Journal of SouthEast Asian Human Rights
The Journal of Southeast Asian Human Rights (JSEAHR) explores human rights realities in South East Asian region from various perspectives. The JSEAHR is a peer-reviewed journal co-organized by the Indonesian Consortium for Human Rights Lecturers (SEPAHAM Indonesia) and the Centre for Human Rights, Multiculturalism, and Migration (CHRM2) University of Jember. The Journal welcomes empirical, multi-disciplinary, and doctrinal approaches to explore historical and recent situation of human rights in South East Asia. The combination of editorial board members from South East Asia, Europe, and Japan creates a unique forum for South East Asian and other scholars to exchange ideas of interest about human rights issues in the region.
Articles
128 Documents
<![CDATA[Protection of the Rights of the Victims of Human Trafficking: Has Malaysia done Enough? ]]>
<![CDATA[Renuka Jeyabalan]]>;
<![CDATA[Rohaida Nordin]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of Southeast Asian Human Rights Vol 3 No 2 (2019): December 2019 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Jember University Press ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.19184/jseahr.v3i2.9231
<![CDATA[Human trafficking is a grave threat to human rights. Statistic shows that yearly almost thousands of men, women and children grieve in the hand of traffickers as human trafficking victim, in their own countries or abroad. Thus, there is a need for Malaysia to take the necessary step to combat human trafficking and at the same time to provide effective protection for victims of trafficking as enacted under the Malaysian Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 (ATIPSOM 2007). The first part of this research examines the international law standards on human rights protection of the victim of human trafficking while the second part analyses any legal and policy measures adopted within the Malaysian context. In this analysis, attention will be made on numerous protection mechanisms such as provision for a shelter, or a place of refuge, appointment of Protection Officers, medical treatment, right to work and safe repatriation. This research further examines and assesses the adequacy and effectiveness of the current measures and laws especially in terms of their enforcement by the relevant enforcement bodies. Analysis on the existing legal framework within other ASEAN States, including Indonesia, is also done so as to provide relevant best practices for consideration and adoption by the Malaysian government. In conclusion, this research provides a number of solutions to address the problems and challenges within the existing legal framework in Malaysia with the ultimate aim at providing better protection for the victims of human trafficking.]]>
<![CDATA[Hierarchical Reciprocities and Tensions between Migrants and Native Moluccas in the Post Reformation ]]>
<![CDATA[Hatib Abdul Kadir]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of Southeast Asian Human Rights Vol 3 No 2 (2019): December 2019 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Jember University Press ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.19184/jseahr.v3i2.8396
<![CDATA[The research subject of this paper focuses on the Butonese, who are considered “outside” the local culture, despite having lived in the Moluccas islands of Indonesia for more than a hundred years. The Butonese compose the largest group of migrants to the Moluccas. This article research does not put ethnicity into a fixed, classified group of a population; rather, the research explores ethnicity as a living category in which individuals within ethnic groups also have opportunities for social mobility and who struggle for citizenship. The Butonese has a long history of being considered “subaltern citizens” or have frequently been an excluded community in post-colonial societies. They lack rights to land ownership and bureaucratic access. This article argues that Indonesian democracy has bred opposition between indigenous and migrant groups because, after the Reformation Era, migrants, as a minority, began to participate in popular politics to express themselves and make up their rights as “citizens”. Under the condition of democratic political participation, the Butonese found a way to mobilize their collective identity in order to claim the benefits of various governmental programs. Thus, this paper is about the contentiousness of how the rural Butonese migrants gained advantageous social and political status in the aftermath of the sectarian conflict between 1999 to 2003. Migrant’s ability to express their grievance in a constructive way through the politics of their representatives and state government policies have led to the new contentious issues between indigenous and migrant populations.]]>
<![CDATA[The Long March in the New Era ]]>
<![CDATA[Qinxuan Peng]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of Southeast Asian Human Rights Vol 3 No 2 (2019): December 2019 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Jember University Press ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.19184/jseahr.v3i2.13465
<![CDATA[China has entered a New Era with an aspiration to safeguard human rights through law. However, implementation gaps are found when comparing the current Chinese domestic laws on non-discrimination with the requirements set by international human rights treaties and international labour standards on eliminating discrimination in the labour market. This article illustrates how rural migrant workers are an underprivileged group in Chinese society, emphasising the inferior treatment they experience due to their agricultural hukou residential status in urban areas. The study identifies several implementation gaps between the international standards and the Chinese domestic legal system on non-discrimination, serving as the very first step to eradicate de facto and de jure discrimination and to achieve Legal Protection of Human Rights in the New Era.]]>
<![CDATA[Shrinking Space for Free Expression in Cambodia during Covid-19 ]]>
<![CDATA[Kate Seewald]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of Southeast Asian Human Rights Vol 4 No 1 (2020): June 2020 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Jember University Press ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.19184/jseahr.v4i1.18093
<![CDATA[In Covid-19, a vast number of countries have faced their biggest public health crisis in a century. For many such countries, the pandemic has emerged at a critical juncture following consecutive years of so-called democratic backsliding, where political space has narrowed and fundamental freedoms are under increasing threat. This trend is particularly observable within hybrid regimes under “Strongman” rule. A question posed by the Covid-19 crisis is the extent to which such regimes are taking advantage of the pandemic in order to hastily usher in new restrictions on human rights. Such leaders, it has been claimed, are actively capitalising on the crisis to further cement their rule, and to rapidly stock their arsenals with weapons of “lawfare” to more efficiently quash current or future dissent. A secondary, related question is the extent to which such accusations are being unfairly levelled against leaders of hybrid regimes for taking steps that liberal democracies are also taking without the same level of scrutiny from international observers. After all, the legitimate limitation by states of citizens’ exercise of their rights in times of exception is a norm firmly set out in international law. This article uses a case study of Cambodia, focusing on the impact of its Covid-19 response on the exercise of free expression. Applying the “three-part test,” it analyses whether Cambodia’s response falls within the permissible restrictions on freedom of expression during a time of normalcy (given Cambodia, at the time of writing, has not declared a state of emergency). It then also assesses whether Cambodia’s newly promulgated Emergency Law should be seen as a clear case of a hybrid regime exploiting Covid-19 to hasten restrictions on rights, or whether the criticism levelled against it is excessive, given the constitutional basis for such legislation and the critical nature of the Covid-19 pandemic.]]>
<![CDATA[The Right to Health in Evidence-based Policymaking ]]>
<![CDATA[Farah Purwaningrum]]>;
<![CDATA[Fiona McDonald]]>;
<![CDATA[Stephanie Doris Short]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of Southeast Asian Human Rights Vol 4 No 1 (2020): June 2020 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Jember University Press ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.19184/jseahr.v4i1.14088
<![CDATA[The right to health is included in United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) number 3, “Good health and well-being”. This goal aims to ensure healthy life and to promote well-being for all, at all ages. The SDGs, which build on the Millennial Development Goals (MDGs), provide a significant expansion to the development agenda. Inclusive development is part and parcel of the SDGs. Evidence-based policymaking studies provide explanations of normative and legitimate expectations for policymakers, namely, to use scientific evidence and specific indicators in their policymaking process. The right to health, as constructed, in evidence-based policymaking discourse is in contention. This paper addresses the various types of meaning Indonesian policymakers attach to the right to health through their discourses in norms of health policy. This study provides an analysis of discourses, regulatory analysis, and historical narratives (based on analysis of health regulations and newspaper articles) pertaining to evidence-informed policy in the health sector in Indonesia from 2009-2017. Our findings elucidate how the right to health manifests in the processes of evidence-based policymaking. We do so by way of a two-pronged analysis, i) discourse analysis at the macro level in Indonesia about the right to health as a norm and ii) health policymaking at the micro level, in the Indonesian district of Gunungkidul,within the region of Yogyakarta.]]>
<![CDATA[A Comparative Analysis of the Status of Homosexual Men in Indonesia and the Philippines ]]>
<![CDATA[Ellisiah Uy Jocson]]>;
<![CDATA[Wisnu Adihartono]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of Southeast Asian Human Rights Vol 4 No 1 (2020): June 2020 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Jember University Press ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.19184/jseahr.v4i1.12810
<![CDATA[Gender related discrimination has increased pervasively, especially as the fight for equality and acceptance takes center stage in the past few years. Women persistently demand the right to stand equally with men, and likewise, the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Community (LGBTQI) seek the same equity. However, responses to gender and sexuality issues vary greatly across the world. The LGBTQI population is also difficult to determine given the intolerance of some Countries towards this community. On the topic of homosexuality, attitudes and presumptions prevail and act as barriers in acceptance of the ‘gay’ community. These obstacles hail from a multitude of concerns, spanning the areas of culture, religion and ethnicity, amongst others. This study seeks to analyze and determine the treatment of homosexual men in two multicultural countries: Indonesia and the Philippines. Repeated reports of gay suppression in Indonesia are a stark contrast to the seemingly high tolerance that gay people enjoy in the Philippines. This paper outlines the causes of these opposing treatments for gay communities in Indonesia and the Philippines.]]>
<![CDATA[Poor PLS of Security Sector Reform and Its Impacts on Human Rights and Civil-Military Relations in Indonesia ]]>
<![CDATA[Poltak Partogi Nainggolan]]>;
<![CDATA[Riris Katharina]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of Southeast Asian Human Rights Vol 4 No 1 (2020): June 2020 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Jember University Press ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.19184/jseahr.v4i1.13597
<![CDATA[As emerging democracy, Indonesia is facing a formidable challenge from its Parliament whose capacity in conducting Post-Legislative Scrutiny is weak; this could prevent the country from fulfilling democratic consolidation. The country’s failure in fulfilling its democratic consolidation two decades after Soeharto’s resignation can bring it back to the authoritarian era as it has experienced only two years after the first 1955 democratic election until 1998. Applying an empirical research by directly observing PLS in the Indonesian parliament and using a qualitative method of analysis, this essay discussed the causes and repercussions of the parliament’s poor capability, which have brought the country into current setback, facing resistances from the old establishment that has made the military unable to continue reform and to change its political culture. Therefore, the Indonesian military still wants to involve in civilian affairs and businesses by making a more flexible interpretation of Military Operations Other Than War, on the one side. While, on the other, TNI’s existing culture of violence has led it to many alleged cases of gross human rights violations which could not be prosecuted until recently. In fact, Indonesian Members of Parliament’s poor capability and DPR’s weak supporting system give more complexity to the country in its struggle and success to be the third biggest democracy in the world.]]>
<![CDATA[Parliaments in Europe Engaging in Post-legislative Scrutiny ]]>
<![CDATA[Elena Griglio]]>;
<![CDATA[Nicola Lupo]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of Southeast Asian Human Rights Vol 4 No 1 (2020): June 2020 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Jember University Press ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.19184/jseahr.v4i1.18017
<![CDATA[Post-legislative scrutiny (PLS) is not completely new to European parliamentarism. In the last few decades, this activity has experienced rapid development, either pushed by supranational trends on better regulation or fostered by national constitutional reforms. However, the involvement of parliaments in the ex post stage of law-making still remains under-theorised. This article aims at providing a comparative overview of the main rules, practices and trends on post-legislative scrutiny in Europe, focusing on the experience of three bicameral Parliaments: the French, Italian and Swiss Parliaments which have been selected as examples of three proactive approaches to post-legislative scrutiny, based on alternative bicameral arrangements. After providing a general overview of the main options that support the involvement of parliaments in the ex-post stage of law-making, the article examines how the benchmark case studies address the following variables: the internal organisation of the ex-post scrutiny, including the role of the administrative staff; the scrutiny object, either referred to single pieces of legislation or to a whole policy; the scope of the ex-post scrutiny, verifying whether it is interpreted as a purely legal dimension or it comprises also forms of impact assessment; the outcomes of the ex-post scrutiny, and more specifically its contribution to the legislative decision-making. The paper demonstrates that PLS in parliament may lead to political outcomes addressing the government when the form of government, the constitutional framework and the party dimension support a competitive use of this tool in the legislative-executive interaction.]]>
<![CDATA[Does Indonesian COVID-19 Emergency Law Secure Rule of Law and Human Rights? ]]>
<![CDATA[Herlambang Perdana Wiratraman]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of Southeast Asian Human Rights Vol 4 No 1 (2020): June 2020 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Jember University Press ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.19184/jseahr.v4i1.18244
<![CDATA[President Joko Widodo announced a public health emergency at the end of March 2020. This policy demonstrates denial, too late and limited in responding to the spread of Covid-19. On the other hand, the state security approach during the pandemic has pressured civil liberties, especially criticisms against government policies. This phenomenon is not a new development in Indonesia whereby attacks on freedom of expression and academic freedom are common. This article analyses how the COVID-19 health emergency situation is handled by the government from the perspective of human rights law standards and the rule of law. This article argues the Indonesian COVID-19 emergency law violates many guarantees of legal protection under the rule of law standard. It is apparent how the issue of human rights has not yet become an effective strategy or approach in this non-natural disaster emergency situation.]]>
