcomes investment, trade and tourism. The Muslim market would look to Myanmar, given its location between South Asia, Southeast Asia and China. These are not abstract aspirations.

In 2015, during catastrophic floods, the Royal Brunei Armed Forces provided emergency humanitarian assistance to the people of Myanmar. On the election of Myanmar’s first civilian president, Indonesia’s (also elected) president, Joko "Jokowi" Widodo, called for increased cooperation between these two Southeast Asian democracies, “especially in the fields of economy, trade and democratization.” Bilateral trade was $500 million in 2014, and businessmen from both countries have met to discuss doubling that amount in this very year.

Malaysia, in turn, imports $303 billion worth of goods from Myanmar, while trade between these two countries is also accelerating. Malaysia is the seventh-largest investor in Myanmar; for example, OCK Group, a Malaysian telecom provider, is planning to build 900 cellphone towers in the country.

These relationships are natural, beneficial and critical. But should the Rohingya crisis continue, Myanmar may find that many of its neighbors--including Bangladesh, one of the world’s largest Muslim countries--will be closed for business, for assistance, and for political engagement and long-term relationships.

No country should be so isolated. The choice to gain new partnerships, new relationships, and to benefit from the region in which it lies, or to descend into ever more discriminatory and violent policies, belongs to Myanmar. We hope Myanmar will make the right decision, and we stand ready to work with Myanmar to finally bring the Rohingya peace and provide them the citizenship, prosperity and security they have so long been denied. It is the better thing to do. It is also the right thing to do. Let us work together to make it happen.

Syed Hamid Albar is the OIC special envoy to Myanmar. He is former foreign minister and minister for defense for the government of Malaysia.


Sumber - LA Times

Myanmar’s Rohingya left behind by election gains: UN

Rohingya Muslim men gather near a window of a mosque at Thet Kel Pyin
village near Sittwe of Rakhine State, western Myanmar.

Yangon

MYANMAR’S persecuted Rohingya continue to languish in “dreadful conditions” with children dying because they are refused healthcare, the UN has warned, adding that the Muslim minority risked being forgotten in the afterglow of recent elections.

The comments were made by a senior UN official following a visit to western Rakhine state, where the Rohingya have been targeted by violent attacks and state-sanctioned discrimination in Buddhist-majority Myanmar, earning a reputation as one of the world’s most persecuted peoples.

More than 100,000 Rohingya are languishing in camps in Myanmar’s west after communal unrest in Rahkine state left villages torched and scores dead in 2012.

They are denied full citizenship and large numbers were disenfranchised in historic November polls that saw the pro-democracy party of Aung San Suu Kyi sail to victory with a massive popular mandate.

John Ging, director of operations at the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), said he was shocked to see the state of the refugee camps during his February visit.

He described a raft of temporary shelters on the verge of collapse, and told familiar stories of families denied medical care on account of their religion.

“It was heartbreaking to see so many children in these dreadful conditions,” he said in a statement from New York on Tuesday.

“One mother told me that her baby, less than a month old, died from lack of oxygen in December after she was denied access to treatment at the nearby township hospital,” he added.

In an accompanying statement, UNOCHA stressed that the Rohingya and other groups displaced by violence “must not be forgotten” as the country advances towards democracy.

“Myanmar is going through an impressive democratic transformation, which is unlocking significant economic growth and development. However, not everyone in Myanmar is benefiting in this transition,” the agency went on to say.

Though Suu Kyi has said she will protect Muslims in the state, the Nobel laureate has faced international criticism for not taking a stronger stance on the Rohingya’s plight, and for failing to field any Muslim candidates in November’s polls.

Carving out a solution for the Rohingya and addressing strident anti-Muslim rhetoric among Buddhist nationalists across the country will be a key test of her administration.


Sumber - The Brunei Times

Thai army accused of torture in war-hit south: Report

A study found 54 cases of physical and mental torture or mistreatment between 2014-15, often at military camps.

BANGKOK: Thai security forces have tortured scores of detainees in the country's conflict-strewn south, rights groups said on Tuesday (Feb 9), with beatings, suffocations and death threats among a litany of alleged abuses.

Special security laws govern Thailand's Muslim-majority southernmost provinces, where more than 6,500 people, mostly civilians, have been killed in a 12-year insurgency against Thai rule.

Under martial law and the emergency decree that smothers the south, suspected rebels can be detained for six weeks without charge.

As a result many young Muslim men have been swept into arbitrary detention where they are vulnerable to torture, according to a report by several well-respected advocacy groups to be released on Wednesday.

The study, rare research in a dangerous zone cloaked by security forces and insurgents, is based on interviews with 54 former detainees between 2014-15 who alleged they were physically or mentally tortured over the last few years.

Alleged beatings of suspects, threats at gunpoint, sensory deprivation and suffocation were all routine during detention, researchers said. Many of the suspects were later released without charge.

"What we have documented is the tip of the iceberg," said Pornpen Khongkachonkiet, of the Cross Cultural Foundation, a rights group. The situation has worsened since Thailand's 2014 coup put the military in power, she added.

"With no accountability or oversight mechanisms since the coup ... interrogation officers have almost a free hand" over detainees, she explained.

The insurgents are seeking greater autonomy from Thailand, which annexed the culturally distinct region more than a century ago.

The rebels employ brutal tactics including shootings, beheadings and bombings often targeting perceived civilian collaborators such as teachers and even Buddhist monks.

'I COULDN'T BREATHE'

One suspect, Weasohok Doloh, told AFP that he was hauled into custody in May 2015 on suspicion of involvement in a bombing - an accusation he denies.

He was taken to Inkayuth military camp, an interrogation centre in Pattani province, where he alleged he was abused over several days. "At first they just slapped me," the 32-year-old builder said, adding he resisted confessing to links with the rebels.

But the abuse worsened and after a few days he alleged he was stripped naked by three interrogators who also tied his hands.

"Suddenly one (interrogator) pushed me onto a chair and forced a plastic bag over my head. I couldn't breathe ... they released the bag when I said I would confess. But I had nothing to confess to, so they did it again," he said.

In total he spent 84 days in custody before prosecutors decided not to press charges.

"Inkayuth military camp is a place where bad things are swept under the carpet," says Anchana Heemmina of Duay Jai, a local rights group which co-authored the report.

"We have heard stories of suffering from there for 12 years," she added, urging the army to allow lawyers access to suspects from the moment of arrest.

A Muslim man died in custody at Inkayuth in December last year. The army says it was from a heart attack.

A separate report released last week by the Muslim Attorney's Centre (MAC), a southern-based advocacy group, collected testimony of 75 people who alleged they were the tortured in custody in 2015.

Army spokesman Pramote Prom-In, dismissed the torture allegations contained in both reports as "imaginary".

"Losing their freedom may be torture for them ... but we need to enforce the law," he told AFP. "Detainees are allowed family visits and arrests are made in front of witnesses," he added.

The military has hailed a record drop in violence in recent months as the result of better intelligence-led operations since it took power.

It is also engaged in contacts with a number of rebel representatives that Bangkok hopes will lead to full peace talks.

But critics cast doubt on the army's sincerity and the ability of their rebel interlocutors to tug the leash of the rebel foot soldiers.


Sumber - Channel NewsAsia

Burma’s Parliament Opens in the Dawning of a New Democratic Era

Simon Lewis

The country overwhelmingly voted for Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy in November

Burma embarked upon a democratic era on Monday as a new parliament sat for the first time, with democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi finally in a position to lead the country.

Nearly three months ago, street parties broke out in major cities as it became clear that her National League for Democracy (NLD) would win a majority of seats — 77% in the final count — in the Nov. 8 elections. The country has been in a state of muted excitement ever since, with many unable to completely banish doubts over whether power would truly be handed over after more than five decades under the rule of military generals or their proxies.

Suu Kyi and the NLD first emerged as a political force in 1988, when the country erupted in massive demonstrations against the one-party rule of dictator Ne Win, who had seized power in a 1962 coup. Suu Kyi, the daughter of the country’s slain independence hero, was in Rangoon by chance during the uprising to care for her ailing mother, but captivated crowds with a speech in support of the protests.

In 1989, Suu Kyi, now 70, was put under house arrest, where she would spend much of the next two decades, proving to be a thorn in the sides of Burma’s military rulers both during her incarceration and in periods of release. She won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1991, and over the years earned the devotion of most Burmese, who call her “Mother Suu.”

The NLD won a majority in elections held in 1990, but the results were ignored by the generals, who insisted a new constitution was needed before power could be transferred. It took them until 2008 to draft the charter, which laid the ground for elections in 2010. The NLD did not participate, but shortly after the polls, the government finally freed Suu Kyi and she was allowed to enter parliament through a by-election in 2012.

The constitution now stands as the major stumbling block to truly democratic rule, however. It cements the military’s role in politics, keeping soldiers in charge of key ministries overseeing security, policing and borders, and giving the Commander in Chief the right to select 25% of the lawmakers. Conveniently, it takes a vote of more than 75% of lawmakers to amend the constitution.

But on Monday, lawmakers in green fatigues were vastly outnumbered on the benches of Burma’s parliament by newly minted NLD representatives, including a number of veteran activists who spent lengthy terms in prison for opposing army rule.

The NLD’s majority gives the party — which Suu Kyi leads in an unapologetically autocratic manner — the ability to select the next President. But the generals who wrote the constitution, apparently foreseeing such a future, made sure to block her from adopting that role. The charter says the President must not have close family members who “owe allegiance to a foreign power”; Suu Kyi’s two sons are British citizens.

Suu Kyi has insisted she will simply select a President who will carry out her wishes, regardless of constitutional rules on the role of the head of state. But she has not yet named her choice, sparking months of speculation. Possible candidates include Dr. Tin Myo Win, 64, Suu Kyi’s personal physician and a former political prisoner.

Despite the setbacks, the opening of parliament suggests that a remarkably peaceful transition may nearly be complete.

Outgoing President Thein Sein, a former general who has overseen five years of tightly controlled political and economic reforms, said in a speech to the final session of the last parliament on Friday that members of his administration would cooperate with the new government to ensure a smooth transfer of power.

Thein Sein has cast his role as ensuring that Burma’s transition to democracy did not follow the path of Arab Spring uprisings that ended in civil war.

“At the time when the [Burmese] government started to implement the democratic transition, Arab nations in the Middle East started their own drives toward democratization, known as Arab Spring,” he said, according to an official readout. “Over the last five years, the Arab nations are getting further and further from reaching their original goal of democracy.”


Sumber - TIME

Public participation toward a further people-centred ASEAN Community

The full implementation of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) this year is a step toward further consolidating the ASEAN Community through political-security, economic, and socio-cultural co-operation.

A post-2015 vision of "ASEAN 2025: Forging Ahead Together" endorsed by ASEAN leaders at the 27th ASEAN Summit in Nov. 2015 articulates ASEAN's goals in promoting an inclusive and people-centred community for the next ten years.

The forward-looking roadmap promises that, in line with the free movement of people across Southeast Asian countries' borders, ASEAN citizens will have their human rights protected, equitable access to job opportunities and a people-centred community for the next ten years.

However, experts say that ASEAN's vision for further integration will be hard to realise, as until now, member states hold different views regarding human rights protection and lack shared democratic values, which could hamper diplomacy at the regional level.

In addition, the consensus-based and non-interference principles - dubbed the "ASEAN Way" - may become problematic, as most member states still regard rights and governance issues as sensitive and thus insist on maintaining them under domestic jurisdiction, instead of being addressed at the regional level.

With the nearing deadline of AEC full implementation and the ASEAN Community that follows, member states need to address differences and make compromises while Indonesia, according to experts, should take on the main role of leading community integration to prevent from getting dragged into regional matters that pose a threat to Indonesia's democracy.

ASEAN speaks in language of history, but progresses forward

ASEAN's first key document, the 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC), introduced the term "ASEAN Way", asserting that member states effectively co-operate as long as they did not interfere in each other's domestic affairs and maintained the principles of consensus among members.

Their sensitivity toward sovereignty was due to the fact that all ASEAN member states - except for Thailand - had been under colonial rule before gaining independence, leading them to reject any subversion or coercion from other states or supranational bodies that interfered with their national interests.

Former chairperson of the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) Marzuki Darusman said that historical matters, including colonisation, were important to ASEAN members.

"ASEAN speaks in the language of history. Member states tend to look at the past to find similarities between each other. ASEAN has become a peaceful region where they interact with benefits," Marzuki told thejakartapost.com recently.

As ethnic, religious, political, and economy diversity puts ASEAN member states at risk of irreconcilable disputes, ASEAN adopted a decision-making process that accommodated discussion to proceed at a pace that each member was comfortable with, even though it often hampered the progress of certain issues to be addressed at the regional level.

Taking the example of the formation of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), Marzuki said it took 17 years of negotiations for member states to reach consensus after deciding to set a regional mechanism for human rights protection in 1993.

"We cannot expect ASEAN regional forum to function like other regional forums because ASEAN strives to seek communalities through consensus, and this cannot be changed," said Marzuki.

In progressing toward inclusive and people-centred community in 2025, experts have said that ASEAN should make attempts to change its non-interference principle, particularly in addressing grave violations of human rights.

The former dean of the School of Social and Political Science at Parahyangan Catholic University, Yulius Purwadi, said that it would be impossible to expect non-democratic states such as Myanmar, Vietnam and Laos to reach Indonesia's position by 2025.

"Normatively, [the change] will be hard, but in practice, there is space for ASEAN countries to loosen their consensus decision making and non-interference principles," Yulius said.

Yulius said Indonesia should be more proactive during ASEAN intergovernmental meetings while at the same time, carry out a more bilateral approach rather than collective approach when discussing sensitive issues such as rights protection and politics with member states.

"Indonesia has a strong position to propose that ASEAN development orientation should be based on social policies that determine economic policies. It should not happen in reverse, as we will only get what we have today," Marzuki added.

Bread before freedom, trade-off between development and rights

ASEAN establishment dates back to 1967, with the Bangkok Declaration signed by the five founding member states - Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand - which had mutual interests in promoting regional co-operation, but were persistent in maintaining their absolute sovereignty.

The founding document made no mention of human rights and democracy, making it obvious that both sensitive issues were not considered vital for the region. ASEAN's guiding principles allowed member states to deal with the issues individually.

"Non-interference, sovereignty and consensus principles are the characteristics of development in Southeast Asia. However, those principles keep human rights protection in the region at its minimum level," Puri Kencana Putri, Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) deputy coordinator for strategy and mobilization, said recently.

According to Putri, there was a trade-off to placing greater importance on regional development over human rights protection in Southeast Asia, with some governments in the region still using the logic of "bread before freedom".

Even though ASEAN has made significant progress in human rights protection with the establishment of the AICHR in 2009, Putri said that the rights protection body still failed to address violations in Southeast Asia.

With only Indonesia and the Philippines having established their own national commission on human rights, issues emerged between human rights protection and elite interests, Putri added.

Similarly, Migrant Care executive director Anis Hidayah said that despite the 2007 ASEAN Declaration on Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers, many migrant workers were still susceptible to having their rights violated, particularly in the business sector.

"ASEAN political elites' commitment to create a platform for domestic workers' rights protection is still rather low," said Anis.

Anis said that ASEAN should further strengthen its dialogue to focus on human rights, women rights, and migrant workers' rights protection.

Meanwhile, International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID) noted that Indonesia should push ASEAN member countries to ratify all human rights-related international conventions as an initial step to empower AICHR in strengthening its function to promote and protect human rights in Southeast Asia.

Raising public participation, toward a people-centred ASEAN

Since ASEAN member states attained their independence at different times after World War II, distinctions between democracies should be considered for improved co-operation.

ASEAN Peoples' Forum steering committee manager Atnike Nova Sigiro said that the dynamics of democracy in each ASEAN member state heavily affected the democratic values shared in the organisation, as creating good synergy among member states was not east due to diverse political systems.

"There is a relevancy between level of democracy and room for public participation. A higher level of democracy will increase the chance for civil society to interact with the government," said Atnike.

Among ASEAN countries, Atnike said, countries that provided the widest room for civil society participation were Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand, while other member states had their own systems of governance, ranging from an absolute monarchy (Brunei) to democratic yet still repressive (Singapore) countries.

To pursue a people-centred and people-oriented ASEAN that protected human rights and civil liberties, experts believe that while Indonesia and other freedom-promoter countries should carry out efforts at the intergovernmental level, civil society organisations (CSOs) role to create a grassroots movement from below was important to push ASEAN member states to further address peoples' needs.

"For example, labour unions in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia that share mutual interests can create pressure at the grassroots level to raise government awareness," Purwadi said.

According to Purwadi, CSO networks that comprised experts, academicians and students from all Southeast Asian countries could contribute more to influence the decision-making process not only in their respective states but also at the regional level.

INFID researcher Daniel Hutagalung said that ASEAN should further develop a mechanism, such as improving the accreditation process for CSOs in each ASEAN intergovernmental body, to further accommodate ASEAN's CSO participation.

"This will lead to more transparent, accountable, legitimate, qualified and effective decision-making in ASEAN," Daniel said.


Sumber - AsiaOne

Timeline of women’s right to vote around the world

The right to vote has been a long struggle for women around the world

Paris: From the late 19th to the early 21st century, the right to vote has been a long struggle for women.

Saudis join the rest of the world on Saturday, leaving only Brunei, where neither men nor women hold this fundamental right.

Here is a look back:

1893

New Zealand blazes the way, extending the right to vote to women following a petition signed by about one quarter of the country’s adult female population. They must wait until 1919, however, to run for office as well.

Australia follows in 1902, but aborigines of both sexes remain excluded until 1962.


1906

Finnish women are the first in the world to be able to vote and run for office.

Scandinavian neighbours follow suit, beginning with Norway in 1913 and ending with Sweden in 1919.


1918

Germany and Russia join the movement, and it starts to gain traction.


1919

Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United States get with the programme, though on a state level in the US, Wyoming women could already vote in 1869 and their counterparts in Colorado in 1893.


1928

While Britain granted the right to vote to women aged 30 and older in 1918, its full extension did not come until 10 years later.

British suffragettes had launched their battle in 1903.


1934

Turkey is the first Muslim country excluding Soviet republics to open the door to women, an initiative of secular leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.


1944

France, the nation of human rights, grants women the right to vote nearly a century after men obtain it.


1971

Switzerland allows women to vote in federal elections, but the last canton to follow suit does so only in 1990.


1976

Poland extends the right to all women. Prior to that, women with university degrees had been allowed to vote since 1931.


1993

Moldova becomes the last country in Europe to grant women their full civic rights.


1994

South Africa extends the right to women of all colour. White women have voted since 1930 and mixed-race women since 1984.


1994-2006

Women in Gulf states join the others, with Oman making the step in 1994, Qatar in 1999, Bahrain in 2001 and Kuwait in 2005.

In 2006, rulers of the United Arab Emirates allow 6,000 men and women to vote.

In October, the list included 224,000 people, about one quarter of the total UAE population of just under one million.


2015

Saudi women vote and run for office for the first time, a decision taken in 2011 by the now late King Abdullah.


Sumber - GulfNews.com

The only solution to the refugee crisis that shook the world

Harun Yahya

The massive influx of refugees and the tyranny and violence they are fleeing have been the top issue in international headlines lately. The pain suffering millions have been going through is now transforming into an enormous tragedy .

The Muslim Rohingya living in the Rakhine State of the Myanmar are a heavily persecuted community that suffers from oppression, torture and forceful exile. Since 2012, hundreds of thousands of Rohingya have had to leave their homeland and thousands more have lost their lives. The ones left behind had to board unreliable boats to reach neighboring countries through perilous journeys on the high seas, battered constantly by severe winds and monstrous waves.

When Malaysia and Indonesia decided to open their doors to the Rohingya for one year, of whom hundreds have already lost their lives during their journey towards hope, their ordeal subsided to an extent. However, it is clear that a real solution can be achieved only when ASEAN, the UN and the Islamic world come together to develop a permanent solution for the Rohingya. It is crucial that they make an intense effort to make sure that the conditions that are making the Rohingya refugees no longer exist.

It is clear that the Rohingya are not the only people that are suffering from a refugee crisis. In many countries around the world, millions have had to flee ongoing wars and conflicts, becoming refugees in the process. Syrians currently make up the majority  of these downtrodden people, after leaving their homes, families, properties and lives to seek shelter in other countries.

As the Syrian refugees are trying to get to countries that will be accept them, they have to put up with the inhumane, discriminatory and brutal treatment of some EU countries. Indeed, in some of these countries, refugees encounter brutal and violent police force and coast guard practices, they are being subjected to ‘push-back’ operations, and in complete disregard of their special circumstances, are being exiled in masses.  However, this practice that endangers the lives of refugees which includes children, is a blatant violation of international laws.

One of the EU countries that violates human rights with their treatment of  refugees is Hungary, by deploying armored vehicles along its borders, and allowing its soldiers to use plastic bullets and tear gas against the refugees. Slovenia is another such country that tries to stop hundreds of refugees with pepper spray, despite the fact that there are babies, toddlers, women and the elderly amongst them. Unlike those countries, Germany promised to welcome 800,000 and possibly more refugees a year, and therefore is a European country with an admirable behavior towards refugees. Turkey, praised by the entire world for its hospitable, peaceful and embracing attitude, and for its selfless and helpful approach to refugees, has welcomed two and a half million Syrians and has become a prime example in how to handle a refugee crisis. International laws regarding refugees strictly forbid any discrimination against refugees based on religion, language, sex or race. Despite this, Slovakia and the Czech Republic intend to determine the refugees they will accept will be based on their religion and stated that they would accept only a limited number of Christian Syrians; this is another example of a clear violation of human rights and international laws. At this point, it is crucial that Europe, which prides itself with the importance it attaches to democracy and human rights and in treating all faiths equally, takes steps to ensure that EU countries abandon their selfish and discriminatory behavior without further ado.

Europe must accept the fact that the ongoing refugee crisis is not a security issue, but a humanitarian problem. Erecting barbed wires and fences, planting landmines along the borders and subjecting poor people that have already lost pretty much everything  to a new kind of tyranny in order to illegally deprive them of their right to seek safe refuge  will not solve this problem. The solution is possible only with love, a humane approach, patience and altruism. EU countries should respect the right of refugees to live and approach them with love and compassion; after love, compassion and respect are built, swift political, diplomatic and, if need be, military measures will follow so that the circumstances that created the refugee crisis  can be dealt with properly.

As thousands of innocent people are fighting high seas to reach their destination, debating who will guard the borders and how to prevent the refugees from coming, or making borders impassable  through inhumane methods, would inflict irreparable damage upon Europe; such attitudes would lead to moral disgrace  and strip it of its humanity. Those who would simply leave people to die will lose a part of that which is what makes us human; the ability to comprehend the suffering of others and to take action to help such people rebuild their lives. Kicking someone when they're down is hardly commendable behavior. Europe should listen to its heart, open its borders, ensure safe passage to the refugees and put an end to human rights violations so that the refugee problem can be solved. The EU countries know very well that the right to seek asylum  is a basic human rights and therefore they should immediately revoke any legal regulations that prevent these refugees from settling in the country of their choice. According to the Geneva Treaty of 1951, the refugees should be able to enjoy all the rights in the countries they are based.

Clearly, the European Union, with its population of 503 million, can quite easily distribute a couple of million refugees across the continent with  sound planning. Furthermore, it can easily offer them education, employment, the opportunity to open small businesses and assist them in becoming contributing members of the society.

Being indifferent to this crime against humanity which we are witnessing on an almost daily basis, is clearly  wrong. It is important that an urgent action plan is prepared to protect the lives of refugees, to put humanitarian aid programs into action and to take all the necessary steps so that this horrible tragedy ends once and for all.


Sumber - Harakahdaily

Brunei, US hold high level meeting in London

A UNITED States delegation met with senior Bruneian ministers in London on Monday to discuss how the two countries can further enhance their bilateral relationship covering security and defence, trade and economics, and regional cooperation.

According to a press statement from the US Department of State, the US delegation included Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labour, Tom Malinowski; US Ambassador to Brunei Darussalam, Craig Allen; Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Scot Marciel; and Special Representative to Muslim Communities, Shaarik Zafar.

The two countries discussed enhancing security ties, increasing military-to-military cooperation, and advancing a rules-based order to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea.

On human rights, US officials urged Brunei to protect the rights of all its citizens. Bruneian officials emphasised that Bruneian law would be implemented in accordance with international human rights standards.

Both countries also agreed to find ways to increase the number of Bruneian students studying in the US.


Sumber - Borneo Bulletin

Southeast Asia urged to halt repeat of "boat people" tragedy

By Amy Sawitta Lefevre

Southeast Asian countries were urged on Tuesday to treat migrants landing on their shores humanely and avoid a repeat of this year's disaster in which hundreds of refugees were either lost at sea or died in jungle camps.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) called for "full cooperation" this week from governments attending a Bangkok meeting in May aimed at tackling the region's annual migrant crisis as European countries struggle to cope with refugees fleeing war in Syria and Iraq.

Southeast Asian nations agreed to help vulnerable "boat people" stranded at sea following last year's crisis that saw more than 4,000 migrants land in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Myanmar and Bangladesh following a Thai crackdown on people-smuggling gangs.

Some were trapped on boats in the Bay of Bengal and Andaman sea. Hundreds drowned.

October and November mark the start of the four-month "sailing season", the busiest time for smuggling and trafficking ships plying the Bay of Bengal.

"We are still calling for safe disembarkation and humanitarian treatment - shelter, hydration, medical care and safety from the elements and criminality - and full cooperation from all actors, from the international community, that lives are not lost," Joe Lowry, the IOM's spokesman in Asia-Pacific, told Reuters.

Thousands of migrants have fled persecution and poverty in Myanmar and Bangladesh. Many of them are members of Myanmar's Rohingya Muslim minority who live in apartheid-like conditions in the country's Rakhine state, paying smugglers to board rickety boats to sail across to Malaysia.

Some ended up in the hands of traffickers and were held near Thailand's border with Malaysia in often brutal and filthy conditions for months or even years until they could pay a ransom for their release.

A clamp-down by Thai police on human trafficking gangs triggered the regional crisis earlier this year. It followed the discovery in May of 30 bodies in graves near the Thai-Malaysian border, which sparked international outcry.

Thailand has charged 88 people suspected of involvement in human trafficking since launching the investigation into gangs but scores more are on the run.

In a Thai foreign affairs ministry letter to international organisations dated Nov. 23, the ministry said a migration meeting to be held on Friday was "Thailand's proactive step to preempt any possible recurrence of humanitarian crises of May 2015".

Thailand's Interpol director, police Major General Apichart Suribunya, told Reuters ships were bypassing Thailand and heading directly to Malaysia following the Thai crackdown.

"Malaysia is having a headache," he said.

Since late September, when monsoon conditions began to subside, several boats have smuggled a total of about 1,000 passengers across the Bay of Bengal, according to the U.N. refugee agency and the migration-tracking group Arakan Project.

Lowry of IOM said migration patterns had changed.

"The obvious thing is people go directly to Malaysia which cuts out potential for profit for smugglers," he said.


Sumber - Reuters