The junta-backed Burmese government surprised even its supporters when it released 651 political detainees last Friday (it was dubbed the “Beautiful Friday the 13th” by some netizens on Facebook). Those released included activists, journalists and opposition leaders who had been languishing in the country’s 43 prisons and 100 labor camps for years. The government’s decision to grant amnesty to dissidents was immediately welcomed by its neighbors and by Western powers led by the United States, which vowed to restore formal ties with Burma. If sanctions are removed, Burma can expect an influx aid and investment from rich countries. Hopefully, this would also help to end the country’s years of political isolation.

Despite its poor human rights record, it seems Burma has broadly been doing the right things since reviving its parliament, conducting more open elections, releasing Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest, and now this latest prisoner release. Will the government be able to sustain the democratic reforms it has promised for this year?

Meanwhile, in Malaysia, Anwar’s acquittal was described by opposition groups as a victory for justice after claims the Najib Razak government orchestrated the sodomy case against Anwar to undermine the opposition. The high-profile trial dragged on for two years, which led many people to question the independence of the courts.

Anwar’s acquittal can therefore help restore confidence in the courts, and may help convince ordinary citizens that a transparent and independent judiciary still exists in the country, despite the perceived machinations of the ruling party. Now that Anwar is free, the opposition can also direct its attention to upcoming elections and working out how to defeat the ruling coalition, which has been in power for several decades already. Maybe Malaysia can also review the proposal to repeal its oppressive sodomy laws.

But if the Malaysian judiciary survived the Anwar Ibrahim case, the Philippine judicial system is still facing its biggest crisis after Chief Justice Corona was impeached by the House of Representatives last month. He is now embroiled in a trial in the Senate’s impeachment court. Corona is accused among other things of using his position to protect his patron, former President Gloria Arroyo, who is being prosecuted for corruption and electoral fraud. He’s also accused of amassing ill-gotten wealth after his appointment in the Supreme Court.

Corona’s impeachment is supported by advocacy groups that consider the Chief Justice to be the main stumbling block to holding Arroyo accountable for the crimes she allegedly committed when she was in power. Some groups even view it as a long term campaign to transform the Supreme Court into a more independent and pro-people institution.

Lastly, Singapore’s decision to slash the salaries of government ministers, reportedly the highest paid public servants in the world, should be seen as another victory of the people. The record low number of votes garnered by the ruling party, which has been in power since 1959, forced the government to form a committee to review the pay scale of high-ranking ministers.

Surprisingly, the committee recommended hefty pay cuts for all ministers. The prime minister will see a 36 percent pay cut while the president’s salary will be reduced by 51 percent. Some citizens aren’t satisfied with the recommendations, and think their politicians are still overpaid. And indeed, the prime minister and president will still earn more than Barack Obama, even after their salary reductions. But the pay cuts should still be welcomed as an initial compromise by Singaporean politicians who rarely bow to public pressure. What citizens should focus on is the campaign for more economic reforms to bridge the very large income gap in this prosperous city state.

Political prisoners are now free, an opposition leader is acquitted of a sodomy charge, a chief justice is on trial, and politicians will receive pay cuts. These are inspiring political reforms that have taken place even before the first month of the new year has ended. Aside from the eviction of urban poor residents in Phnom Penh, and the deteriorating conditions of evacuees in flood damaged villages in southern Philippines, 2012 has started remarkably well for Southeast Asia.The January Spring

Written for The Diplomat

Politicians may be getting younger, but it doesn’t mean the old guard is completely excluded from politics. Indeed, it continues to be politically relevant despite the rise of a new generation of voters who are skeptical of old-style politics.

Lee Kuan Yew became Singapore’s first prime minister in 1959, and ruled the country for three decades. When he stepped down from power in 1990, he was appointed senior minister. His son, who became prime minister in 2004, designated him minister mentor. He’s the country’s longest serving minister, the world’s longest serving prime minister, and still holds a parliamentary seat. The only global icon who rivals Lee Kuan Yew’s feat of longevity is Fidel Castro, who became Cuba’s leader in 1959.

Mahathir served as Malaysia’s prime minister for 22 years. His political party remained undefeated in the polls, and when he retired from politics, he was offered an emeritus role in the new government, but rejected the offer. But despite no longer holding a position in government, he’s still a feared political figure in Malaysia and has the luxury of being able to criticize the prime minister, a foreign leader, or other countries from time to time. He has consistently attacked the West, for example, for supposedly undermining the economies and sovereignty of developing nations.

King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand and Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei are highly respected and well-loved political icons in their respective countries. King Bhumibol, the longest reigning sitting monarch, is the only political figure who can unite Thailand’s warring political forces. Thai politicians show their devotion to the King by strictly implementing a law that forbids anyone insulting the royal family. Meanwhile, Sultan Bolkiah has continued to exercise a direct role in the governmental affairs of his country since his coronation in 1968.

In addition, although Juan Ponce Enrile was never president of the Philippines, he has been influential politically since the 1960s. He was the oldest senator of the republic to be reelected last year, despite an overwhelmingly young electorate. He’s also the senate president, which makes him the third most important lawmaker in the country.

After serving their country for decades, these politicians were expected to retire from politics, but it seems they are incapable of taking a less active role in public affairs. Despite their age and frail health, they still hold powerful positions in government, political parties respect their views and voters continue to re-elect them.

Schooled in the tradition that a country’s leaders are infallible, they continue to expect everybody to agree with their views, even if their beliefs seem to most to be obsolete. Yet despite them being out of touch, no one in government seems to have the stature to antagonize them.

It’s a strange situation indeed when elderly statesmen are still calling the shots despite the future of their countries lying with a much younger future.

Written for The Diplomat

Thailand’s Turbulent Year

Three issues made 2011 an interesting but turbulent year for Thailand: Yingluck Shinawatra, the three-month flooding disaster, and lese majesté.

Yingluck made history when her party dominated the elections this year, which allowed her to become Thailand’s first female prime minister. Her critics, though, accused her of being a mere proxy of her brother, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted from power in 2006. Yingluck’s victory didn’t impress many feminists, but it’s still a significant gain for the political opposition identified with Thaksin.

Still, it was the deadly flooding tragedy, not Thaksin, which proved to be the first serious challenge to Yingluck’s leadership. As expected, her enemies portrayed her as a weak and incompetent leader who failed to handle the floods properly. Massive floods hit most countries in Southeast Asia this year, but Thailand suffered the most when floodwaters submerged a third of the country’s provinces, including major industrial estates, 4.4 million acres of agricultural land, and 470 areas of Bangkok. More than 600 people died in the floods, while 2.4 million families have been displaced from their homes in the past three months.

However, Thailand’s international image suffered not only because of the country’s flooding woes, but also because of the government’s aggressive efforts to implement its very strict and rigid lese majesté laws. Aside from convicting a 61-year-old man to 20 years in prison for sending text messages that insulted the royal family, Thailand’s harsh laws attracted global attention when authorities banned 761,416 webpages that are deemed offensive to the King.

Thai politics certainly seemed less bloody and violent as the year went on compared with the Yellow Shirt airport takeover in 2008, the Red Shirt riots last year, and border clashes with Cambodia earlier this year. But as in previous years, they are still more divisive than ever. The flooding disaster, which was reported to be the worst in 50 years, is also expected to generate a political backlash in the coming months if the government is unable to provide immediate and sustained assistance to flooded communities.

It can only be hoped that when the monsoon rains return next year, Yingluck will be better prepared to minimize flooding casualties. But she should also start addressing the other contentious political issues in the country, such as rising inequality, erosion of democratic values, creeping censorship of online media, and corruption in high places.

Written for The Diplomat

Malaysia’s Bersih (Clean) was the most outstanding protest event of 2011 in the region. The event, which was initially organized to ask for very sensible and doable electoral reforms (e.g. cleaning up of the electoral roll and the use of indelible ink), in the end became a pro-democracy action because of the massive participation of the civilian population in the streets – and the violent reaction of the state.

And like the tech-savvy Arab protesters, the Bersih marchers maximized social media to broaden the movement’s appeal among the apolitical segments of the local internet community. More importantly, it gave ordinary Malaysians the opportunity to imagine the formation of a united and patriotic community of individuals committed to the defense of democracy.

Bersih isn’t just the name of Malaysia’s new revolution; it should also be recognized as Southeast Asia’s Tahrir Square.

Next to Bersih were the various Occupy protests in Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. They didn’t succeed in sustaining big crowds, but through their militant and creative actions, they were able to highlight the worsening poverty in their societies while the tiny elite of privileged families and corporations are accumulating obscene wealth.

The Occupy protests in the Philippines were joined by students and other young people who used planking as a unique and funny way of expressing their anger over the state budget cuts on education and other social services. Early this month, the Occupy-like campout protests of students near the presidential palace were violently dispersed by the police.

Perhaps the most underrated protest of the year was the rally of Cambodian villagers who dressed up like the Na’vi tribe from the 2009 science fiction film Avatar in opposition to the government’s plan to convert the Prey Lang forest into plantations and mines. Prey Lang is the largest remaining primary lowland dry evergreen forest in the region.

We should expect more Avatar-inspired actions because the story of Prey Lang is similar to other rural communities in the region affected by large-scale development projects like dams, mining, and commercial rezoning. Environmental protests actually intensified this year, and one of them succeeded in forcing Burma’s government to cancel its hydroelectric dam project on the Irrawaddy River.

Not all those who fight for land rights, even through non-violent means, are able to freely express and organize their campaigns – a fact underscored by the experience of seven activists in Vietnam who were arrested, charged, and found guilty of overthrowing the government.

Finally, the protesters whose actions perhaps most symbolized the deep hatred and frustration of the poor against an oppressive system were Pham Thanh Son of Vietnam and Sondang Hutagalung of Indonesia. Son burned himself early this year in front of Da Nang’s municipal office to protest the confiscation of his family’s property by local authorities, while Sondang set his body on fire just a few weeks ago in front of the presidential palace to condemn the anti-poor policies of the government.

There were no London-like urban riots in Southeast Asia this year, but the great floods that destroyed rice fields and food crops in almost all countries of the region could lead to food and rice protests next year.

The challenge for politicians is not to view dissent as the cause of disorder in society, since this will only lead to violent solutions. Instead, they should treat it as a symptom of greater issues that governments must address like rising inequality, corruption, and bad governance.

Written for The Diplomat

2012 promises to be an exciting and significant year for this tiny nation. It will celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Restoration of Independence, the 100th anniversary of the Manufahi Revolt and the 500th anniversary of the arrival of the first Portuguese in the country. It will also conduct the third presidential and parliamentary elections since democracy was restored.

During the budget deliberations, civil society groups questioned the abnormal increase in the budget, the country’s continued dependence on oil revenues, and the unusually high number of mega infrastructure projects. But the most controversial issue was the decision of the government to obtain foreign debt next year. Timor-Leste currently has no debt from other countries or international financial institutions.

The Timor-Leste Institute for Development Monitoring and Analysis notes that the increase in the country’s budget is one of the highest in the world. In nominal terms, the 2012 budget is 35 percent higher than 2011. If adjusted to inflation, it’s 25 percent larger than last year, while the budget has grown 273 percent since 2006. The group cited a report from the IMF World Economic Outlook that identified Zimbabwe as the only country in the world whose state budget grew faster during the last four years. Many are concerned about the inflationary impact of rising state expenditures.

Many from the Institute are also concerned that the budget doesn’t reflect the need to develop non-oil industries. Income from oil and gas provides 95 percent of state revenues, making Timor-Leste the most petroleum-export dependent country in the world. “In the medium term, our oil wealth can’t even pay for provide half the level of services the government will provide next year. That’s why we need to develop our non-oil economy.”

Meanwhile, some parliamentarians criticized the decreasing budget allocation for the education, health, and agriculture sectors and alleged that the government “prefers investing in mega projects which are beyond its capacity to execute and will end up in misuse of lots of money.” One of these huge infrastructure investments is the Tasi Mane Project, which will involve the development of an integrated petroleum infrastructure in the county’s south coastal zone in the next two decades.

But the most controversial, if not unpopular, budget-related issue is the plan by the government to secure $33 million in loans for the Dili sanitation and construction of national roads. It’s the first time the government has asked parliament to approve a proposal to borrow money from foreign institutions, and it immediately drew opposition from civil society groups who initiated a petition drive signed by more than 137 organizations based in 32 countries urging the government to “keep the nation debt-free and refrain from borrowing money from international lenders to protect its future generations.” The groups warned that “Rather than repeat the mistakes of other developing countries that have struggled with debt during recent decades, Timor-Leste should learn from their experiences, which often inflicted great hardships on their people.”

Despite the criticisms, the government maintained that the budget is service and development oriented, and will stimulate the local economy while addressing the human development needs of the people. The government also boasted that the budget process is one of the most transparent in the world. Indeed, it created a Budget Transparency Portal that allows the public to access budget documents. It also provides a daily summary of budget deliberations in parliament.

For the government, the budget proposal reflects the renewed optimism in the country’s future, but for many civil society groups, the budget could harm the economy in the long run.

Written for The Diplomat

Malaysia’s Troubling “Peace” Bill

The Malaysian Parliament has unanimously approved the controversial Peaceful Assembly Bill, which critics warned would make it extremely difficult for citizens to organize protest activities. Activists denounced it as a repressive measure intended to curtail the people’s freedom of speech and expression.

The opposition, for its part, was so outraged by the hasty introduction of the measure (MPs received copies of the bill only on November 22) that they staged a walkout during the voting process. Outside the parliament, lawyers organized a “freedom walk” to dramatize their rejection of the bill, which they think is in violation of several international human rights norms. Protesters also took Prime Minister Najib Razak to task for reneging on his pledge during the Malaysia Day celebration in September to review section 27 of the Police Act 1967 in order to uphold the people’s freedom of assembly.

Lim Chee Wee, president of the Malaysian Bar, identified the dangerous provisions of the bill that could undermine the constitutional rights of Malaysian citizens:

1) Prohibition of street protests;

2) Prohibition of organization of assemblies by persons below the age of twenty one years;

3) Prohibition of participation in peaceful assemblies of children below the age of fifteen years;

4) Unduly onerous responsibilities and restrictions on organizers and assemblies;

5) Excessive fines for non-compliance of the bill.

Civil libertarians are also horrified over the other insidious provisions of the bill, like the prohibition of rallies near a place of worship or any area that the government may declare as “protected,” the banning of foreign journalists in a protest assembly, and the granting of power to the police to use tear gas, chemical-laced water, batons and shields as well as arbitrary arrests on participants if these are deemed necessary by authorities to make the assembly peaceful and orderly. Activists are also worried over a provision that gives police forces the right to disperse an assembly if participants are heard giving statements that “promote feelings of ill-will, discontent or hostility among the public.”

Police are given such extensive powers to disperse assemblies without official permits that even an outdoor birthday party can be classified as an event that needs police approval. Furthermore, the police can impose numerous conditions when they approve the conduct of an assembly. And, if they decide to disperse a crowd, they are given the right to use “all reasonable force” in dealing with protesters.

Perhaps the restrictive Peaceful Assembly Bill is the government’s preemptive legal effort to prevent another Bersih (clean) march, which could further weaken the ruling coalition’s chances in the next elections. Bersih was organized in July by election reform advocates, but it has evolved into a strong political movement after the police violently dispersed a crowd of about 50,000 in the streets of Kuala Lumpur.

Maybe the bill won’t be able to stop Bersih or other protest assemblies organized by the big political forces, but it can minimize the influence of these events by limiting the protest actions in select venues. And because of the broad definitions used in the bill, it can also affect the activities of non-political groups.

After Bersih, everybody expected the government to implement reforms that would convince the people about its commitment to democracy and transparency. But with this bill, it seems the government prefers to provoke its enemies and weaken their ability to shape public opinion by banning street protests. The bill appears proof that the government is afraid of the radical potential of Bersih and the emergence of a Malaysian Spring that could finally deliver the fatal blow to the ruling coalition’s decades-old reign in Malaysia.

Written for The Diplomat

According to organizers, festival attendance grew from 500 people in 2008, to 1,500 last year. A bigger number was expected this year, but unfortunately, the police decided to be a party pooper by banning the festival activities. They even threatened to arrest any individual who defies the ban; the organizers were also summoned for questioning.

Police justified the ban by arguing that the festival “could create disharmony, enmity and disturb public order.” The police could, truth be told, be referring to the tiny but loud protests of conservative groups that denounced the festival for promoting “free sex” and the gay lifestyle. They are the same groups that expressed opposition to the upcoming Elton John concert in Malaysia.

The festival organizers, which represent a coalition of groups that includes the Malaysian Bar Council and Amnesty International, reminded the government about their right to conduct peaceful forums, workshops and performances. They added that the “intimidating displays of hatred and ignorance towards us, and calls for us to be shut down, demonstrate why we absolutely need a safe space and event like Seksualiti Merdeka.”

They should also note the fact that Malaysia was a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948 before becoming a member of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, “vowing to respect sexual rights as universal rights based on the inherent freedom, equality and dignity of all human beings.”

According to MP Charles Santiago of Klang, the government and police have exposed themselves to the world as “callous, intolerant and homophobic” when they banned Seksualiti Merdeka. But he also believes there’s a more sinister reason why the festival was banned: “Driven by the need to stay in power, the government has fashioned the controversy surrounding the festival for its own political mileage. Clearly the ban demonstrates the ongoing persecution against Ambiga.” Aside from being a supporter of Seksualiti Merdeka, Ambiga is a Malaysian lawyer who spearheaded Bersih 2.0, a popular movement for electoral reforms that damaged the credibility of the ruling political coalition.

The ban generated an international outcry from human rights groups and LGBT networks, which sent protest letters to the Malaysian government. They demanded the lifting of the ban against Seksualiti Merdeka, they asked police not to arrest or intimidate the festival organizers, and they called for the protection of the organizers from private actor violence.

The groups added that the ban also proved that it’s necessary to “conduct a public awareness campaign about equality before the law and non-discrimination, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.” They asked authorities to train police officials with regard to LGBT rights “to end arbitrary harassment of LGBT individuals, their speech and assembly.”

But organizers of the Seksualiti Merdeka festival perhaps should also thank the government and the police for banning their event since it made a lot of noise in the news and the public actually came to know more about LGBT rights, gender equality and sexual tolerance (or the lack of it) in society. Unlike in previous years, the festival’s objectives became popular this year because of the ban.

The opposition should also use this opportunity to remind the people that as the prime minister talks about his 1Malaysia national unity slogan, his actions and policies are actually creating more divisions in the country.

Written for The Diplomat

Burma’s Opium Addiction

Opium cultivation is on the increase in the Palaung communities in the northern Shan State of Burma. This fact was revealed in a study published last month by the Palaung Women’s Organization. Indeed, it would seem the local authorities are not only aware of the problem, but are aggressively promoting and protecting the opium trade there.

The group reported that opium growing in the 15 villages in Namkham Township has increased by 79 percent in the past two years. In 2008, there were only 617 hectares of opium fields in the area. This year the figure is expected to rise to 1,109 hectares. About 12 villages that hadn’t previously grown opium have started to grow it since 2009.

Drug addiction has also worsened in Palaung communities. In one village, the group discovered that 91 percent of males aged 15 and over were addicted to drugs. The drug menace has also caused the crime rate to go up, including a spike in cases involving domestic violence.

The group is blaming the local and national government for the revival of the opium industry in the area, even accusing a local MP of being the key protector of the opium trade in the region. The group cited testimony from a villager that former militia leader Kyaw Myint had promised Namkham voters that they could plant opium without regulation for 5 years if they voted for him. Kyaw Myint ran under the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party, which dominated last year’s elections.

Palaung farmers were tea growers, but the decline of the tea industry, which is heavily controlled by the junta-dominated government, has forced them to switch to opium growing in order to survive. Meanwhile, opium cultivation is tolerated because politicians, soldiers, police, and militia forces can collect high taxes and bribes.

The local women’s group believes that the national government allowed Kyaw Myint’s illegal drug activities to flourish in exchange for its support for the government’s military campaign against ethnic rebels. It said the issue “highlights the nexus between drug production and power relations in Burma’s conflict-ridden Shan State.” It added that the government “needs to rely on its army infrastructure, including local paramilitary forces, to suppress the ethnic resistance movements,” even if the pro-government forces are sustained by the opium trade.

This latest alternative drug report by a local NGO, which covered only one province of Burma, should inspire the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to conduct a more independent study of the drug situation in the country, since it only relies on the data submitted by the junta-backed government. The fact is that the UNODC reliance on government statistics has blinded the agency and weakened its capacity to address the worsening drug problem in the country.

At a minimum, the Burmese government should investigate the illicit drug cultivation in the Shan State. It should be ready to punish public officials and military officers who are found guilty of protecting the opium trade, and it should also assist opium farmers by promoting alternative crop development. Instead of turning a blind eye to the evils of drug use, it should launch an awareness campaign targeting the young about the need to combat the dangerous impact of illegal drugs in society.

Written for The Diplomat

Is this a sign that Singapore’s ‘99 percent’ is satisfied with the economy? Did the protest fail because the obscene accumulation of wealth by a few corporations that provoked the Wall Street protest is a non-issue in prosperous Singapore?

The ‘Occupy Raffles Place’ flop shouldn’t allow us to forget that Singapore has by some measures the highest rate of inequality among developed nations. It was the first city in Asia to experience recession in the wake of the global financial crisis in 2008, and while its economy has already rebounded, ordinary Singaporeans continue to suffer from stagnant wages, job losses and the rising cost of living. In fact, last May’s election results saw the ruling party suffer its worst-ever electoral setback.

So, if there are valid reasons to ‘occupy’ Singapore, and if the people are searching for alternatives, why did the protest fail? The threat issued by the police against the organizers of the ‘Occupy’ event could have discouraged any interested Singaporeans (and even foreigners) from joining the protest. Singapore might have the most open economy in the world, but it has restrictive laws that make it difficult for its citizens to organize and participate in political assemblies. (Of course, the nameless organizers should also be blamed for their poor planning and failure to offer creative methods of circumventing Singapore’s repressive laws).

Still, the organizers and believers in the ‘Occupy’ movement shouldn’t lose faith over the zero attendance in their initial attempt to introduce a more assertive form of political action in Singapore. They must appreciate the fact that they were able to rattle the Singapore government, especially the police, with a simple announcement posted on Facebook. Also, both local and foreign journalists were there to cover the protest, which highlights the newsworthiness of the action. Netizens were prepared to popularize the protest in cyberspace. If a non-event could generate such a surprising reaction from the government and the public, imagine the political impact of a well-attended ‘Occupy Singapore.’

The opposition and other dissident forces should seize the potential of the ‘Occupy’ idea and transform it into a reality.

Written for The Diplomat

Timor-Leste’s Tasi Mane Project

Part of Timor-Leste’s Strategic Development Plan is the building of three industrial clusters on the country’s southwest coast, which will be the backbone of its petroleum industry. But civil society groups have warned that the ambitious project will have little impact on the economy.

The Tasi Mane (Male Sea) Project will involve the development of an integrated petroleum infrastructure in the coastal zone from Suai to Beaço over the next two decades. The plan includes the construction of the Suai Supply Base cluster, the Betano Refinery and Petrochemical Industry cluster, and the Beaço LNG-Plant cluster.

Suai will become a centre for providing services, logistics, fabrications and human resources for the petroleum industry. The supply base will require the establishment of a sea port in Kamanasa, a housing complex, heavy metals workshop, shipbuilding and repair facilities and a rehabilitated Suai airport. In Betano, a refinery and petrochemical complex will rise in a new centre that will be known as Petroleum City. And finally, in Beaco, an LNG Plant complex will be constructed near the towns of Nova Beaco and Nova Viqueque. The existing airport at Viqueque will be upgraded into a regional airport.

Aside from addressing the long term domestic energy requirements of Timor-Leste, the Tasi Mane Project is expected to generate substantial revenues, jobs, and livelihood opportunities in the country’s southern corridor. The government is confident that it will boost the petroleum sector, which can be used to directly promote the industrialization of the economy.

Timor-Leste is dependent on its oil revenues, but economists have already advised it to diversify its economy by venturing into non-oil activities since its oil and gas reserves are estimated to reach its peak in 13 years. But La’o Hamutuk, a Timor-Leste-based NGO, believes that Tasi Mane reflects the continuing dependence of the country on the petroleum industry. In its critique of the government’s development strategy, the group noted that petroleum processing seems to be the only industrial development discussed in the paper. ‘What about agricultural processing, or light industry to replace imported products?’ the group asked.

The group also questioned the government allocation of over 30 million for the Tasi Mane project, which is more than twice the budget of the Agriculture Ministry. ‘We lamented the nearly exclusive focus on the petroleum industry and resulting in lost opportunities to explore other possibilities for economic development,’ the group said.

The project blueprint is also silent on the concrete and real impact of Tasi Mane on the local economy and the communities in the south coast. ‘Nothing is said about how many jobs these projects will provide for Timorese workers, how much land they will take from uses such as agriculture and fishing, how many people will have to be displaced, or how much revenue they will generate for the state,’ La’o Hamutuk added.

Parliament is being urged by the NGO not to grant the government a blank cheque for a project that’s lacking transparency and whose economic viability is in doubt.

Still, the Tasi Mane Project is the flagship programme of Timor-Leste’s development strategy, and it has much potential since it can harness the country’s petroleum resources for the long term benefit of the local population. It can redirect the oil revenues to spur industrialization and the diversification of the local economy. But the issues raised by La’o Hamutuk and other NGOs are also valid, and they require immediate government consideration and action. Timor-Leste’s leaders must clarify these issues by engaging and consulting with the people, especially the communities that will be affected or displaced by Tasi Mane.

Written for The Diplomat

For example, here’s how the US Embassy in Vientiane described the poor and unequal economic conditions in the country:

‘Although GoL (Government of Laos) ministers and officials with salaries of less than S75 per month sport villas and cars worthy of Monte Carlo, GDP per capita is still officially less than $400…Unemployment is epidemic, underemployment is endemic, crime is rising, and the investment climate is among the least hospitable in the world.

‘There is almost no rule of law or basic human freedom in Laos, and education is in the hands of a corrupt and ideologically hidebound ministry that uses ADB money to build a grandiose but unnecessary new ministry building while rural children sit on logs and try to remember what a teacher looked like.’

One report even declared a ‘direct consequence of decades of abuse of power is that there is no public trust’ and that ‘government officials are presumed to be corrupt unless proven otherwise.’

These corrupt officials apparently approved the implementation of several development projects that are hurting the poor:

‘Intent on giving an open door to some foreign investors, the government has few compunctions about trampling on its own citizens, ignoring their traditional lands and livelihoods and utter dependence on their environment for their survival. In the near-absence of meaningful rule of law, those affected are at the mercy of sometimes venal, usually uncaring, bureaucrats administering the land use system. As Laos’ reputation grows as an “easy” place for investors in sectors like hydropower, plantation forests and mining, more and more of Laos’ poorest citizens are likely to find themselves dispossessed of their traditional lands.’

It’s important to highlight that China, which shares land borders with Laos, is the biggest investor in northern Laos. It has cornered the big item land development projects which, according to WikiLeaks, have seriously damaged the environment. But would environmental preservation really still be a major concern if the investors were Americans and not Chinese?

Meanwhile, even the conduct of elections in Laos was indirectly criticized in the WikiLeaks cables

‘By-and-large, Lao citizens took the election seriously, as a matter of national pride. Voters were expected to show their regard for the electoral process. Women who showed up to polling stations wearing slacks or “improper” dress were sent home. In spite of the guarantee of a “secret” ballot, election officials were on hand to inspect each ballot to make sure the voters took their responsibility seriously and voted correctly.’

But there were also cable reports that recognized some achievements by the Laos government especially on its success in reducing opium cultivation in the country. From the late 1980’s until 2005, Laos was the third largest producer of opium poppy in the world. But the aggressive anti-opium drive of the local government, which received significant assistance from the US government, has effectively weakened the poppy cultivation industry in the country.

As far as Laos is concerned, WikiLeaks has no startling revelations to offer other than to confirm what we already know about this small, landlocked country in Southeast Asia. It must be emphasized, too, that the cables merely reflect what Washington considers important in deciding the future of its relationship with Laos. They don’t necessarily represent what Laotians really feel and think about their present and future.

Written for The Diplomat

Cambodia’s Overcrowded Prisons

According to human rights group Licadho, prison occupancy in Cambodia is alarmingly close to 180 percent, making the country’s prison system among the 25 most overcrowded in the world. The group warned that if reforms aren’t immediately implemented to curb the prison population boom, Cambodia’s prison system could end up being the most overcrowded in the world as soon as 2019.

Licadho said that as of April this year, Cambodia’s total prison population stood at 15,001, which was a 12.6 percent increase compared with last year. The records of Cambodia’s General Department of Prisons showed that they processed 6,836 new admissions last year, which represented almost half the prison population.

Seven years ago, Licadho notified authorities that the 18 prisons monitored by the group were already filled to capacity and called for drastic judicial reforms to reduce the number of inmates in dilapidated prison cells. But it seems their petition went unheeded because the number of prisoners has continued to rise, despite the absence of programmes to expand and improve the country’s prison facilities.

Based on Licadho’s documentation, there are three factors that contributed to the prison overcrowding in Cambodia: The practice of detaining those who can’t pay criminal fines, a pilot programme in which pre-trial inmates were transferred to a community drug detention centre, and the use of prison sentences that aren’t commensurate with the crimes committed.

Human rights advocates have raised concerns that people convicted of minor crimes are handed excessively long prison sentences. For example, a juvenile in Sihanoukville was sentenced to six months imprisonment for breaking a window. In Svay Rieng, an 18-year-old man was arrested last year for stealing a chicken and was sentenced to a year in prison. In Kampong Cham, a man was arrested and charged with stealing a bottle of cooking oil and was later convicted and sentenced to seven months in jail for theft.

As a preliminary reform measure, Licadho proposed that a nationwide survey of the country’s prisons be conducted by the government and preferably assisted by an international partner in order to determine the system’s true capacity. Next, the government should ‘compile a reliable and accurate profile of the prison population to help inform criminal justice policy decisions.’ The evaluation of the prison population should include details such as sentence length and the age of offenders.

Licadho also reminded the government that the practice of detaining individuals who can’t afford to pay fines costs the state more money because of the expense of incarceration. Instead of automatic imprisonment for every offense committed, they suggested the use of non-custodial sentences as a possible response to petty crimes.

Licadho believes that alternative sentencing measures could the reduce prison population by half. They added that ‘judicious use of prosecutions’ can be easily accomplished if government is ready to provide adequate resources to the courts, police and other institutions of the judiciary. This is necessary so that ‘clear processes and procedures for monitoring adherence to non-custodial sentences’ can be established.

The government should seriously consider the recommendations submitted by Licadho, especially the development of a probation department and the use of alternative sentencing, if it wants to improve the country’s prison system. Otherwise, it will end up having to keep converting abandoned buildings into makeshift prison cells as it has had to in Pailin City.

Written for The Diplomat

Quintana, who has visited Burma four times since 2008, noted the positive steps taken by the government ‘that have the potential to bring about an improvement in the human rights situation of Myanmar (Burma).’ He also welcomed ‘what seems to be an opening of space for different actors and parties to engage in the political process.’

But while recognizing the efforts of the government to implement reforms, he also underscored the ‘serious and ongoing human rights concerns that need to be addressed.’ He also specifically cited the continuing detention of a large number of ‘prisoners of conscience.’

The military junta-dominated government continues to deny the existence of political prisoners in the country, but activists believe there are more than 2,000 people in the country who are in prison today because of their political activities. Burma is notorious for handing out insanely long sentences to captured dissidents. For example, Gen. Hso Ten of the Shan State Peace Council is serving a 106-year sentence for high treason. Hla Hla Win, a video journalist for the Democratic Voice of Burma, was detained for using an unregistered motorbike, but her jail sentence has been extended to 20 years.

Burma has more than 43 prisons and around 100 labor camps, but the majority of political prisoners are held in Yangon’s Insein prison. Even democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi spent time in this top security prison.

In his statement delivered at Yangon International Airport, Quintana shared the testimonies of ‘prisoners of conscience’ in Insein Prison. ‘I heard disturbing testimonies of prolonged sleep and food deprivation during interrogation, beatings, and the burning of bodily parts, including genital organs. I heard accounts of prisoners being confined in cells normally used for prison dogs as means of punishment. I also heard accounts of inadequate access to medical care, where prisoners had to pay for medication at their own cost.’

Quintana also mentioned the continuing allegations of ‘torture and ill-treatment during interrogation, the use of prisoners as porters for the military, and the transfers of prisoners to prisons in remote areas where they are unable to receive family visits or packages of essential medicine and supplemental food.’

Insein Prison has a total prison population of 10,000, but it has only three doctors. The prison overcrowding is blamed for the spread of illnesses in the detention facility.

Quintana’s report validates the claim of human rights groups that Burma prisoners suffer regular physical and psychological abuse from officials. It also affirms the notorious image of Insein prison as the ‘darkest hole in Burma,’ where 300 political prisoners are currently detained.

After witnessing the conditions of the ‘prisoners of conscience’, Quintana immediately called for their release on humanitarian grounds. He also reminded the government that their release would be a ‘central and necessary step towards national reconciliation and would bring more benefit to Myanmar’s efforts towards democracy.’

If the Junta generals are serious in their commitment to promote democratic reforms, and if they want the approval of the international human rights community, they would do well to follow what Quintana has outlined in his latest report on the state of human rights in Burma. At the minimum, releasing the ‘prisoners of conscience’ will boost the democratic reform movement in the country.

Written for The Diplomat

Singapore’s Happy Maids?

A survey released this month by Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower suggested that most foreign domestic workers are happy and satisfied to work in the prosperous city state. The survey was undertaken by a private firm hired by the Ministry to conduct face-to-face interviews with 900 randomly selected foreign maids. The study also involved 450 employers.

Singapore has more than 200,000 foreign maids who came mostly from the Philippines and Indonesia. According to the survey, 9 in 10 foreign maids said they were satisfied with working in Singapore, while 7 in 10 have expressed an interest in continuing to work in the city after their contracts expire. Almost 9 in 10 would like to continue working for their current employer. Meanwhile, 3 in 4 employers said they were satisfied with their current maids, and 6 in 10 intend to continue employing their current maids after their existing contracts expire.

The survey also revealed that the maids have sufficient food (99 percent) and adequate rest (97 percent) while slightly more than half of them (53 percent) said they were given at least one rest day per month. While it’s comforting to learn that the basic needs of most foreign maids are being addressed, it’s a little alarming that 47 percent of them weren’t being given a day off by their employers. Why has the Ministry failed to point to this finding as a serious issue of concern?

As expected, 25 percent of the foreign maids cited homesickness as their main problem, while 16 percent of them said that they had initial difficulties communicating with Singaporeans, and 11 percent said they were unable to cope with their work. Curiously, 22 percent claimed they experienced no problems at all when they came to work in Singapore. It’s hard to believe that such a large number of maids didn’t encounter a single problem in their work. Meanwhile, the survey didn’t mention potential physical or other types of abuse.

Maybe one reason for the rosy assessment was a communication problem during the interviews, which prevented the maids from expressing their real feelings and thoughts. Were they interviewed in front of their employers? Were they informed that their answers would be kept confidential? Were they allowed to speak in their native language?

Even Singaporean writer Au Waipang questioned some of the ‘unreliable’ and ‘dishonest’ conclusions in the surveys. He found it incredible that more than half of the interviewed maids gave a perfect rating when asked about their work situation and welfare. He noted, for instance, that Singapore maids earn less compared with maids working in other rich countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

The Singapore government should obviously be commended for trying to probe the conditions of foreign maids working in the country – it’s a move that should be replicated by other rich nations, which are too focused in studying the situation of foreign employees and managers while ignoring the plight of foreign maids.

The survey confirms the perception that the welfare of most Singapore maids is protected by both the employers and the state. But the survey methodology also has flaws, which appear to have generated some unbelievable and maybe inaccurate results. The survey should inspire the government to continue formulating policies and programmes to help promote the work conditions of maids in Singapore since the ‘happy’ maids in the real world could simply be hiding their real dissatisfaction and loneliness.

Written for The Diplomat

The opposition Liberal Party dominated the 2010 Philippine elections and defeated the ruling party, which had been in power since 2001. The opposition victory reflected the unpopularity of former President Gloria Arroyo, who was accused of electoral fraud, human rights violations, corruption and plundering state coffers.

Recently, the opposition Pheu Thai Party defeated the ruling Democrat Party in Thailand, which led to the election of Yingluck Shinawatra – the country’s first female prime minister. Yingluck is the younger sister of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was forced into exile after he was overthrown in a military coup in 2006. During the campaign, the opposition highlighted the culpability of the Democrat Party in the violent crackdown of anti-government protests last year, the worsening insurgency in the southern part of the country, the hostile relationship with Cambodia over a border dispute and the rising economic difficulties experienced by ordinary Thais.

Meanwhile, the People’s Action Party (PAP) is still Singapore’s dominant political coalition after it won the most seats in the general election last May. Also, the candidate the party endorsed won last week’s presidential election. But the opposition scored some significant victories this year after it managed to win a few but strategic parliamentary seats. The PAP, which has dominated Singaporean politics since the late 1950s, also suffered its worst electoral performance this year, which according to analysts has permanently altered Singapore’s political landscape.

As in Singapore, the ruling coalition in Malaysia still has more than enough numbers in parliament, but the opposition is gaining ground. The disenchantment of the public with the country’s political leadership is also rising as seen in the massive participation of ordinary Malaysians in the Bersih democracy march in July. Organized in support of electoral reforms, the Bersih has since then evolved into an opposition political movement following the overreaction of the government, which violently dispersed the peaceful march. Bersih is expected to bring more votes to the opposition.

Moving on to Burma, many analysts were surprised to learn that opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi has agreed to meet President Thein Sein of the military-controlled government. They are now asking if the global democracy icon has decided to work with the people who imprisoned her for more than two decades. But it could simply be an opposition tactic for outmanoeuvring the generals. Just a few weeks ago, Suu Kyi was allowed to travel to the north of the country for the first time since she regained her freedom, and she was warmly greeted by the people in the streets. The opposition hasn’t yet ditched the prospect of revolution, but it seems to be quietly maximizing the limited democratic space afforded to it by the Junta.

The new Southeast Asian leaders aren’t simply getting younger – most of them have also come from opposition ranks. The success of various opposition parties and movements in articulating the sentiments of the people, and harnessing them into a potent political force, has produced a new generation of leaders who are aware of the need for immediate political and economic reforms. Of course, opposition victories aren’t a guarantee that conditions will now improve, but at least it proved that the emergence of a genuine opposition can foster democracy. This trend should be welcomed and promoted across the region.

Written for The Diplomat

The overcrowding on buses and trains is the visible manifestation of the city’s transport mess, and the main transport operators SMRT (train service) and SBS (bus transit) have acknowledged that there’s a problem. However, their proposed solution of raising fares has angered commuters.

In response to the petition of the SMRT and SBS for a fare hike, the opposition Workers’ Party has proposed the creation of a ‘not-for-profit National Transport Corporation,’ which would aim to provide ‘safe, affordable, accessible, efficient and reliable universal public transportation services, on the basis of cost and depreciation recovery.’

They blame the lack of genuine market competition in the transport industry for the apparent absence of interest of SMRT and SBS to innovate, raise standards, improve productivity, and keep prices low. Gerald Giam, a member of parliament from the Workers’ Party, has questioned the government’s decision to allow a public utility to be ‘and operated by what are effectively private monopolists earning monopoly rents.’

Giam added that nationalizing the transport sector ‘wouldn’t necessarily mean higher subsidies or a loss-making endeavour. If competently run, the National Transport Corporation could reduce costs associated with the duplication of functions and roles.’

Despite the country having one of the most open economies in the world, the Singaporean government is actually subsidizing several public services like schools, hospitals, clinics and housing. Therefore, the idea of infusing public funds into the transport sector to improve its operations isn’t unusual, even for Singapore.

But Minister for Transport Lui Tuck Yew immediately dismissed the proposal of the Workers’ Party by praising the benefits of allowing the private sector to manage the transport sector. He also warned against the ‘downsides’ of nationalization, which would mean, among other bad things, more taxes and higher costs in the long run.

Mr Lui, however, recognizes the need to raise the quality of service provided by both the SMRT and SBS. In particular, he wants the two transport operators to immediately address the overcrowding on buses and trains by improving the frequency and reliability of their services. He also assures the public that the government will thoroughly review the petition of SMRT and SBS for a fare increase.

Mr Lui has vowed to alleviate the hardships experienced daily by Singapore passengers, especially after riding the trains several times. In fact, he posted his ordeal on Facebook, writing: ‘I have experienced the discomfort and frustrations that commuters faced because of the congestion and the sometimes unreliable service and I share your desire to see improvements to our public transport.’

It’s true that nationalization isn’t a guarantee in solving Singapore’s transport woes, but it certainly is a better alternative to the current set-up, where private corporations are allowed to amass huge profits while the riding public is left to suffer from poor service.

Written for The Diplomat

Abhisit’s Farewell

In his televised farewell speech on August, former Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva summarized the key achievements of his administration which, according to him, could help newly proclaimed Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra in building a more stable and progressive Thailand. But Abhisit also indirectly admitted his shortcomings when he outlined the immediate challenges that his successor should address.

It’s to Abhisit’s credit that the feared post-election violence didn’t materialize in a deeply divided society like Thailand, largely because of his gracious acceptance of defeat in last month’s general elections. He may have his share of faults as a leader, but at least he was successful in overseeing an orderly transition of power that turned out to be his last great act as a statesman. Also, the peaceful turnover could prove immensely helpful in stabilizing Thai politics by restoring public confidence in the electoral process and democratic institutions.

It’s quite interesting that Abhisit chose to highlight in his speech what he called the ‘stable and sound financial standing’ of Thailand because the rising economic difficulties experienced by ordinary Thais was actually one of the reasons cited by analysts for his poll defeat. In fact, Yingluck garnered popular support during the campaign period when she promised to double the country’s minimum wage. But Abhisit seemed firm in setting the record straight about the correctness and effectiveness of his economic policies.

He proudly reported that: ‘When I first came into office, I used to say that our economic situation was like a “house on fire”. Now, we have put out this fire, made progress in looking after people living in the house and also made our house stronger.’

To bolster his claims, he cited the country’s foreign reserves, which are now the 13th largest in the world, the reduced debt-to-GDP ratio, the low unemployment rate, and the stable Oil Fund that protects consumers from fluctuating oil prices.

Abhisit acknowledged his failure to provide a comprehensive social welfare system, but he explained that his government originally planned to complete the programme in 2016. He also said the disparities in Thai society were a structural problem. He emphasized, though, that social assistance is now being implemented through the offering of free education and free healthcare for the poor and the provision of care for the disabled and the elderly.

On the other hand, Abhisit was candid enough to mention some of the problems he will pass to his successor, like the strained relations with Cambodia over a border dispute, the continuing violence and insurgency in Southern Thailand and bitter political conflicts that need to be resolved through judicial processes. He particularly advised new members of parliament to help tackle the drug menace.

Abhisit’s speech was brief, but it amply summed up his successes and failures as a leader, including his unfulfilled dreams for Thailand. It was also noteworthy for the issues that Abhisit refused to mention, like the violent protest crackdown last year, attack on media freedom and other civil liberties, and corruption in the bureaucracy.

Abhisit is now a private citizen, but we shouldn’t disregard the prospect of a political comeback – especially since he was recently re-elected as leader of the Democrat Party.

Written for The Diplomat