There is no more important issue in Southeast Asia today than Human Rights. With the demise of the Cold War, the increase in importance of economics, the move away from concerns about independence from colonial powers, and the "third wave" movement of democratization internationally, Human Rights has emerged as a key issue for analyzing the culture and politics of Southeast Asia. In particular, fascinating questions have arisen: Should Southeast Asian states be expected to practice Human Rights to the same degree, or in the same way as Western nations? Are there distinct "Asian values" that differ from the West regarding rights and freedom? Is "cultural relativism" a meaningful position, or one used by authoritarian governments in Southeast Asia to counter criticisms of Human Rights positions? Do "free enterprise" economies have a different set of Human Rights policies from "command" economies?

This panel will focus on these and related questions. Because diversity among the nations is central to understanding Southeast Asia, each paper will naturally differ one from the other in terms of the analysis and conclusion. However, they will ensemble a coherent panel as they analyze the policies in the Southeast Asian nations where Human Rights have become the central issue: Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia, Burma, and Singapore. My job as chair and discussant will be to point out the common threads and the dissimilar approaches, and to indicate how the nations differ in terms of Asian values. The panelists are leading authorities for each of the nations.

Stephen Morris, Johns Hopkins University

All of the states of contemporary Indochina are ruled by Leninist parties that have evolved differently over the last three decades. Vietnam has evolved from an orthodox Marxist-Leninist corporatist totalitarian dictatorship into a Market Leninist authoritarian dictatorship. Cambodia has evolved from a "hyper-Maoist" radical totalitarian dictatorship into a Mafia Leninist semi-authoritarian dictatorship.

Market Leninist dictatorship is an authoritarian regime, characterized by strict control over the political realm, with neither free elections, independent political organizations, nor adherence to human rights. The Vietnamese Communist Party controls all government institutions from the center to the village. However the economy is divided into a state sector, concentrated in large enterprises and joint ventures with foreign capital—and a private sector, concentrated in agriculture and small business. The Vietnamese ruling elites are tensely divided between a conservative totalitarian segment, which is suspicious of Western capitalist economic formations and a modernizing authoritarian faction, which wishes to maintain a balance between state and private to serve economic development. This paper will analyze human rights in terms of these factions.

Mafia Leninist dictatorship is a semi-authoritarian regime. The Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) controls all government institutions. However, it tolerates a limited degree of political opposition, independent political organizations, and freedom of the mass media. The economy has only a small state-run sector, while the private sector is divided between "crony capitalist" enterprises and small business and agriculture. Foreign nationals are tolerated in the economy and the social realm. There is no effective legal system. The two systems and their impact on human rights will be compared.

Michael Haas, Political Film Society

Why does the most prosperous country in Southeast Asia claim that its economy is too fragile to allow the country’s constitution to be read aloud in a public square? This paper will identify alternative theories seeking to explain why Singapore violates human rights and then identify the most plausible of these theories.

Singapore’s leaders, especially Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong, have been the principal spokespersons for the notion of ‘Asian Values.’ They have set forth a comprehensive set of ideas designed to show that Asia is significantly different from the West and that its values reflect the differences. This paper will assess the notion of Asian Values as a rationale for authoritarian government and/or a legitimate notion that is actually superior to values found in Western nations.

Elizabeth Fuller Collins, Ohio University

New Order authoritarianism was supported by a formidable array of laws and institutions, some dating back to the period of Dutch colonialism and the "Guided Democracy" of Sukarno, such as the Anti-Subversion Law of 1963. Nevertheless, beginning in the mid-70s, four groups—non-governmental organizations, most particularly the Legal Aid Foundation of Indonesia, student activists, workers’ and peasants’ organizations, and independent journalists—pressed for fundamental change and democracy. Activist lawyers transformed the Legal Aid Society from a professional charity into a political force aimed at limiting the abuses of the New Order through the "rule of law." Although decisions upholding the rights of groups and individuals were generally reversed because the courts were not independent, the campaign for reform was strengthened by collective action organized by student and NGO activists working with farmers and workers. Journalists reporting on these demonstrations increased public awareness of human rights abuses. With the end of the Cold War, Western governments began to apply pressure for greater observance of Human Rights by the New Order. The New Order responded by using paramilitary groups associated with the army to intimidate and eliminate opponents. This practice, used extensively in areas with active military operations, was also applied to civilian opposition groups beginning with the government-sponsored raid on the PDI headquarters in July 1996. The use of thugs allows the government to avoid a direct role in violence and reduces government accountability for abuses that follow. This poses the greatest challenge to rights activists today.

David Streckfuss, Khon Kaen University

Since 1992, Thailand has markedly improved its human rights record. The country’s latest constitution explicitly makes protection of human rights a major thrust. The latest annual reports of the U.S. State Department and Amnesty International congratulate Thailand on the progress made in terms of human rights and point out rather mundane, less glaring violations such as lethal force used by police or the death penalty.

But are there other ways that human rights violations may be occurring in Thailand and which may not be covered by such reports? Typically, human rights monitoring has tended to focus on a government’s violation of an individual citizen’s rights. Individuals or groups that the state would have suppressed directly in the past are silenced now by other means.

The first way is when the government suppresses threats indirectly, such as with the suppression of the Dhammachayo Buddhist sect for its view of Nirvana as a "real place" by charging its leader with land ownership irregularities. A second way is when a community (typically poor) acts to defend its interests—such as small-scale fishermen going against commercial fishing interests in the South—and its leaders are intimidated or murdered. A third way is when there is a "popular" call for suppression, such as when the residents of Khorat demanded the punishment of an academic who questioned the history of a local national heroine.

In the first case, the freedom of religious belief is violated by the use of laws unrelated to human rights. In the second, the right to organize peaceably in defense of a community’s economic rights is dismissed as a "private conflict." In the third, freedom of expression is suppressed "popularly." Hence, in Thailand we may see an ongoing decrease in the incidence of human rights violations by the government with a simultaneous increase of human rights violations by other means.

Ross Marlay, Arkansas State University

A military junta has ruled Burma (Myanmar) at gunpoint since 1988, but events in that country arouse little interest among Americans. Policymakers in Washington regard Burma as strategically marginal and economically insignificant. The Burmese government discourages foreign reporters, but a close look reveals that Burma has a worse record of abusing its citizens than other Southeast Asian governments whose actions receive more publicity.

The State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), formerly SLORC, represses all political opposition and keeps hundreds of nonviolent political opponents in prison. One courageous woman, Aung San Suu Kyi, symbolizes resistance. As were Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Corazon Aquino, Aung San Suu Kyi is too famous to liquidate, but many lesser-known Burmese have simply disappeared.

This paper will focus on workers’ rights, news censorship, attempts to regulate computer software, persecution of religious minorities (Muslims and Christians), extra-judicial killing, and degrading treatment of prisoners. Special attention is given to the activities of the Directorate of Defense Services Intelligence (DDSI), and to widespread reports of military abuses in construction projects.