In his budget speech, the Finance Minister spoke of the need for reform in various spheres - economics, politics and culture - in his concept of a civil society “fortified by freedom, moral strength and noble characterristics”. (para 91 & para 93).
I would like to add that there should also be reforms in our international relations for if we are serious in wanting to create a civil society, we must also dedicate ourselves to the building of an international civil society.
In this connection, it is a matter of grave concern that Malaysia seems to have become the champion of the Myanmese military junta, the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), condoning and even justifying its series of repressive actions against pro-democracy activists by giving unqualified support for Myanmar’s application to join ASEAN next year.
The admission of Myanmar as an observer of ASEAN by the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Jakarta in July has given a completely wrong message to SLORC, which seemed convinced that regardless of its repressive policies against its people, ASEAN would welcome SLORC with open arms to become an official member of ASEAN by next year in order the achieve the dream of “ASEAN 10”.
This is why since May this year, SLORC had defied ASEAN and international opinion with repeated crackdowns against pro-democracy activists, and the latest repressive actions include:
ASEAN nations have spurned Western proposals for strong actions against the repressive regime of SLORC , such as economic sanctions, and chosen instead to adopt a “constructive engagement” policy with SLORC arguing that instead of international isolation of SLORC, this was the best way to gradually improve the democratic situation in Myanmar without external interference.
The admission of SLORC into ASEAN can only be justified if there is perceptible progress and success in the ASEAN “constructive engagement” policy of gradually improving the democratic situation in Myanmar.
If ASEAN’s “constructive engagement” policy has nothing to show in terms of the promotion of democratisation in Myanmar, then SLORC’s application for membership to ASEAN is untimely and inappropriate and should be rejected.
The issue of Myanmar’s admission into ASEAN must be kept as a separate and distinct question from ASEAN’s “constructive engagement” policy. Myanmar’s membership in ASEAN should not be regarded as part of the “constructive engagement” policy, but as to whether the “constructive engagement” policy had achieved any success after six long years.
The ASEAN Secretary-General Datuk Ajit Singh will be making a week-long visit to Myanmar at the end of this week. He should prepare a report which should be presented to ASEAN governments and ASEAN Parliaments giving an assessment of the results of the ASEAN “constructive engagement” policy to improve the democratic situation in Myanmar.
During his visit to Myanmar recently, the Foreign Minister, Datuk Abdullah Badawi said that Myanmar should be allowed to solve its internal problems.
In the final analysis, every country must solve its own problems but this cannot justify other countries closing their eyes or shutting their conscience to gross violations of human rights and draconian repression of democratic freedoms, especially when such a stand would be unfaithful to Malaysia’s proud record of standing and speaking up against such gross abuses whether in apartheid South Africa, Bosnia-Herzegovina or in Israeli-occupied Palestine.
ASEAN governments must make sure that the ASEAN “constructive engagement” policy towards Myanmar does not become as discredited as Reagan’s American “constructive policy” towards apartheid South Africa in the 1980s.
One architect of Reagan’s “constructive engagement” policy on apartheid South Africa had argued at the time that “it would be unwise to view the South African Defence Force as an instrument of domestic brutality”, but the public hearings of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission on apartheid crimes in the past six months have revealed how such a “constructive engagement” policy had condoned and encouraged the commission of gross human rights and abuses in the apartheid era.
Will a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Burma one day when democracy has been restored to Burma also reveal that ASEAN’s present “constructive engagement” policy had similarly condoned and encouraged grave human rights violations, including forced labour, torture, the beating of civilians, forced relocations and persecution of ethnic minority groups?
I understand the Malaysian government’s eagerness in wanting to achieve the historic dream of transforming the present “ASEAN 7” into the “ASEAN 10” when Malaysia hosts the ASEAN Summit on the occasion of the 30th ASEAN anniversary next year, but I believe it would be more meaningful and historic to contribute towards democratisation in Burma by sending a clear message to SLORC that its application for ASEAN membership is untimely and inappropriate because of its failure to contribute to the success of ASEAN’s “constructive engagement” policy to improve the democratic situation in Myanmar.
The dream of “ASEAN 10” where the regional organisation has the full complement of the ten member-nations is the dream of all South-East Asians. But this dream of “ASEAN 10” should not be realised by crushing the dreams of the brave and long-suffering people of Burma for freedom, and if the delay of “ASEAN 10” could contribute towards the achievement of the dream of Burma for freedom, it is a very small price to pay.
The people of ASEAN are not asking for SLORC to transform Myanmar into a full democracy, as the record of democracy of ASEAN members can and have been rightly questioned and challenged - but there must be perceptible progress towards democratisation and national reconciliation before Myanmar can be admitted as a full ASEAN member and not as at present, where there is only regression in democracy under SLORC.
I would urge the Malaysian Parliament to take the lead to be the conscience in South East Asia to speak loud and clear that while no one objects to the admission of Myanmar as an ASEAN member, SLORC’s application can only be considered and approved if SLORC contributes to the success of the ASEAN “constructive engagement” policy to improve the democratic situation in Myanmar, and in view of the atrocious record of repression of SLORC, the dream of “ASEAN 10” should be deferred.
In this connection, Parliament should also focus attention on the 10-year East Timor conflict, especially with the award of the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize jointly to Bishop Carlos Belo and Jose Ramos-Horta for their efforts to bring a peaceful end to the conflict.
The Indonesian Government should release all political detainees in East Timor, in particular the East Timor leader, Xanana Gusmao; an end to torture and arbitrary executions; drastic reduction in the troop presence and enter into a dialogue either under the auspices of the United Nations or ASEAN to reach a peaceful and negotiated solution to the conflict based on the principle of the right to self-determination.