They share the same Malay cultural roots and Islamic faith, but the poor treatment of Indonesian workers in Malaysia has soured relations between the Southeast Asian neighbors. Political commentators view the growing clash as one arising from class rather than ethnicity or even nationalism.
In the latest flare-up, thousands of young Indonesians burned Malaysian flags and demonstrated in front of the Malaysian Embassy in Jakarta and consulates elsewhere after the physical assault of an Indonesian karate coach by Malaysian police. The fact that the police were hunting for illegal Indonesian immigrants at the time has also inflamed tensions in Indonesia.
Donald Luther Kolobita, 47, was part of the Indonesian team competing in the Asian Karate Championships in Kuala Lumpur on August 24 when he was confronted by four plainclothes police officers late at night outside his hotel. Thinking they were trying to rob him, Kolobita put up a fight before he was overpowered, handcuffed and taken to the police station, where he was savagely assaulted.
Kolobita returned to Jakarta in a wheelchair and the Indonesian team withdrew from the championship. The Speaker of Indonesia's parliament, Agung Laksono, called the attack "an arrogant act on the part of the Malaysian police against an Indonesian citizen", and President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono demanded that the Malaysian police apologize.
On Friday, Malaysian Police Chief Musa Hassan sent a written apology to Kolobita, which was hand-delivered to his hospital bedside in Jakarta by Malaysian Ambassador Zainal Abidin Zain. But anger in Indonesia has not yet subsided, with young activists continuing their protests outside the Malaysian Embassy.
The episode represents the latest in a series of complaints about the ill-treatment of Indonesians in Malaysia, especially among migrant workers. There are almost 600,000 officially documented Indonesian workers in Malaysia and, according to unofficial estimates, there may be an equal number of illegal workers in the country.
An estimated 27% of the Indonesian legal workers serve as domestic maids. A spate of documented abuse cases against domestic servants has intensified Indonesia’s anger over a heavy-handed crackdown on illegal workers.
"Malays in Malaysia always think of Javanese [Indonesians] as ethnically inferior compared with them," said Ade Armando, a communications lecturer at the University of Indonesia. "This is justified by the fact that the Indonesians they mostly see are laborers or maids."
Yap Swee Seng, executive director of the Malaysian human-rights group Suaram, argues that the anger expressed by Indonesians is indicative of the "long-accumulated anger against Malaysia for its rampant abuse, exploitation and human-rights violations of Indonesian migrant workers". He contends that the Malaysian government is not committed to stopping abuse.
"There have been too many abuse cases with almost total impunity enjoyed by the perpetuators," Yap said. "The majority of the Indonesian migrant workers have been employed in the '3-D' jobs - dangerous, discriminatory and degrading. Therefore, there are widespread discriminatory and arrogant attitudes against the migrant workers in general."
Just a few days before the attack on Kolobita, the Indonesian government, prompted by the death of a 24-year-old maid at the hands of abusive employers, stepped up pressure on Malaysia to take swift action against the broad ill-treatment of Indonesian workers. In the past three months, there were two cases of Indonesian maids being rescued by firefighters after they were spotted hanging from window ledges of highrise condominiums trying to escape their abusive employers. Maids often suffer and report physical attacks, but prosecutions are rare.
Irene Fernandez, director of Tenaganita, a leading migrant workers' rights group, said this year that on average 150-200 migrant workers, the majority of them maids, seek refuge at the Indonesian Embassy in Kuala Lumpur every month. She blamed both the Malaysian and Indonesian governments for failing to protect the rights of migrant workers.
"As long as the Malaysian government does not address this fundamental issue, such incidents will continue to happen," she told Al-Jazeera television in a recent interview.
Yap agrees. "Domestic workers are among the most abused people in Malaysia, as they work in isolated and insulated environments," he said. "They should be allowed one rest day in a week and be allowed to meet with their friends, and join or form trade unions, so that they will have a support system."
Yap argued that there should be "a total reform in the policy and legal system in Malaysia in dealing with migrant workers" and that without such reforms the Malaysian government "will be equally guilty by its inaction against such human-rights violations".
Armando said: "I do not think we as a nation are so angry with Malaysia." He argued that rather than protesting against Malaysia, young people in Jakarta should protest to the Indonesian government for "failing to provide our people with the type of job opportunities that are offered in Malaysia".
He said the two countries' middle classes have considerable mutual respect and noted that Indonesian cultural products can be found everywhere in Malaysia.
"I believe, to some extent, the Malaysian younger middle classes envy the type of freedom enjoyed by their counterparts in Indonesia," he said.
Extract from : Kalinga Seneviratne (ASIA TIMES ONLINE)
Monday, September 10, 2007
BIRTHDAY BLUES FOR ASEAN
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) turned 40 this summer, raising the question of whether the regional grouping is facing a mid-life crisis. Or, alternatively, is it on the verge of maturing into a more cohesive and relevant organization capable of carrying out its self-proclaimed "driver's seat" role in East Asia community-building?
Only time will tell, but there are some encouraging signs that ASEAN may be coming of age, beginning with the creation of the new ASEAN Charter to manage "the key challenges of regional integration, globalization, economic growth, and new technologies". A formal charter would add a "legal personality" and a greater degree of cohesiveness and clarity to earlier efforts to build an ASEAN community (or more precisely, three interrelated communities: an ASEAN security community, an ASEAN economic community and an ASEAN socio-cultural community).
ASEAN's Eminent Persons Group (EPG) provided the assembled leadership a draft charter at the 2006 annual ASEAN summit in Cebu, Philippines. Since then, an ASEAN high-level task force has been hard at work, refining (read: toning down) some of the more dramatic suggestions, such as a controversial section recommending sanctions, including expulsion from ASEAN, for those violating the charter, which has reportedly been dropped.
The EPG also recommended that ASEAN relax its full-consensus decision-making style; it remains to be seen whether this suggestion, and one opposing "extra-constitutional" methods of changing government, as happened last year in Thailand, will make the final cut.
One controversial provision that apparently did make the cut last month was the establishment of a new Human Rights Commission, over initial objections by Myanmar, among others. While the final version has not yet been seen - it is scheduled to be unveiled and approved at the November ASEAN summit in Singapore - the charter is expected to "accelerate ASEAN integration" while making it a more "rules-based" organization.
One ASEAN senior official noted that the new charter "would also help put into place a system in which more ASEAN agreements would be effectively implemented and enforced long after the symbolic signing ceremonies". To those who have long accused ASEAN of valuing form over substance, this will be a welcome development.
More good news came in the naming of former Thai foreign minister Surin Pitsuwan as ASEAN's next secretary general, effective next January. Surin, a Muslim, is seen as a proactive supporter of greater "constructive engagement" both within ASEAN and between ASEAN and its neighbors. He will, according to incumbent secretary general Ong Keng Yong, "have a clear direction and more of a mandate" as a result of the charter. There is no questioning his energy, enthusiasm, and commitment - what remains to be seen is how much of a collective voice he will be able to employ, and to what end.
As part of its "coming of age" process, ASEAN is also developing a "plan of action" to enhance its 10-year-old Treaty of the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (SEANWFZ), which prohibits the development, testing, or basing of nuclear weapons within its territories while permitting nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
I would offer a suggestion to those tasked with drawing up the implementation plan, namely an amendment to the SEANWFZ that would prohibit reprocessing or enrichment activities within the region, thus closing one of the current Non-Proliferation Treaty loopholes that have contributed to the current difficulties with North Korea and Iran. This should increase the treaty’s attractiveness to those parties, including the United States, that have not yet acceded to the treaty.
Meanwhile, Washington's relations with ASEAN have never been deeper while appearing so shallow. US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, at last month's annual ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) meeting, applauded the effort to develop a charter that "strengthened democratic values, good governance, the rule of law, and respect for human rights and freedom".
He also marked the 30th anniversary of US-ASEAN relations by refining and strengthening the Enhanced Partnership Plan of Action signed between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her ASEAN counterparts during the July 2006 ARF meeting. This action plan grew out of the Enhanced Partnership joint vision statement announced by US President George W Bush and assembled ASEAN leaders during the first ever US-ASEAN summit along the sidelines of the November 2005 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders' meeting.
The plan of action guides cooperation as ASEAN advances toward its goal of political, economic and social integration while enhancing cooperation on critical transnational challenges such as terrorism, narcotics trafficking, infectious diseases, and protecting the environment.
It complements the August 2006 US-ASEAN Trade and Investment Framework Arrangement that established a regular and formal dialogue on trade and investment matters and a joint work plan to enhance two-way trade that exceeded US$168 billion last year. Collectively, ASEAN is America's fourth-largest trading partner; to date, US companies have invested nearly $90 billion in ASEAN countries.
That's the good news. Unfortunately, when it comes to US-ASEAN relations, form has not matched substance. Rice this year missed her second ARF meeting (out of three opportunities) and Bush canceled the full US-ASEAN summit, which had been planned by Singapore after this year's APEC summit.
As a result, Bush's third summit with the "ASEAN Seven" - the ASEAN members of APEC (Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, the Philippines and Vietnam; the other members of ASEAN are Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar) - appears to be a consolation prize, rather than another significant step forward. One frequently hears the accusation that Washington is "neglecting" Southeast Asia, despite the above-cited significant advancements.
To correct this perception, and given the fact that Bush has yet to make his first trip to East Asia this year, serious consideration should be given to arranging such a visit coincident with this year's Singapore-hosted East Asia Summit, to underscore Washington's support for ASEAN's coming-of-age process. It would further permit Bush to be invited as a special guest to the East Asia Summit, while skirting tricky membership questions, thus showing support for East Asia community-building as well.
Only time will tell, but there are some encouraging signs that ASEAN may be coming of age, beginning with the creation of the new ASEAN Charter to manage "the key challenges of regional integration, globalization, economic growth, and new technologies". A formal charter would add a "legal personality" and a greater degree of cohesiveness and clarity to earlier efforts to build an ASEAN community (or more precisely, three interrelated communities: an ASEAN security community, an ASEAN economic community and an ASEAN socio-cultural community).
ASEAN's Eminent Persons Group (EPG) provided the assembled leadership a draft charter at the 2006 annual ASEAN summit in Cebu, Philippines. Since then, an ASEAN high-level task force has been hard at work, refining (read: toning down) some of the more dramatic suggestions, such as a controversial section recommending sanctions, including expulsion from ASEAN, for those violating the charter, which has reportedly been dropped.
The EPG also recommended that ASEAN relax its full-consensus decision-making style; it remains to be seen whether this suggestion, and one opposing "extra-constitutional" methods of changing government, as happened last year in Thailand, will make the final cut.
One controversial provision that apparently did make the cut last month was the establishment of a new Human Rights Commission, over initial objections by Myanmar, among others. While the final version has not yet been seen - it is scheduled to be unveiled and approved at the November ASEAN summit in Singapore - the charter is expected to "accelerate ASEAN integration" while making it a more "rules-based" organization.
One ASEAN senior official noted that the new charter "would also help put into place a system in which more ASEAN agreements would be effectively implemented and enforced long after the symbolic signing ceremonies". To those who have long accused ASEAN of valuing form over substance, this will be a welcome development.
More good news came in the naming of former Thai foreign minister Surin Pitsuwan as ASEAN's next secretary general, effective next January. Surin, a Muslim, is seen as a proactive supporter of greater "constructive engagement" both within ASEAN and between ASEAN and its neighbors. He will, according to incumbent secretary general Ong Keng Yong, "have a clear direction and more of a mandate" as a result of the charter. There is no questioning his energy, enthusiasm, and commitment - what remains to be seen is how much of a collective voice he will be able to employ, and to what end.
As part of its "coming of age" process, ASEAN is also developing a "plan of action" to enhance its 10-year-old Treaty of the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (SEANWFZ), which prohibits the development, testing, or basing of nuclear weapons within its territories while permitting nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
I would offer a suggestion to those tasked with drawing up the implementation plan, namely an amendment to the SEANWFZ that would prohibit reprocessing or enrichment activities within the region, thus closing one of the current Non-Proliferation Treaty loopholes that have contributed to the current difficulties with North Korea and Iran. This should increase the treaty’s attractiveness to those parties, including the United States, that have not yet acceded to the treaty.
Meanwhile, Washington's relations with ASEAN have never been deeper while appearing so shallow. US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, at last month's annual ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) meeting, applauded the effort to develop a charter that "strengthened democratic values, good governance, the rule of law, and respect for human rights and freedom".
He also marked the 30th anniversary of US-ASEAN relations by refining and strengthening the Enhanced Partnership Plan of Action signed between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her ASEAN counterparts during the July 2006 ARF meeting. This action plan grew out of the Enhanced Partnership joint vision statement announced by US President George W Bush and assembled ASEAN leaders during the first ever US-ASEAN summit along the sidelines of the November 2005 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders' meeting.
The plan of action guides cooperation as ASEAN advances toward its goal of political, economic and social integration while enhancing cooperation on critical transnational challenges such as terrorism, narcotics trafficking, infectious diseases, and protecting the environment.
It complements the August 2006 US-ASEAN Trade and Investment Framework Arrangement that established a regular and formal dialogue on trade and investment matters and a joint work plan to enhance two-way trade that exceeded US$168 billion last year. Collectively, ASEAN is America's fourth-largest trading partner; to date, US companies have invested nearly $90 billion in ASEAN countries.
That's the good news. Unfortunately, when it comes to US-ASEAN relations, form has not matched substance. Rice this year missed her second ARF meeting (out of three opportunities) and Bush canceled the full US-ASEAN summit, which had been planned by Singapore after this year's APEC summit.
As a result, Bush's third summit with the "ASEAN Seven" - the ASEAN members of APEC (Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, the Philippines and Vietnam; the other members of ASEAN are Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar) - appears to be a consolation prize, rather than another significant step forward. One frequently hears the accusation that Washington is "neglecting" Southeast Asia, despite the above-cited significant advancements.
To correct this perception, and given the fact that Bush has yet to make his first trip to East Asia this year, serious consideration should be given to arranging such a visit coincident with this year's Singapore-hosted East Asia Summit, to underscore Washington's support for ASEAN's coming-of-age process. It would further permit Bush to be invited as a special guest to the East Asia Summit, while skirting tricky membership questions, thus showing support for East Asia community-building as well.
OFFICIAL MEETINGS SET UP BY ASEAN
ASEAN Summit
The organization holds meetings, known as the ASEAN Summit, where heads of government of each member meet to discuss and resolve regional issues, as well as to conduct other meetings with other countries outside of the bloc with the intention of promoting external relations.
The ASEAN Leaders' Formal Summit was first held in Bali, Indonesia in 1976. Its third meeting was held in Manila in 1987 and during this meeting, it was decided that the leaders would meet every five years. Consequently, the fourth meeting was held in Singapore in 1992 where the leaders again agreed to meet more frequently, deciding to hold the summit every three years. In 2001, it was decided to meet annually to address urgent issues affecting the region. Member nations were assigned to be the summit host in alphabetical order except in the case of Myanmar which dropped its 2006 hosting rights in 2004 due to pressure from the United States and the European Union.
The formal summit meets for three days. The usual itinerary is as follows:
• Leaders of member states would hold an internal organization meeting.
• Leaders of member states would hold a conference together with foreign ministers of the ASEAN Regional Forum.
• A meeting, known as ASEAN Plus Three, is set for leaders of three Dialogue Partners (People's Republic of China, Japan, South Korea)
• A separate meeting, known as ASEAN-CER, is set for another set of leaders of two Dialogue Partners (Australia, New Zealand).
During the fifth Summit in Bangkok, the leaders decided to meet "informally" between each formal summit:
East Asia Summit
The East Asia Summit (EAS) is a pan-Asian forum held annually by the leaders of 16 countries in East Asia and the region, with ASEAN in a leadership position. Russia has applied for membership and as of 2005, attends on observer status. The first summit was held in Kuala Lumpur on December 14, 2005 and subsequent meetings have been held after the annual ASEAN Leaders’ Meeting.
ASEAN Regional Forum
ASEAN Regional Forum:
The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) is an informal multilateral dialogue in Asia Pacific region. As of July 2006, it is consisted of 26 participants. ARF objectives are to foster dialogue and consultation, and promote confidence-building and preventive diplomacy in the region. The ARF met for the first time in 1994. The current participants in the ARF are as follows: all ASEAN members, Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, the People's Republic of China, the European Union, India, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Mongolia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Russia, Timor-Leste, and the United States.
Other meetings
Aside from the ones above, other regular meetings are also held. These include the annual ASEAN Ministerial Meeting as well as other smaller committees, such as the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center. Meetings mostly focus on specific topics, such as defense or the environment, and are attended by Ministers, instead of heads of government.
ASEAN Plus Three
The ASEAN Plus Three is a meeting between ASEAN, the People's Republic of China, Japan, and South Korea, and is primarily held during each ASEAN Summit.
Asia-Europe Meeting
The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) is an informal dialogue process initiated in 1996, bringing together the European Union and the ASEAN Plus Three groupings.
ASEAN-Russia Summit
The ASEAN-Russia Summit is a meeting between leaders member states and the President of Russia.
The organization holds meetings, known as the ASEAN Summit, where heads of government of each member meet to discuss and resolve regional issues, as well as to conduct other meetings with other countries outside of the bloc with the intention of promoting external relations.
The ASEAN Leaders' Formal Summit was first held in Bali, Indonesia in 1976. Its third meeting was held in Manila in 1987 and during this meeting, it was decided that the leaders would meet every five years. Consequently, the fourth meeting was held in Singapore in 1992 where the leaders again agreed to meet more frequently, deciding to hold the summit every three years. In 2001, it was decided to meet annually to address urgent issues affecting the region. Member nations were assigned to be the summit host in alphabetical order except in the case of Myanmar which dropped its 2006 hosting rights in 2004 due to pressure from the United States and the European Union.
The formal summit meets for three days. The usual itinerary is as follows:
• Leaders of member states would hold an internal organization meeting.
• Leaders of member states would hold a conference together with foreign ministers of the ASEAN Regional Forum.
• A meeting, known as ASEAN Plus Three, is set for leaders of three Dialogue Partners (People's Republic of China, Japan, South Korea)
• A separate meeting, known as ASEAN-CER, is set for another set of leaders of two Dialogue Partners (Australia, New Zealand).
During the fifth Summit in Bangkok, the leaders decided to meet "informally" between each formal summit:
East Asia Summit
The East Asia Summit (EAS) is a pan-Asian forum held annually by the leaders of 16 countries in East Asia and the region, with ASEAN in a leadership position. Russia has applied for membership and as of 2005, attends on observer status. The first summit was held in Kuala Lumpur on December 14, 2005 and subsequent meetings have been held after the annual ASEAN Leaders’ Meeting.
ASEAN Regional Forum
ASEAN Regional Forum:
The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) is an informal multilateral dialogue in Asia Pacific region. As of July 2006, it is consisted of 26 participants. ARF objectives are to foster dialogue and consultation, and promote confidence-building and preventive diplomacy in the region. The ARF met for the first time in 1994. The current participants in the ARF are as follows: all ASEAN members, Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, the People's Republic of China, the European Union, India, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Mongolia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Russia, Timor-Leste, and the United States.
Other meetings
Aside from the ones above, other regular meetings are also held. These include the annual ASEAN Ministerial Meeting as well as other smaller committees, such as the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center. Meetings mostly focus on specific topics, such as defense or the environment, and are attended by Ministers, instead of heads of government.
ASEAN Plus Three
The ASEAN Plus Three is a meeting between ASEAN, the People's Republic of China, Japan, and South Korea, and is primarily held during each ASEAN Summit.
Asia-Europe Meeting
The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) is an informal dialogue process initiated in 1996, bringing together the European Union and the ASEAN Plus Three groupings.
ASEAN-Russia Summit
The ASEAN-Russia Summit is a meeting between leaders member states and the President of Russia.
Monday, August 27, 2007
THAILAND : THAILAND AND POST-THAKSIN POLITICS
Thailand's once-mighty Thai Rak Thai party may been dissolved by the courts because of irregularities during an annulled general election in April last year, and its leader, and former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, may be facing corruption charges in court and have been banned from political activities for a five-year period - but he is also showing very clearly that he is not going to be silenced by such actions by the post-coup Thai state.
In a highly-publicised move in mid-June, he announced from his exile in London that he intended to buy Manchester City Football Club for a staggering 86.1 million British pounds. That has kept him in the public eye - at the same time as he has shown that he still has money, despite the fact that the courts have frozen more than 50 billion Baht in his Thai bank accounts. And it was money that helped him win two previous elections, 2001 and 2005, when Thai Rak Thai for the first time in Thai history that a single party secured an absolute majority in the now dissolved House of Representatives.
But it may not be that easy this time, even if Thai Rak Thai is resurrected under another name. On June 24, local mayoral elections were held in the northern city of Chiang Mai, Thaksin's hometown and long considered a Thai Rak Thai stronghold. Duentemduang na Chiang Mai, a former MP for the Democrats, which has ruled the country off and on since the end of World War II and the main opposition party when Thaksin was in power, won a landslide victory. Her arch-rival and former mayor, Boonlert Buranupakorn, and his former aid Pornchai Jittanavasathien - both considered Thaksin loyalists - were defeated, despite widespread allegations of vote-buying and attempts to block Duentemduang's candidature in the Elections Commission.
"Chiang Mai residents vote for change," read a headline in the English-language Bangkok Post after the election. And if Thaksin loyalists failed to win on his own turf, they may not stand much of a chance in the general elections, which the military-appointed government has promised will be held before the end of the year. Attempts by them to organise anti-coup demonstrations have not fared very well either; no more than 10,000 showed up at a weekend rally in mid-June and, according to reports in the Thai media, most of them seemed to have been paid to participate. When the weekend was over, the demonstrators returned home to their respective upcountry provinces - quite unlike the situation last year, when tens of thousands of anti-Thaksin protesters rallied almost daily in Bangkok.
However, the vote for change in Chiang Mai was not just a vote against Thaksin. The public may not support a return of Thaksin, but confidence in the present government is also eroding, of which the military is acutely aware. Opinion polls show that a record-low 13 per cent of the public approve of the present order; the vast majority wants elections to be held and a new, popular government in place. At least for now, the Democrats seem to be heading for a good showing at the polls, and their leader, Abhisit Vejjajiva, has become more of a public figure since the ban on overt political activities was lifted in late May. He is young and bright but, at 43, perhaps still a bit too young for most Thais, who are used to older politicians.
It is also possible that an independent will be leading a coalition government, which may include the Democrats. A favourite candidate right now is Purachai Piumsomboon, a former deputy prime minister who resigned in January 2005. Recent opinion polls show that 41.7 percent of respondents in Bangkok favour him because he is seen as "Mister Clean." He served under Thaksin during the first term of his premiership, and then launched a "social order" campaign against sex clubs and similar establishments. And, unlike his erstwhile mentor Thaksin, no one has accused Purachai of being corrupt.
Whatever the case, the Thaksin era in Thai politics seems to be over, and new actors are emerging on the scene. In the final analysis, the Thais seem to be tired of decades of corruption, which many feel only got worse under Thaksin's administration, and now are looking for a cleaner, more modern government that can lead the country once the military has stepped aside. But, given what happened to Thaksin on September 19 last year, it is also clear that the military is not going to become an apolitical player any time soon.
In a highly-publicised move in mid-June, he announced from his exile in London that he intended to buy Manchester City Football Club for a staggering 86.1 million British pounds. That has kept him in the public eye - at the same time as he has shown that he still has money, despite the fact that the courts have frozen more than 50 billion Baht in his Thai bank accounts. And it was money that helped him win two previous elections, 2001 and 2005, when Thai Rak Thai for the first time in Thai history that a single party secured an absolute majority in the now dissolved House of Representatives.
But it may not be that easy this time, even if Thai Rak Thai is resurrected under another name. On June 24, local mayoral elections were held in the northern city of Chiang Mai, Thaksin's hometown and long considered a Thai Rak Thai stronghold. Duentemduang na Chiang Mai, a former MP for the Democrats, which has ruled the country off and on since the end of World War II and the main opposition party when Thaksin was in power, won a landslide victory. Her arch-rival and former mayor, Boonlert Buranupakorn, and his former aid Pornchai Jittanavasathien - both considered Thaksin loyalists - were defeated, despite widespread allegations of vote-buying and attempts to block Duentemduang's candidature in the Elections Commission.
"Chiang Mai residents vote for change," read a headline in the English-language Bangkok Post after the election. And if Thaksin loyalists failed to win on his own turf, they may not stand much of a chance in the general elections, which the military-appointed government has promised will be held before the end of the year. Attempts by them to organise anti-coup demonstrations have not fared very well either; no more than 10,000 showed up at a weekend rally in mid-June and, according to reports in the Thai media, most of them seemed to have been paid to participate. When the weekend was over, the demonstrators returned home to their respective upcountry provinces - quite unlike the situation last year, when tens of thousands of anti-Thaksin protesters rallied almost daily in Bangkok.
However, the vote for change in Chiang Mai was not just a vote against Thaksin. The public may not support a return of Thaksin, but confidence in the present government is also eroding, of which the military is acutely aware. Opinion polls show that a record-low 13 per cent of the public approve of the present order; the vast majority wants elections to be held and a new, popular government in place. At least for now, the Democrats seem to be heading for a good showing at the polls, and their leader, Abhisit Vejjajiva, has become more of a public figure since the ban on overt political activities was lifted in late May. He is young and bright but, at 43, perhaps still a bit too young for most Thais, who are used to older politicians.
It is also possible that an independent will be leading a coalition government, which may include the Democrats. A favourite candidate right now is Purachai Piumsomboon, a former deputy prime minister who resigned in January 2005. Recent opinion polls show that 41.7 percent of respondents in Bangkok favour him because he is seen as "Mister Clean." He served under Thaksin during the first term of his premiership, and then launched a "social order" campaign against sex clubs and similar establishments. And, unlike his erstwhile mentor Thaksin, no one has accused Purachai of being corrupt.
Whatever the case, the Thaksin era in Thai politics seems to be over, and new actors are emerging on the scene. In the final analysis, the Thais seem to be tired of decades of corruption, which many feel only got worse under Thaksin's administration, and now are looking for a cleaner, more modern government that can lead the country once the military has stepped aside. But, given what happened to Thaksin on September 19 last year, it is also clear that the military is not going to become an apolitical player any time soon.
MYANMAR : IN THE SHADOWS OF THE THAI-BURMA BORDER: EAST ASIA'S FOREMOST REFUGEE CRISIS
Thailand is host to the largest protracted refugee situation in East Asia and until recently it appeared that the Burmese refugees would remain indefinitely 'warehoused' in camps, with little or no prospect for permanent and durable solutions to their plight. However, a new large-scale multilateral resettlement program is now gathering momentum as thousands of refugees apply for resettlement and prepare to depart for a completely new life in third countries. This is an exciting opportunity for those individuals and families selected for resettlement, putting an end to a life of indefinite limbo - the camps were first established in 1984 - but what role does resettlement play in resolving the overall Burmese predicament?
Since resettlement opened up as a possibility for residents in the border camps in 2005, more than 49,000 refugees from the nine main camps have indicated to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) their desire to resettle in a third country. This represents a significant proportion of the 143,000 mainly ethnic Karen and Karenni refugees formally registered by the UNHCR at present. The US is undertaking mass resettlement program, with an expected intake for 2007 of 20,000 refugees, mostly from the border's largest camp Mae La in Tak Province. Other host countries are Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, the UK, Sweden, and the Netherlands with resettlement expected to continue for several years.
This high level of initial interest in resettlement reflects the experience of prolonged encampment in Thailand and the inability of refugees to safely return to their homelands in eastern Burma. After 23 years of limbo in Thailand, a whole new generation has grown up confined within camps and people are naturally hopeful and curious about the opportunities for life in a third country. As in other protracted refugee situations around the world, prolonged encampment produces considerable psycho-social stresses and reinforces a sense of hopelessness about future possibilities. Today a new mood of 'resettlement fever' pervades the camps, generating feelings of hope, anticipation but also concerns about separation from community and homeland. As the UNHCR reminds the Burmese refugees in its information brochure for refugees, resettlement is a 'permanent solution'.
Resettlement to a third country is one of the three internationally defined 'durable solutions' for refugees. It is often considered an option of last resort, particularly in the face of restrictive asylum policies in the West. Of the other two durable solutions, voluntary repatriation to the country of origin and local integration into the country of first asylum, repatriation is the preferred option. But for the Burmese refugees in Thailand, repatriation is not viable due to insecurity and violence continuing in eastern Burma and Thailand remains unwilling to facilitate local integration in the form of legal status and residency rights. Sometimes resettlement can play a positive role in opening up possibilities to improve local conditions for the remaining refugees, such as in areas of livelihood and education. Thailand has already indicated in-principle agreements in that direction.
Until recently - before resettlement became an option on the border - the refugees had a long-standing dream of returning home. Their leaders, including the leaders of one of the world's longest-running civil conflicts (the Karen National Union began armed struggle in 1947), do not want to give up on their struggle. The civilians displaced in this war have been caught in the midst of intractable violence and have suffered the brunt of the conflict. The event of resettlement marks a break from the long-held dream of return home.
Resettlement also presents other dilemmas, such as the short- and intermediate impacts on the remaining camp populations. Some camps are already grappling with the impact of the departure of disproportionate numbers of the most educated, skilled and experienced staff from camp services, programs and leadership. All stakeholders report concerns about the loss of these skilled staff, especially from the key sectors of health, education and camp administration, the pressure this puts on programs and the likely negative impacts on the quality of services to refugees. In several camps, for example, half of the medics are scheduled to depart for resettlement, presenting short-term problems for health programs struggling to keep up with training of replacements as well as longer-term concerns about finding sufficient staff from an already limited pool of the educated and skilled camp-based population.
Finally, whilst resettlement provides people with hope for a new life abroad it does not contribute to enduring solutions in the form of a permanent resolution of the underlying causes of displacement across in Burma's eastern borderlands, where an estimated further 500,000 people are internally displaced. Every month hundreds of new arrivals cross the Thai border seeking refuge. Thus in approaching truly sustainable solutions, we cannot isolate the refugees in the Thai border camps from the wider context continuing to cause displacement of communities.
Since resettlement opened up as a possibility for residents in the border camps in 2005, more than 49,000 refugees from the nine main camps have indicated to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) their desire to resettle in a third country. This represents a significant proportion of the 143,000 mainly ethnic Karen and Karenni refugees formally registered by the UNHCR at present. The US is undertaking mass resettlement program, with an expected intake for 2007 of 20,000 refugees, mostly from the border's largest camp Mae La in Tak Province. Other host countries are Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, the UK, Sweden, and the Netherlands with resettlement expected to continue for several years.
This high level of initial interest in resettlement reflects the experience of prolonged encampment in Thailand and the inability of refugees to safely return to their homelands in eastern Burma. After 23 years of limbo in Thailand, a whole new generation has grown up confined within camps and people are naturally hopeful and curious about the opportunities for life in a third country. As in other protracted refugee situations around the world, prolonged encampment produces considerable psycho-social stresses and reinforces a sense of hopelessness about future possibilities. Today a new mood of 'resettlement fever' pervades the camps, generating feelings of hope, anticipation but also concerns about separation from community and homeland. As the UNHCR reminds the Burmese refugees in its information brochure for refugees, resettlement is a 'permanent solution'.
Resettlement to a third country is one of the three internationally defined 'durable solutions' for refugees. It is often considered an option of last resort, particularly in the face of restrictive asylum policies in the West. Of the other two durable solutions, voluntary repatriation to the country of origin and local integration into the country of first asylum, repatriation is the preferred option. But for the Burmese refugees in Thailand, repatriation is not viable due to insecurity and violence continuing in eastern Burma and Thailand remains unwilling to facilitate local integration in the form of legal status and residency rights. Sometimes resettlement can play a positive role in opening up possibilities to improve local conditions for the remaining refugees, such as in areas of livelihood and education. Thailand has already indicated in-principle agreements in that direction.
Until recently - before resettlement became an option on the border - the refugees had a long-standing dream of returning home. Their leaders, including the leaders of one of the world's longest-running civil conflicts (the Karen National Union began armed struggle in 1947), do not want to give up on their struggle. The civilians displaced in this war have been caught in the midst of intractable violence and have suffered the brunt of the conflict. The event of resettlement marks a break from the long-held dream of return home.
Resettlement also presents other dilemmas, such as the short- and intermediate impacts on the remaining camp populations. Some camps are already grappling with the impact of the departure of disproportionate numbers of the most educated, skilled and experienced staff from camp services, programs and leadership. All stakeholders report concerns about the loss of these skilled staff, especially from the key sectors of health, education and camp administration, the pressure this puts on programs and the likely negative impacts on the quality of services to refugees. In several camps, for example, half of the medics are scheduled to depart for resettlement, presenting short-term problems for health programs struggling to keep up with training of replacements as well as longer-term concerns about finding sufficient staff from an already limited pool of the educated and skilled camp-based population.
Finally, whilst resettlement provides people with hope for a new life abroad it does not contribute to enduring solutions in the form of a permanent resolution of the underlying causes of displacement across in Burma's eastern borderlands, where an estimated further 500,000 people are internally displaced. Every month hundreds of new arrivals cross the Thai border seeking refuge. Thus in approaching truly sustainable solutions, we cannot isolate the refugees in the Thai border camps from the wider context continuing to cause displacement of communities.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
ASEAN SUMMARY
Global governance is an interesting topic to begin with. It is a sum of many ways, individuals and institutions, public as well as private to manage their common affairs. It is about cooperation as well as understanding of each actor on certain issues and how they deal with the problems. This mini research will take effort to apply global governance by relating it with newspaper article in a given times. My most concern is about ASEAN and how it contributed to the world as whole. ASEAN centred to Southeast Asian region and is functioning as an effective contributor to the maintenance of peace and stability, and the achievement of the development and prosperity of the region. Thus, ASEAN also has established relations with other countries and held many dialogue partnerships as well as other forms of cooperation including the ASEAN Plus Three process, the ASEAN Regional Forum, and the East Asia Summit. This shows how ASEAN put priority to ensure that each member and also the world will get good benefits from its establishment not for self-motives. This year ASEAN celebrated its 40th anniversary with the theme, “One Asean at the Heart of Dynamic Asia” and was held at Manila, Philippines. The main event was to see the endorsement of the final draft of the Asean Charter, sort of Asean Constitution to guide the association’s 10 member countries is accomplished. This is because without a charter, member countries cannot intervene to the others internal dispute or conflicts based on Treaty of Amity and Cooperation that has signed before. They cannot gives aid to any party eventhough the conflicts lead to suppression and has violated human rights. For example, in the case of Myanmar. The citizens are suffering caused by the autocratic ruler lead by Junta that prohibited a place for worship, no medical facilities, no free education and no freedom of speech. This is surely inhuman behavior in such a modern world. The worst thing is that, the General generate money through drug syndicates. Through a legitimate charter, this problem can be solved and the Myanmar ruler can be brought under the international law. By right, they have to obey it and this will ensure that the bloc will get attraction by other part of the world as a convenient organization. Later, at the Asean Regional Forum (ARF), it was said that ARF has condemned the killings and abduction of South Korea citizens by the Taliban in Afghanistan and called for the immediate and unconditional release of the remaining hostages. It is a global cooperation that clarified global governance does exist nowadays. Clearly, ASEAN and major superpower in agreement that non-state actor (Terrorist) should be caught and brought to the International Court of Justice for judgment for the destructions that they’ve made. It involves loss of innocent people and this remarks the war against terrorism. ARF also is a platform for all 27 members to voice out their concern on various issues and successfully produced co-operation agreements in the field of nuclear non-proliferation, export control of weapons, civil military co-ordination in disaster relief, counter terrorism and also peacekeeping.
For me, I think ASEAN should make the Charter legitimize as soon as possible and not threaten by any forces. This is to ensure that each country enjoys the same privileges and they’re binding to the rules so that no country can harm another. There must also implement free trade agreement (AFTA) in mass so that economic among the members will grow. If possible, ASEAN should have the same functions as United Nation so that ASEAN will gain more respects and countries all over the world will listen to ASEAN opinions and decisions.
As a conclusion, through many establish organs in ASEAN, it is undeniable that ASEAN is a strongest regional organization in Southeast Asia and play important key role in social, economic and politic of each members. It is respected by many world organizations because of its flexibility to compromise between each member’s even though by nature there are dispute between neighboring country such as Malaysia and Singapore and Myanmar with other Asean members. Therefore, ASEAN is aim for the ASEAN Community by 2015 to further integration and have strong sense of belonging to ASEAN.
For me, I think ASEAN should make the Charter legitimize as soon as possible and not threaten by any forces. This is to ensure that each country enjoys the same privileges and they’re binding to the rules so that no country can harm another. There must also implement free trade agreement (AFTA) in mass so that economic among the members will grow. If possible, ASEAN should have the same functions as United Nation so that ASEAN will gain more respects and countries all over the world will listen to ASEAN opinions and decisions.
As a conclusion, through many establish organs in ASEAN, it is undeniable that ASEAN is a strongest regional organization in Southeast Asia and play important key role in social, economic and politic of each members. It is respected by many world organizations because of its flexibility to compromise between each member’s even though by nature there are dispute between neighboring country such as Malaysia and Singapore and Myanmar with other Asean members. Therefore, ASEAN is aim for the ASEAN Community by 2015 to further integration and have strong sense of belonging to ASEAN.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
NATIONAL FLAG OF ASEAN MEMBERS
MALAYSIA :
SINGAPORE :
BRUNEI :
INDONESIA :
PHILLIPINES :
MYANMAR :
LAOS :
THAILAND :
CAMBODIA :
VIETNAM :
Vietnam -
The five points of the star stand for the farmers, workers, intellectuals, youth and soldiers .
Thailand -
Central blue stripe represents the monarchy
The two white stripes are the Therevada Buddhist religion
The outer red stripes represent the land or the nation.
Singapore -
Red for brotherhood and equality
White for purity and virtue
The moon signified a young nation rising
Five stars stand for Singapore's ideals of democracy, peace, progress, justice and equality.
Phillipines -
Blue representing peace and justice
Red stripe represents courage and bravery
A white equilateral triangle based on the hoist side represents equality
The center of the triangle displays a yellow sun with eight primary rays, each representing one of the first eight provinces that sought independence from Spain;
Small, yellow, five-pointed star representing the three major geographical divisions of the country: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao
Myanmar -
Red signifies courage and decisiveness
White signifies purity and virtue
Dark blue signifies peace and integrity
The fourteen stars are for 14 states
The cog wheel and rice are for industry and agriculture
Malaysia -
The 14 stripes on the Malaysian flag represent the 14 states of Malaysia that are Perlis, Kedah, Perak, Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang, Johore, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Selangor, Penang, Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan.
The red and white stripes stand for equal status in the federation of the member states and the federal government.
The union or canton of dark blue represents the unity of the peoples of Malaysia.
The union contains the crescent that is the symbol of Islam, which are the official religion and the star, the 14 points of which symbolize the unity of the 13 states of the federation with the federal government.
The yellow is the colors of Their Highnesses the Rulers of the Malay States.
Laos -
Red: the blood shed in the fight for freedom
Blue: wealth
White: represents the full moon over the Mekong River as well as unity under the communist government
Indonesia -
Red represents the human blood, standing for the corporeal or concrete
White represents the spiritual.
Together they are a pair, like the life on earth: day and night; man and wife; creation and individual.
Cambodia -
The Blue, surrounding the whole, symbolizing the Royalty.
The Red, the Nation
The White, the Religion
The central emblem represents the towers of Angkor Wat - Angkor being the only popular pronunciation of Norkor, Wat signifying Temple - seen from the front view
Brunei -
Bendera: the flag
Payung Ubor-Ubor: the Royal Umbrella
The Bendera and Payung Ubor-Ubor have been Royal regalia's since the creation of the crest.
Sayap: the wing of four feathers
Symbolizes the protection of justice, tranquility, prosperity and peace.
Tangan or Kimhap: the hand
Signifies the Government's pledge to promote welfare, peace and prosperity.
Bulan: the crescent
The symbol of Islam, the national religion of Brunei Darussalam. The characters inscribed on the crescent (...) in yellow Arabic script is the state motto, which can be roughly translated: "Always Render Service with God's Guidance".(...)
The scroll beneath the crest reads "Brunei Darussalam" which means "Brunei, the abode of peace
SINGAPORE :
BRUNEI :
INDONESIA :
PHILLIPINES :
MYANMAR :
LAOS :
THAILAND :
CAMBODIA :
VIETNAM :
Vietnam -
The five points of the star stand for the farmers, workers, intellectuals, youth and soldiers .
Thailand -
Central blue stripe represents the monarchy
The two white stripes are the Therevada Buddhist religion
The outer red stripes represent the land or the nation.
Singapore -
Red for brotherhood and equality
White for purity and virtue
The moon signified a young nation rising
Five stars stand for Singapore's ideals of democracy, peace, progress, justice and equality.
Phillipines -
Blue representing peace and justice
Red stripe represents courage and bravery
A white equilateral triangle based on the hoist side represents equality
The center of the triangle displays a yellow sun with eight primary rays, each representing one of the first eight provinces that sought independence from Spain;
Small, yellow, five-pointed star representing the three major geographical divisions of the country: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao
Myanmar -
Red signifies courage and decisiveness
White signifies purity and virtue
Dark blue signifies peace and integrity
The fourteen stars are for 14 states
The cog wheel and rice are for industry and agriculture
Malaysia -
The 14 stripes on the Malaysian flag represent the 14 states of Malaysia that are Perlis, Kedah, Perak, Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang, Johore, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Selangor, Penang, Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan.
The red and white stripes stand for equal status in the federation of the member states and the federal government.
The union or canton of dark blue represents the unity of the peoples of Malaysia.
The union contains the crescent that is the symbol of Islam, which are the official religion and the star, the 14 points of which symbolize the unity of the 13 states of the federation with the federal government.
The yellow is the colors of Their Highnesses the Rulers of the Malay States.
Laos -
Red: the blood shed in the fight for freedom
Blue: wealth
White: represents the full moon over the Mekong River as well as unity under the communist government
Indonesia -
Red represents the human blood, standing for the corporeal or concrete
White represents the spiritual.
Together they are a pair, like the life on earth: day and night; man and wife; creation and individual.
Cambodia -
The Blue, surrounding the whole, symbolizing the Royalty.
The Red, the Nation
The White, the Religion
The central emblem represents the towers of Angkor Wat - Angkor being the only popular pronunciation of Norkor, Wat signifying Temple - seen from the front view
Brunei -
Bendera: the flag
Payung Ubor-Ubor: the Royal Umbrella
The Bendera and Payung Ubor-Ubor have been Royal regalia's since the creation of the crest.
Sayap: the wing of four feathers
Symbolizes the protection of justice, tranquility, prosperity and peace.
Tangan or Kimhap: the hand
Signifies the Government's pledge to promote welfare, peace and prosperity.
Bulan: the crescent
The symbol of Islam, the national religion of Brunei Darussalam. The characters inscribed on the crescent (...) in yellow Arabic script is the state motto, which can be roughly translated: "Always Render Service with God's Guidance".(...)
The scroll beneath the crest reads "Brunei Darussalam" which means "Brunei, the abode of peace
Friday, August 10, 2007
TASK ACCOMPLISHMENT: DETAIL OF EACH ASEAN COUNTRIES
BRUNEI DARUSSALAM
Name: Brunei Darussalam
Head of State : His Majesty Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu'izzaddin Waddaulah
Independence Day : January 1, 1984
Head of Government :Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah
Capital : Bandar Seri Begawan
Land area : 5,765 sq. km
Population : 370.1 thousand (2005)
Language(s) : Malay (official), English, Chinese
Type of Government : Constitutional Sultanate
Natural Resource : Petroleum, natural gas & timber
Religion : Muslim (official) - 67%, Buddhist - 13%, Christian - 10%, Others - 10%
GDP : (PPP) 2005 estimate - Total $9.009 billion (138th
GNP : US$7.75bn. 2005 estimateTotal$9.009 billionPer capita$24,826
Major import :machinery and transport equipment, manufactured goods, food, chemicals
Major export : crude oil, natural gas, refined products, clothing
Trade partners:
Import partners :Singapore 30.7%, Malaysia 18.4%, UK 7.8%, Japan 5.4%, China 5.3%, Thailand 4.4%, South Korea 4.1%
Export Partners :Japan 31.2%, Indonesia 20.3%, South Korea 13.3%, Australia 11.7%, US 7.9%
MALAYSIA
Name: Malaysia
Head of State : DYMM Al Wathiqu Billah Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin Ibni Almarhum Al-Sultan Mahmud Al-Muktafi Billah Shah
Independence Day : 31st August 1957
Head of Government : Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
Capital : Kuala-Lumpur
Land area : 330,257 sq. km
Population : 26,127.7 thousand
Language(s) : Melayu, English, Chinese, Tamil
Type of Government : Parliamentary Democracy / Constitutional Monarchy
Religion : Islam (Official),Muslim 60.4%, Buddhist 19.2%, Christian 9.1%, Hindu 6.3%, Confucianism, Taoism, other traditional Chinese religions 2.6%, other or unknown 1.5%, none 0.8%
Natural Resource : Tin, Petroleum, Timber, Copper, Iron Ore, Natural Gas, Bauxite
GDP : 30%,$103.737 million
GNP :
Major import : Electronic equipment, petroleum and liquefied natural gas, wood and wood products, palm oil, rubber, textiles, chemicals.
Major export : Electronics, machinery, petroleum products, plastics, vehicles, iron and steel products, chemicals
Trade partners:
Export partners: US 18.8%, Singapore 15.4%, Japan 8.9%, China 7.2%, Thailand 5.3%, Hong Kong 4.9%
Import partners: Japan 13.3%, US 12.6%, China 12.2%, Singapore 11.7%, Thailand 5.5%, Taiwan 5.5%, South Korea 5.4%, Germany 4.4%
INDONESIA
Name: Republic of Indonesia
Head of State : President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (since 20 October 2004)
Independence Day : 17th August 1945
Head of Government : President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono
Capital : Jakarta
Land area : 1,890,754 sq. km
Population : 219,205.0 thousand
Language(s) : Bahasa Indonesia (Official), English, Dutch, Local Dialects (i.e Javanese)
Type of Government : Republic System
Religion : Muslim
Natural Resource : Petroleum, Tin, Natural Gas, Nickle, Timber, Bauxite, Copper, Fertile soils, Gold, Silver
GDP :5.5%,$208.625 million
GNP :
Major import :machinery and equipment, chemicals, fuels, foodstuffs
Major export :oil and gas, electrical appliances, plywood, textiles, rubber
Trade partners:
Import partners :Singapore 30.3%, China 11.5%, Japan 9%, Malaysia 5%, Thailand 4.1%, Australia 4% (2006)
Export Partners : Japan 19.3%, Singapore 11.8%, US 11.5%, South Korea 7.8%, China 7.7%
THAILAND
Name: Kingdom of Thailand
Head of State : His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej
Independence Day : 1238 (traditional founding date; never colonized)
Head of Government : Prime Minister General Surayud Chulanont (Ret.)
Capital : Bangkok
Land area : 513,254 sq. km
Population : 64,763.0 thousands
Language(s) : Thai, English (secondary language for the elite), ethnic and regional dialects
Type of Government : Constitutional monarchy
Religion : Buddhist - 94.6%, Muslim - 4.6%, Christian - 0.7%, Other - 0.1%
Natural Resource : Rice, Mines, Textile,Tin, Rubber, Natural Gas, Tungsten, Tantalum, Lead, Timber, Fish, Gypsum, Lignite, Fluorite
GDP :2006 estimate-Total$585.9 billion (21st)-Per capita:$9,100 (69th)
GNP :
Major import :capital goods, intermediate goods and raw materials, consumer goods, fuels
Major export :textiles and footwear, fishery products, rice, rubber, jewelry, automobiles, computers and electrical appliances
Trade partners:
Import partners :Japan 20.1%, China 10.6%, US 6.7%, Malaysia 6.6%, UAE 5.6%, Singapore 4.5%
Export Partners : US 15%, Japan 12.7%, China 9%, Singapore 6.4%, Hong Kong 5.5%, Malaysia 5.1% (2006)
SINGAPORE
Name: Republic of Singapore
Head of State : President S R Nathan
Independence Day : 9 August 1965
Head of Government : Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
Capital : Singapore
Land area : 697 sq.km
Population : 4.198 million (2004)
Language(s) : : Mandarin 35%, English 23%, Malay 14.1%, Hokkien 11.4%, Cantonese 5.7%, Teochew 4.9%, Tamil 3.2%, other Chinese dialects 1.8%, other 0.9%
Type of Government : Parliamentary republic
Religion : Buddhist 42.5%, Muslim 14.9%, Taoist 8.5%, Hindu 4%, Catholic 4.8%, other Christian 9.8%, other 0.7%, none 14.8%
Natural Resource : Industrial products,Fish, Deep Water Ports
GDP :2006 estimateTotal$145.183 billion (54th)-Per capita$32,866.67
GNP :
Major import : Machinery and equipment, mineral fuels, chemicals, foodstuffs
Major export : Machinery and equipment (including electronics), consumer goods, chemicals, mineral fuels
Trade partners:
Export partners: Malaysia 13.1%, US 10.2%, Hong Kong 10.1%, China 9.7%, Indonesia 9.2%, Japan 5.5%, Thailand 4.2%
Import partners: Malaysia 13%, US 12.7%, China 11.4%, Japan 8.3%, Taiwan 6.4%, Indonesia 6.2%, South Korea 4.4%
VIETNAM
Name: Socialist Republic of Vietnam
Capital: Hanoi
Independence Date: 2 September 1945
Type of Government: Communist state
Head of State: President Nguyen Minh TRIET
Head of Government: Prime Minister Nguyen Tan DUNG
Size of Country: 329,560 sq km
Current population: 85,262,356
Language: Vietnamese (official), English (increasingly favored as a second language), some French, Chinese, and Khmer; mountain area languages (Mon-Khmer and Malayo-Polynesian)
Religion: Buddhist 9.3%, Catholic 6.7%, Hoa Hao 1.5%, Cao Dai 1.1%, Protestant 0.5%, Muslim 0.1%, none 80.8%
Natural Resources: Phosphates, coal, manganese, bauxite, chromate, offshore oil and gas deposits, forests, hydropower
GDP: $39.021 million
GNP:
Major export: Crude oil, marine products, rice, coffee, rubber, tea, garments, shoes
Major Import: Machinery and equipment, petroleum products, fertilizer, steel products, raw cotton, grain, cement, motorcycles
Export partners: US 20.7%, Japan 12%, Australia 9.2%, China 5.6%, Germany 4.4%
Import partners: China 17.2%, Singapore 12.6%, Taiwan 11.2%, Japan 9.5%, South Korea 9.3%, Thailand 7.1%, Malaysia 4%
MYANMAR
Name: Myanmar
Capital: Rangoon (Yangon)
Independence Date: 4 January 1948
Type of Government: Military junta
Head of State: Chairman of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) Sr. Gen. THAN SHWE
Head of Government: Acting Prime Minister, Gen THEIN SEIN
Size of Country: 678,500 sq km
Current population: 47,373,958
Language: Burmese, minority ethnic groups have their own languages.
Religion: Buddhist 89%, Christian 4% (Baptist 3%, Roman Catholic 1%), Muslim 4%, animist 1%, other 2%
Natural Resources: Petroleum, timber, tin, antimony, zinc, copper, tungsten, lead, coal, some marble, limestone, precious stones, natural gas, hydropower
GDP: $9.605 million
GNP:
Major export: Gas, wood products, pulses, beans, fish, rice, clothing, jade and gems
Major Import: Fabric, petroleum products, fertilizer, plastics, machinery, transport equipment; cement, construction materials, crude oil; food products, edible oil
Export partners: Thailand 48.4%, India 12.6%, China 5.2%, Japan 5.1%
Import partners: China 33.6%, Thailand 21.2%, Singapore 15.7%, Malaysia 4.6%, South Korea 4.1%
CAMBODIA
Name: Kingdom of Cambodia
Capital: Phnom Penh
Independence Date: 9 November 1953
Type of Government: Multiparty democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Head of State: King Norodom SIHAMONI
Head of Government: Prime Minister HUN SEN
Size of Country: 181,040 sq km
Current population: 13,995,904
Language: Khmer (official) 95%, French, English
Religion: Theravada Buddhist 95%, other 5%
Natural Resources: Oil and gas, timber, gemstones, some iron ore, manganese, phosphates, hydropower potential
GDP: $4.215 million
GNP:
Major export: Clothing, timber, rubber, rice, fish, tobacco, footwear
Major Import: Petroleum products, cigarettes, gold, construction materials, machinery, motor vehicles, pharmaceutical products
Export partners: US 63%, Germany 10%, UK 4.6%
Import partners: Thailand 32.3%, China 18%, Hong Kong 14.3%, Singapore 11.8%
LAOS
Name: Lao People's Democratic Republic (Laos)
Capital: Vientiane
Independence Date: 19 July 1949
Type of Government: Communist state
Head of State: President Lt. Gen. CHOUMMALI Saignason
Head of Government: Prime Minister BOUASONE Bouphavanh
Size of Country: 236,800 sq km
Current population: 6,521,998
Language: Lao (official), French, English, and various ethnic languages
Religion: Buddhist 65%, Animist 32.9%, Christian 1.3%, other and unspecified 0.8%
Natural Resources: Timber, hydropower, gypsum, tin, gold, gemstones
GDP: $12.043 million
GNP:
Major export: Garments, wood products, coffee, electricity, tin
Major Import: Machinery and equipment, vehicles, fuel, consumer goods
Export partners: Thailand 42.4%, Vietnam 10%, China 4.2%, Malaysia 4.2%
Import partners: Thailand 69%, China 11.4%, Vietnam 5.6%
PHILIPPINES
Head of State : Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Independence Day : 12 JuneJune 12, 1898
Head of Government : Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Capital : Manila
Land area : 300 000 km² 115,831 sq mi
Population : 88,706,3002
Language(s) : Filipino (Official based on Tagalog) and English (Official)
Type of Government : Republic System
Religion : Roman Catholic - 80.9%, Muslim - 5%, Evangelical - 2.8%, Iglesia ni Kristo - 2.3%, Hiligaynon Aglipayan - 7.5%, Bikol - 6%, Waray - 3.4%, Others 25.3%
Natural Resource :Timber, Petroleum, Nickle, Cobalt, Silver, Gold, Salt, Copper
GDP : 2006 estimate-Total$508 billion-Per capita$5,714
GNP :
Major import : electronic products, mineral fuels, machinery and transport equipment, iron and steel, textile fabrics, grains, chemicals, plastic
Major export :semiconductors and electronic products, transport equipment, garments, copper products, petroleum products, coconut oil, fruits
Trade partners:
Import partners :Japan 15.9%, US 13.7%, China 10.1%, Singapore 8.9%, Taiwan 7.2%, Saudi Arabia 4.8%, South Korea 4.7%, Hong Kong 4.6%, Thailand 4.6%
Export Partners : China 24.5%, US 15.2%, Japan 12.2%, Singapore 8.3%, Hong Kong 7.6%, Malaysia 4.4%, Netherlands 4%
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)