Measuring Peace

By Natalie Shobana Ambrose

theSun, Malaysia (page 14)

July  28th, 2011

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/92170

In the latest Global Peace Index (GPI), Malaysia ranked 19th out of the 153 countries reviewed – an achievement that was touted in the last week. Ironic for a week that saw continual reprimand, threatening and anger over calls for basic electoral reform. It has also been the week where the much anticipated findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the untimely death of Teoh Beng Hock was announced. There is a public outcry for Parti Sosialis Malaysia leaders held under the ISA to be released, and the Economist article on the Bersih rally was blacked out.

All this begs the question, how is peace really measured?

Is peace measured by our military capability or sophistication, the level of democracy, the level of disrespect for human rights, violent crime rates, police capacity and influence, potential for terrorist acts and/or the perception of criminality within society?

Which leads to the question, can peace really be measured? What would be the components, who would be the sample size, what documents will be analysed and interpreted by whom and how? It seems a perplexing and complex concept to index.

Further to that, is this form of peace a Western perception? When calling for human rights reforms and democratic practices, often what sprouts out is the cowardly response that these concepts are Western in nature and do not sit well with our Asian heritage – then what’s good for the West is not necessarily good for us in Asia stand is continuously reiterated. How then does the definition of peace according to the GPI fare with our Asian heritage?

We’re patting ourselves on the back for ranking above countries like Singapore, the UK, Netherlands, France and the US because it suits us, but are we just bragging about an index instead of dealing with reality. What is the pulse on the ground? Are the people happy or are we an angry lot?

On a recent cab ride from KLIA, I was surprised at how young the driver was. We struck up a conversation which lasted the whole journey and what he said resonated with me. We were not in the same age bracket, ethnic group, gender box and everything else. We were poles apart. However, his unhappiness at the state of affairs was clear and shared.

At 25, with a diploma in automotive mechanics, he struggled to find a job in the field. He worked at McDonalds to avoid being lumped in the unemployment glut and now has found his way into driving an airport budget cab even though he is not qualified. He works long hours just to make a few trips a day. If he doesn’t work, he doesn’t get paid. If he takes a sick day, he doesn’t get paid. We did not get into details of superannuation and benefits – though I doubt it’s much to shout about. He spoke passionately of how it’s not about race anymore but about a Malaysian society that is worried about how things are being run, with the lack of transparency, the lack of respect for voters, the lack of justice and the level of inequality. I wondered what he would think of this peace index ranking. Would he too question how peace is measured?

If peace is measured by passive submission to authority, then we rank high on Hofstede’s Power Distance Index which measures the extent to which less powerful members accept and expect inequality in the distribution of power. Malaysia comes tops in the high-power distance culture category which suggests that the inequality within society is endorsed by both sides – the leaders and the people. I do, however, wonder how long our Asian passive nature will hold up against the rising anger of society at how concerns close to our hearts are being mismanaged, twisted and hijacked.

When a young man in the prime of his life, about to get married, with his firstborn on the way is falsely accused and is said to be interrogated to the point he loses perspective and chooses to commit suicide, giving up on the life he was looking forward to and prepared for – one has the right to question, to get angry and wonder if this happens in a peaceful country?

Natalie believes in the quote “the price of peace is eternal vigilance”. 

Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

ASEAN 방식(ASEAN Way): 서로 간섭하지 않는 공동체?

http://news.mofat.go.kr/enewspaper/subarticle/pre_print_article.php?paid=3639

ASEAN 방식(ASEAN Way): 서로 간섭하지 않는 공동체? o불간섭주의를 근간으로 하는 ASEAN 방식을 생각한다면 평화, 안정, 번영, 정의, 민주주의 등의 가치를 지향하는 2015 ASEAN 공동체가 너무 이상적인 목표로 보임. 각국의 자주권을 보호하고 대내외 일에 간섭하지 않으며 대화와 타협으로 협력을 강화한다는 내용의 ASEAN 방식은 국제사회의 질타를 받아옴. o2015 ASEAN 공동체 형성을 위해서는 불간섭주의에서 벗어나 지역거버넌스(regional governance)를 지향해야 함. ASEAN 공동체와 같은 조직체를 제대로 운영하려면 회원국들이 여태까지 그래왔던 것처럼 정도를 벗어난 국가에 심각한 부당성이 존재하는 데도 불구하고 불간섭, 자주권 존중이라는 전통적 가치 뒤에 숨어선 안 됨. oASEAN 공동체 형성에 장애가 되고 비효율적이라는 단점이 있지만, 사실 불간섭주의는 UN헌장에도 모든 회원국들의 주권적 평등을 누린다고 명시되어 있는 바, 국제관계에서 지켜야하는 근본 원칙임. 그러나 만약 대량학살이나 인권 침해와 같이 인간생명의 존엄성이 무시되는 상황이라면 주권평등보다 상위에 있는 법규가 적용이 되어야 함. ASEAN의 어떤 나라들은 인권을 침해하더라도 국가주권과 불간섭을 내세우며 자신들이 하고픈 대로 하지만, 국제사회는 강행규범(jus cogens)을 들며 그들의 주장에 반박하고 있음. ASEAN은 여태껏 회원국들 내부에서 인권침해가 발생해도 침묵해왔지만 작년에 UN 재판소가 캄보디아 장군들을 재판하였음. 이는 인권침해의 경우에는 불간섭 원칙이 무시될 수 있다는 것을 보여준 예임. o만약 공동체의 개념이 공유되는 가치에 기반을 두고 있는 것이고, ASEAN이 진정으로 ASEAN 공동체를 달성을 원한다면 ASEAN은 공동체내 어느 한 국가에서 탄압으로 고통 받는 사람들이 있을 때 불간섭 원칙 존중이라는 ASEAN 방식을 내세우며 방관해서는 안 됨. 이제는 언제 어떤 방식으로 ASEAN이 그러한 문제들에 적극 개입할지를 고민해야함. o절대적이었던 자주권 보호 시대는 지나감. 이제는 국경을 넘어서 이웃국가에서 벌어지고 있는 일에도 우려를 하고 관심을 가져야함. 미래에 모든 ASEAN 국가들이 민주화를 이룩한다면, 오늘날의 ASEAN 공동체를 돌아볼 때 공동체가 인권침해에 침묵했던 것을 비난할 것임. 그렇게 되기 전에, ASEAN은 그 동안의 방관자적 위치에서 벗어나 적극적인 견지에서 지역거버넌스(regional governance)를 해나갈 필요가 있음. ※ Natalie Shobana Ambrose 말레이시아 국제전략문제연구소, 애널리스트

Secret Court Of Our Hearts

By Natalie Shobana Ambrose

theSun, Malaysia (page 14)

July 14th, 2011

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/78464

In Harper Lee’s famous book To Kill a Mockingbird, one of the main storylines is of Atticus, a lawyer defending Tom Robinson, an innocent black man falsely accused of raping Mayella, a white woman during the Great Depression. Having fought the case with substantial evidence for Tom’s acquittal, they lost because societal norms came before legal obligation. Even though Atticus had convinced a court of law of Tom’s innocence, in reality he had failed to win his case “in the secret courts of men’s hearts”.

It’s amazing how at the end of the day, our personal judgments and convictions are what we hold true to – not what we are told to believe. With everything going on in the past few weeks alone, I wonder what the secret courts of our hearts have decided.

The thing with justice is there’s a benchmark and it doesn’t move. We can tug at it, we can twist and package facts whichever way we want to get the desired verdict, but the bar never moves and the scales of our hearts magnetise towards an accurate equilibrium – it is never neutral because innate human nature causes us to try and put things right – to find justice. We tend to be uncomfortable otherwise. No matter what the popular trend is, ultimately we have to be at peace with the decisions and stand we take. In the words of Atticus, “the one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience”.

That is why it so important that we do our duty. That we live up to the agreements we have made and measure ourselves not by what we do well but what we have failed to do. Only then will we become better. As a country, we share the responsibility of being part of the 47 states that make up the United Nations Human Rights Council. Part of our duty is to strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights around the world – which includes our country.

That bar does not move. Out of the 192 UN member states, Malaysia was chosen as the forerunner in upholding the tenets of human rights. Our duty? To not just be a good example but an outstanding one. But what does our report card have to say? In 2013 when we are up for re-election, how will we fare? Will we be humiliated by our score sheet and give excuses as to why we were not re-elected?

Personally, Malaysia seems caught in a different generational thinking. On one hand, we want to be a traditional society, respectful, obedient, peaceable. On the other hand, these traits have created a social layer of powerful, deaf opportunists who’s skewed perception holds the rest of the nation to ransom.

The problem is that a huge chunk of society has been exposed to something different, another option, and so the traditional traits are traded for what is deemed ungrateful, disrespectful and argumentative – all needing to be taught a lesson. In other words problematic.

However for those who dare to dream for a better country, that burden for change is heavy and cannot be dimmed. It’s not about which party wins – let’s face it, our options are limited. As clichéd as it sounds, it really is about change – positive change, real change, necessary change – and it doesn’t matter who does it, it just needs to be done.

If we have transitioned from a guided democracy to a full-fledged democracy, upholding all fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights along with the absence of intimidation is crucial.

This is what will win points in the court of public opinion – not machinery that on paper raves of improved living standards, but which shows a stark difference in reality. We can close our eyes, put our hands to our ears and scream at the top of our lungs to drown out the noise, but it will only grow louder. Our heads need to come out of the sand to face reality. It’s time to listen and change.

The conflicting reports, heart-tugging photos and strong statements that have followed from either side of the divide continue to fill our newsfeeds and will do so for a long time to come. No matter how much convincing either cause red, blue, yellow, government, opposition, print media or online media has done, in the privacy of our consciousness and the quietness of our convictions, each one of us has decided what happened, what the truth is, who the guilty verdict falls on and where to cast our votes – all in the secret court of our hearts.

Natalie thinks that if you have an opinion and a conscience, you don’t just register to vote, you exercise your right to vote.
Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

Minimum Wages For Maximum Impact

 By Natalie Shobana Ambrose
News Straits Times, Malaysia (page 17)
July 13th, 2011
http://www.nst.com.my/nst/articles/17minw/Article/

The National Wages Consultative Council Bill going through Dewan Rakyat is part of the government's effort to provide long-term economic empowerment to the less fortunate.

For the poor, an increased wage or one that is fair and proportionate to the work undertaken means living a little further from the edge of the economy.

If Malaysia had sound labour laws and provided welfare for the poor, then one could debate the legitimacy of having a minimum wage and the appropriateness of government interference in the relationship of employer and employee.

However, labour laws in Malaysia are inadequate and this is one way of protecting the rights of the underprivileged.

Instead of debating whether there should be a minimum wage, perhaps we should discuss whether the minimum wage will translate into a living wage or whether this kicks that hope further out of reach.

The minimum wage does not include healthcare coverage, days off, superannuation and vacation time.

There are many concerns about the implementation of a minimum wage in Malaysia.

However, what is being implemented by the government is a mechanism that endeavours to improve the standard of living of the most vulnerable to a tolerable level.

Furthermore, with the reduction of subsidies and increase in tariffs, the minimum wage seeks to cushion the difficulty of making ends meet.

The debate that minimum wage reduces employment, increases poverty and puts a strain on business is in sharp contrast to conventional wisdom and compassion that we should be looking after the poorest in society.

Implementing a minimum wage is a tool to improve the economy, increase productivity and wage growth.

Wages in Malaysia have been based on market forces. However, it has not benefited the country or the people as expected.



Setting a minimum wage level will help the poor put food on the tables of their families



Salaries have been suppressed and do not match the rising cost of living in the country. Enforcing a minimum wage will allow for higher purchasing power and improve the standard of living.

To become a high-income nation, wage inequality needs to be reduced.

However, employers are concerned that this will cause retrenchment and affect the country's competitiveness.

To calm such fears, certain factors need to be considered in finalising the end figure of a minimum wage. Issues such as the cost of living, threats to profitability, the cost of running businesses and the strategy to become a fully-developed nation in nine years have to be taken into consideration.

Other issues that the National Wage Consultative Council will take into consideration before coming up with the minimum wage rate is the adequate wage range, living costs, productivity, employment sectors and who is exempted -- seasonal employees and companies that record a minimal revenue.

Another issue is the standardising of the minimum wage across the country. In the United States, there are 13 minimum wage ranges based on region and divided by occupation, sector and region.

However, the US is larger than Malaysia and this segregation method has worked for them but might not translate as well with us.

Having one national rate within our country though might not be the answer either.

It does not seem feasible now as wages and the cost of living vary across the country, and a drastic change in employer spending will likely cause companies to fold due to a sudden increase in wages paid and inevitably trigger job losses.

As inequitable as it sounds, remuneration between the east and west of the country is very pronounced and this will be a factor is determining whether to have distinct rates within the country.

Alternatively, varying rates could spark large amounts of internal migration. For these purposes, and to ensure that the proposed minimum wage does not stagnate, the council will review the rates once every two years.

The bill, which mandates the formation of the National Wage Consultative Council, includes an employee protection mechanism that allows for employers to be fined RM10,000 for each employee that is not paid the minimum wage.

Paying people proportionately is not just a deserved right but a sign of respect and an empowering tool in acknowledging their hard work in building up businesses and our country.

The question is, how long will the wait be until there is a minimum wage sum and how long until it is implemented?

The poor, underprivileged, unskilled and foreign workers have been mistreated by the lack of a minimum wage and, therefore, the bill is a welcome start and will only be as effective as its implementation.

Now, the next step is to ensure a liveable minimum wage.

Natalie Shobana Ambrose is an analyst with the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia