• 
• 
• 

The answer is obviously in the negative. With the benefit of hindsight gained from the painful experience of drafting the Asean Charter - which could have been more precise and forward-looking - one could immediately understand there would be lots of compromises and watering-down of strong words, sometimes quite absurdly, in the name of the Asean spirit.

In the case of the AHRB, the foreign ministers would definitely not go against the recommendations of the human rights experts chosen by their governments.

They are a very special group of senior officials well versed in all forms of polemics and wordsmiths. Their written and spoken words can either eternally slow down any Asean process or create any breakthrough. Obviously, some input from the foreign ministers could be forthcoming but they would not in any way alter the core and fundamentals of the TOR.

Since the TOR was carefully drafted from the collective bottom lines of member countries, it helps explain why after long, drawn-out debates, they still could not agree on the name of the Asean human rights body. They realise full well the implications in short and long terms, if this body adopts a name like "Asean Human Rights Council" or "Asean Human Rights Commission" as some Asean countries and their civil society organisations have pushed for.

For the time being, to avoid further controversy and stalemate, they simply turned the phrase into a pronoun - Asean Human Rights Body. Whatever that means, the member countries will decide.

To be frank, the TOR could have been better and more liberal. But given the current political reality in each member country, this is as far as one can get at this juncture. Once it is agreed upon, there will be no turning back. After all, this noble plan has been delayed for 15 years.

To postpone further would be a great sham. From now on, Asean will have a set of human-rights norms and standards for the region.

The Asean leaders would collectively argue that the AHRB is an evolutionary process, not a revolutionary one. as many Asean citizens would have hoped for.

They often remind us that Asean is unique and diverse. It must not be compared with other regions such as Europe, Africa or Latin America, whose citizens' rights have been given full protection through comprehensive mechanisms.

From their point of view, Asean citizens should be content with the emphasis on promotional efforts towards human rights - increased public awareness, capacity building, etc - that would not interfere in the internal affairs of member countries.

To assure that the future evolutionary road, leading to broader applications, would not be slowed down or disconnected, local authorities and their civil society organisations must help interpret or implement human rights best practices. As it is, the TOR only shows all members' willingness to commit to what is on paper, the mandate and functions of the AHRB.

It is hoped that the Asean members that are more open and democratic would want to interpret the TOR liberally and maximise human rights standards.

In this case, as the Asean chair and beyond, Thailand must try to set a good example for the region.

Sad but true, our human rights record is not something to be proud of. Violations of basic rights abound, not to mention other serious rights abuses including extra-judicial killings, enforced disappearances, torture, mistreatment of refugees and the list goes on and on.

But what is admirable is the high level of tolerance, as the public and media are able to talk about the issue and the culture of impunity openly. Human rights groups - local and regional-based - are having a field day exposing everything that is wrong and unfit for Thailand.

Fortunately, Thailand is not alone. Civil groups in Indonesia and the Philippines are equally active and engaged in human rights issues. Filipino and Indonesian civil groups, like their Thai counterparts, are fearlessly promoting and protecting their citizens' rights.

Their dedication provides lessons for other less independent civil groups. It would be a huge achievement if the three countries with a combined population representing a third of Asean's 575-million population are given adequate and accountable protection for their rights.

That said, smaller Asean states could always ruefully argue and get away with it by referring to their sovereignty or their citizens' better rights protection under their existing governance. Referral to universal and for that matter aspired-for Asean standards seem irrelevant to them.

Like the Asean Charter, the chances are nil for the draft to be released publicly before the Asean leaders' approval. Quite a few members argued cheek by jowl that public scrutiny of the draft would be tantamount to opening a can of worms that would easily mess up the text, if not the whole process.

Such a high level of distrust between the officials and their civil groups and citizens is problematic as it is an ugly scar in the Asean psyche.

For the past 41 years, Asean's survival and achievements have been predicated on the so-called top-down command - leaders know best. But something has to change. Rich input from grassroots organisations and civil groups is available if they want to protect their citizens instead of themselves.

With such a laid-in-stone mindset and habits, change will be difficult even though the grouping's everyday logo is the building of a people-oriented Asean. Why is it that the Asean leaders could not bring themselves to such a realisation in an unambiguous manner? We will soon find out.