The Importance of Aung San Suu Kyi

The opening of Myanmar has been on the news for several weeks, if not months now. Slowly, the world will know more than Aung San Suu Kyi. But for now, let us talk about this lady who is the embodiment of Myanmar itself. I may be wrong in making this conjecture but many people seem to have this question: “If Aung San Suu Kyi was such a threat to the military junta, why did the military never consider eliminating her?” I am sure the military considered this option but never really got to the path of executing it. Why?

First was the domestic consideration. Aung San Suu Kyi is the daughter of General Aung San, who became a strong symbol of opposition to the military after he was assassinated. The military was afraid that if something untoward was to happen to Aung San Suu Kyi as well, it would galvanize the opposition to such a level that even they would not be able to handle despite having the advantage of firepower.

Second was the international consideration. Through the sheer effort of Michael Aris, the late husband of Aung San Suu Kyi, she became and still is the face of Myanmar to the world. As such, the policies of the external powers, notably the Western world, were very much tied to their assessments of how Aung San Suu Kyi was treated by the regime. If they carried things too far, the international pressure could be so strong that their existence itself could not be guaranteed.

Although power has been transferred to the nominally civilian government, there is no doubt that the military still lurks in the background. The chances of them reading this entry is very slim but if they do, I hope they will consider the implications of their action if the thought of eliminating Aung San Suu Kyi ever comes again.   

How Many Amina Filali(s) Are Out There?

The recent case of Amina Filali brings to the public attention practices that supposedly should not have been around in the current state of the world. It is surprising that people in parts of Morocco still think that it is a dishonour for her and her family if a girl/woman is raped. This is tantamount to saying it is her fault for being raped. So, you have a situation whereby instead of consoling and providing support, people around her are actually blaming and perhaps scolding her for her predicament.

What is more surprising is the law allowing the rapist to marry the girl/woman. This brings the question on the state of mind of the girl/woman to be sharing the same bed with someone who has just inflicted some kind of pain or trauma on her. I wonder how many such similar practices or even worse go unreported.

Is Race To The Bottom a Valid Reason for Standard Harmonization?

Just as there are many valid reasons against standard harmonization, there are also many credible reasons for it. But there is one reason for standard harmonization that I just can’t get around: the idea of preventing race to the bottom. The argument goes that in the current globalized world where it is so much easier for firms to relocate their production plants to low-cost locations, firms with existing plants in countries with higher standards (higher cost) can easily shift them to countries with lower standards (lower cost), resulting in job losses. To prevent such a move, countries with higher standards will revise down their requirements and spark a race to the bottom, causing lower standards across the world.

My gripe is driven by the fact that there is no clear evidence where countries have lowered their standards in order to prevent job losses. On the other hand, most countries benefiting from FDI appear to have raised their standards, partly driven by the more demanding middle class whose population share has increased. A point of note is a recent article about how Apple has raised the labour standards in China. Although critics may say that it is a one-off event caused by the widespread negative publicity, it is also correct to say that China has come a long way with regards to how it treats its labour force. Among them, the 2008 labour contract law should ring a bell to most people, not to mention the latest promise by China’s Cabinet to raise minimum wage by 13 percent a year until 2015.

The Intrique of Achieving an ASEAN Community: The Middle Countries

Dr. Surin Pitsuwan, the current ASEAN Secretary General once said that it is countries in the middle that impede the progress towards building an ASEAN community. Why did he make such a remark?

Countries at the top are more than willing to take part in the establishment of community, in particular economic community because they are already highly competitive. A community will allow them better access to the neighboring market and they are certainly not worried that they will lose out in terms of efficiency if they open their borders to freer trade among ASEAN member economies.

Similarly, countries at the bottom are also more than willing to take part in this endeavor because after having been isolated for periods of time, they want to plug themselves into the globalized world and joining the ASEAN community is certainly a good starting point for doing so.

Countries in the middle view things rather differently. Opening their markets to freer trade is bound to benefit some groups but at the same time, is going to hurt some groups and these are not weak groups. Having been protected by their governments, they have grown into strong interest groups capable of influencing government policies. They would definitely prefer to maintain the status quo so as to maintain their current level of wealth and benefits.

Education and Employment in the UK

It does not come as a surprise that one of the thriving industries in times of economic crisis is tertiary education. Enrollments double if not triple as young adults decide to go back to schools and prime themselves in anticipation of recovery. The issue seldom mentioned is the fact that not all young adults have the means or rather the luxury to obtain those additional degrees. This puts them in a rather disadvantage position when it comes to job search as they are of less value than their school-returning peers. In other words, they can never break away from the vicious cycle of no education-no employment. This is indeed the plight of approximately 22 percent of the young adults in the UK whose future hangs in the balance, not to mention the implications that it may have on the nation’s future as a whole.

While critics may argue that tackling this issue will bring no significant improvements in their employment prospects since there just isn’t enough aggregate demand in the economy fundamentally, it is also sensible to argue that the different starting points of these two groups of young adults has already put those with less education in a weaker position regardless of whether times are good or bad.

It is thus justifiable for the relevant authorities to correct this failure either by providing training opportunities to boost their competitiveness or providing support for them to return to school and gain that extra knowledge. Austerity is necessary but should we jeopardize the future of the next generation in its pursuit?

The Two Camps of ASEAN Cooperation Efforts

In my opinion, an inter-governmental organization needs to accomplish two things to be well respected: 1) the ability to convince the various stakeholders, each with their own interests and goals, to come to a consensus and put it in writing as agreements, frameworks, etc and 2) the strength to enforce them even if they may result in displeasure among some of the stakeholders.

ASEAN as an organization has certainly come a long way. While its founding was barely reported in the media and many were rather skeptical in its ability to achieve something noteworthy, ASEAN now has its own charter and can claim credits for numerous initiatives & mechanisms such as the Enhanced Dispute Settlement Mechanism (ESDM) and ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR). These are definitely no mean feat, taking into consideration the diversity of the Member States that constitute ASEAN. Hence, the natural step would have been to ask the question on whether they are enforceable or whether they are binding at all.

A closer look at these initiatives & mechanisms would give the impression that they are “toothless”. At this point, optimists like to argue that although they are symbolic in nature, they nonetheless inform us of the inspirations or the goals of the signatories. In other words, we should applaud them for having the courage to put their signatures on something that clearly contradict their domestic environments. Pessimists, on the other hand, argue that precisely because signatories know very well that there will be no consequences for deviation that they have no qualms in putting down their signatures. Both arguments are plausible and you choose a side depending on your inclination. 

The Case for ASEAN Trade & Investment Centre

While the worst is over and the global economy is slowly recovering, there is an ongoing perception among the export economies that they can no longer rely on the traditional markets such as US and Europe to sustain their long-term growth. Consequently, the focus of many policy-makers has been on increasing domestic consumption and looking for alternative markets for their exports.

ASEAN economies take this view seriously considering that 600 million people call the region home. The dynamism of the region where each economy complements one another provide another valid reason as to why ASEAN should not only look outward in sustaining its economic growth. Among the many proposals that are circulating around is one on the establishment of a one-stop trade & investment centre (TIC) in each economy who will liaise with its counterpart in the other economies. While the idea is good in theory and should definitely be assessed critically, it may encounter several roadblocks in the immediate short-run and this is ironically due to the region’s dynamism.

Let’s start with the more developed economies. It is unlikely that these economies will shoot down the idea due to ideological clash. Afterall, economies such as Singapore pride itself as an open economy. It is open to more foreign investments and concurrently, does not spare any efforts in getting their homegrown companies to internationalize. The issue is that having stayed true to this belief for a long time, Singapore already has well-established institutions with the same responsibilities as TIC albeit under different roofs. It may thus reject this idea on the ground of redundancy. We can of course argue that instead of establishing a new centre altogether, Singapore can try to re-structure its existing institutions so that it resembles the proposed TIC but why should it do so if it has done well based on the existing model. In other words, convincing these economies will not be an easy task if we want them to buy this idea beyond solidarity.

Moving on to the less developed economies, there is no disagreement that market access is a good thing for their homegrown companies but market access is based on reciprocity. The issue with these economies is that although they want to “take” (in terms of gaining more market access), they are less willing to “give” (in terms of opening their own market) for fear that their companies are unable to compete with others. The trick is then on how we can convince them that the long-term gains far outweighs the short-term losses.