Young Progressives Southeast Asia

Announcement from SEACA: Country Workshops on ASEAN

2011-02-09T17:38:00.000+08:00

The South East Asian Committee for Advocacy (SEACA) is pleased to announce the holding of the Country Workshops on ASEAN in:

(1) Jogjakarta, Indonesia (February 14, 2011);

(2) Dili, Timor Leste (March 9-10, 2011); and

(3) Chiang Mai, Thailand for participants coming from inside Myanmar / Burma (March 28-29, 2011).

Now on its sixth year, the Country Workshops on ASEAN have been instrumental in bringing together human rights defenders, women’s rights advocates, environmental activists, academics, and media practitioners to discuss issues affecting the peoples of Southeast Asia. These processes have become one of the platforms for civil society organizations in the region in engaging the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) at the national level.

The objectives of the workshops are as follows:

1) To mobilize civil society in Myanmar, Jogjakarta in Indonesia, and in Timor Leste through sensitization and consensus building on civil society engagement with the ASEAN

2) To encourage participation in the Civil Society Parallel Activities in Indonesia in May 2011 during the 18th ASEAN Summit.

3) To heighten the visibility of civil society as advocates of peoples’ issues and foster civil society engagement with governments and the ASEAN.

As in the previous years, SEACA is working with its members and partner organizations in organizing these Country Workshops on ASEAN. If your own partners and members are interested in participating in these workshops please contact the following persons:

For Jogjakarta, Indonesia: Fathuddin Muchtar (YAYASAN SAMIN), fath@yayasan-samin.org

For Timor Leste: Armindo Dos Santos (FONGTIL), naidemi23052010@yahoo.com

For Burma / Myanmar (venue: Chiang Mai): Nattawadee Duangtadam (Chiang Mai University), nattawadeed@gmail.com

If you have other questions please contact SEACA.

-------------------------------

SEACA/ South East Asian Committee for Advocacy

29 D Mayaman Street, UP Village 1101

Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines

Tel +63 2 920-6228

Web http://www.seaca.net

About YPSEA

2007-09-06T21:17:00.000+08:00

Preamble

We, young progressives from Southeast Asia,
Affirming the fundamental ideals of democracy and equality,
Promoting regional cooperation and solidarity among Southeast Asian youth,
Advocating for the youth’s meaningful participation in national and regional bodies,
Asserting the crucial role of the youth in shaping the future of the region and world,
Do ordain and promulgate this constitution.

The Founding of YPSEA

Beginning from year 2004 the Friedrich-Ebert – Stiftung (FES) Philippine Office explored and sought to reaffirm through the series of regional seminars of young progressive in Southeast Asia. The aim was to gather like-minded “progressive” who either as young politicians, members of political parties, activists in social movements, NGO workers or media practitioners actively engage their institutions into this regional group. After two year of drafting constitution and preparation, YPSEA is officiated on 10 June 2006 at Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

About Southeast Asia

Southeast Asia known as the “highway of conquerors” to mean that this is where more than many other regions in the world, external forces have had a determinant impact on. When the countries in the region began the process of decolonization, groups occupying the margins of Southeast Asian political discourse, which include the women, the economically disadvantaged and the young, have slowly began articulating their voices, albeit in incremental steps.

Political participation is essential for an efficient and emerging democracy. It is, therefore, of prime importance to involve the young generation in politics to gain new insights and implement changes.

Countries in Southeast Asia: The Philippines, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Mymmar (or Burma), Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei & Timor Leste.

YPSEA Membership
Cambodia
Khmer Youth Association (KYA)

Indonesia
Indonesia Movement (Pergerakan Indonesia (PI))
Serjata Kartini (SEKAR)

Malaysia
Democratic Action Party Socialist Youth (DAPSY)
Malaysia Youth and Students Democratic Movement (DEMA)
Progressive and Democratic Youth Movement (PRODEM)

The Philippines
Akbayan! Citizen’s Action Party Youth Wing(Akbayan Youth)
Movement for the Advancement of Student Power (MASP)
Student Councils Alliance of the Philippine (SCAP)

Thailand
Student Federation of Thailand (SFT)
Young People for Democracy Coordination Center (YDCC)

Objectives – The network aims to:

Provide a regional platform to facilitate the exchange of ideas, strengthening of unities, and development of strategies for progressive youth organizations and activists to advance democratization in Southeast Asia;

Facilitate the development of skills and strengthen the capabilities of young people and progressive youth organizations to effectively engage in political processes in their respective countries and in the region;

Establish and maintain solidarity ties among progressive young people in the region;

Provide a platform for progressive politics and youth participation at the national and regional levels; and

Be a venue for the convergence of efforts and forces for collective action.

Contact:
YPSEA official blog
http://ypsea.blogspot.com/
ypsea@yahoogroups.com
YPSEA Executive 2006-2008:
Wilson Requez : scap.national@gmail.com (SCAP, The Philippines)
Jenice Lee Ying-Ha: yinghalee@gmail.com (DAPSY, Malaysia)
Tarn Kodchawan : tarn_kodchawan@yahoo.com (YDP, Thailand)

Regional Seminars
2004-2007

Regional Seminar Of Young Progressive Southeast Asia
Political Participation And Young People:
“Making Young Voices Heard”
13-15 October 2004
Discovery Centre
ADB Ave, Ortigas Center,
Pasig City, Philippines

2nd Regional Seminar Young Progressive Southeast Asia
“Young People shaping Democracy”
1-3 August 2005
Hotel Santika Jakarta
Jl. AIPDA K.S. Tubun No.7, Slipi
Jarkata, Indonesia

3rd Regional Seminar For Young Progressive Southeast Asia
“Young People Shaping Globalization”
25-27 October 2005
Discovery Centre
ADB Ave., Ortigas Center,
Pasig City, Philippines

4th Regional Seminar For Young Progressive Southeast Asia
“Reclaiming Democracy In Southeast Asia – Defining The Task Of Young Progressives”
8-10 June 2006
Hotel Phnom Penh, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

5th Regional Seminar For Young Progressive Southeast Asia
“Helping Build Gender-Fair Democracies :
Young People Working For Gender Equality in Progressive Politics”
16-19 June 2007
Awana Resort,Genting Highland,
Malaysia

Political Parties 101

2007-05-14T20:27:00.000+08:00

This article originally appeared at www.newsbreak.com.ph

Political Parties 101
Lou Janssen Dangzalan
14 May 2007

Tuazon, Bobby M. (2007) Oligarchic Politics: Elections and the Party-List System in the Philippines. Quezon City: Policy Study Publication and Advocacy & Center for People Empowerment in Governance.

A collection of essays, this book provides to those who have short memory a brief and accessible history of oligarchic politics from the American colonial period to the present. The articles approach oligarchic politics through the lens of the development of our political party system.
The book’s main critique, albeit not entirely new, is that the elite party system and its oligarchic politics fail in building true political parties that articulate public-interest issues. It falls short in putting forward a trailblazing idea in the study of oligarchic politics in the country. It simply uses the development of political parties, elections and the party-list elections as its anchor.
Francis Gealogo, one of the authors, points out a known fact about Philippine political parties—that these have not been ideologically-driven (with the exception of the Communist Party of the Philippines, according to Roland Simbulan) and that they do not enjoy the support of a mass base. These parties are what political scientists call legislative clique parties or elite parties.
The book thus documents attempts to build ideologically driven parties that are distinct from mainstream political parties. They cite, during the American colonial period, the formation of the Sakdal party and the Socialist Party of the Philippines as examples.

Romanticizing the Party-List System?
But one juncture in history seems to be the point of unity for the articles, and that is the inclusion of the party-list system in the post-Marcos period.
The party list is one of the many forms of proportional representation. In the Philippines, we have a House of Representatives that is a mixed member system, which is a hybrid combining single-member district representatives (i.e. our regular congressmen) and party-list representation. The 1987 Constitution provides that 20% of the members of the House of Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives.
Though not flawless, the authors say that the system has given political party development in the country some boost.

A caveat though: echoing University of the Philippines professor Felipe Miranda’s sentiments during the book launch, caution must be taken for there is always the danger of romanticizing the party-list system. The book argues that party-list systems do not guarantee political stability and the representation of the greater majority’s sentiments. They cite as an example the failed proportional representation system in Germany leading to the rise to power of the Nazis, thus prompting the post-World War II victors to augment the German system with an English-style single-member district system to prevent the rise of similar extremist parties.
Roland Simbulan’s recommendation in his remarks thus raises questions. Without elaborating on the reasons for such a recommendation, he stated that “[he] would like to see the day when all 24 Senate seats are reserved for nationally-elected party-list organizations while at least one-third of the House of Representatives are reserved for regionally-elected party-list representatives.”

Silent on Links to the Armed Left
The authors point to the Left as a possible contender in bringing about a force that will change the political order substantially. They argue that for the entire duration of the history of political parties in the Philippines, there has always been a marginalization of left-wing political parties.

The expulsion of the members of the Democratic Alliance after the Second World War, and the sedition charges leveled against left-leaning politicians since the inception of electoral contests in the Philippines, betrays the elitist nature of our political and electoral system, the authors contend.

Ely Manalansan, Jr. cites the example of party-list representative Crispin Beltran who has been detained since February 2006. He laments that the government has been using the “legal ruse of rebellion” to thwart the gains of left-wing party-list organizations.
These arguments are nothing new for we hear these from the ranks of the left leaning party-list organizations. What the authors are silent about is the issue of the party-list organizations being fronts for the armed Left, specifically, the New People’s Army Surely if one would conduct an exhaustive study on the party-list system, its transformative potentials, and the Left within the context of oligarchic politics, this area should not be left out.

Betrayal of Proportions
One of the more significant points in the book is the clear and razor-sharp argument against the formula of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban.
Felix Muga II argues that the formula that has been reiterated by the Supreme Court decision in 2006 (Partido ng Manggagawa and BUTIL vs. COMELEC) violates the principle of proportional representation. Under that formula, the spirit of proportional representation through the party-list system is betrayed as it becomes even harder for groups to hurdle the requirements to get additional seats. This leaves the 20% reserved seats for party-list representation under-occupied, thus marginalizing a system for the marginalized.
Muga recommends that the three-seat cap be removed along with the 2% minimum threshold in order to achieve full representation. Therein lies the problem.

In Germany, the minimum threshold has succeeded in impeding the entrance of extremist parties such as the Neo-Nazis. In fact the minimum threshold in other countries is higher than 2%.

The book’s value, really, is in the historical context it provides and the discussion on representation and the party-list system.

YPSEA Statement on Thailand Military Take Over

2006-09-22T22:03:00.000+08:00

A Power Grab is a Step Backward!

We, the member-organization of the regional network Young Progressives Southeast Asia [YPSEA] express our collective concern on teh very recent damage to the already fragile democracy in Thailand. Alarmed by the military takeover and the subsequent declaration of Martial Law, we express our solidarity with our Thai comrades in this crucial time.

As young progressives, we are committed to the advancement of democracy in our own countries and in the region. Together, we have vowed to uphold the spirit of genuine democracy where there is none and to protect it when it is threatened. We have hoined together to be sentinels of our own democracies.

While we are one with other progressive groups in Thailand calling for a thorough accounting and resolution of very serious corruption issues under the Thaksin government and we deplore the high-handed methods of Thaksin himself, we are convinced that genuine reforms cannot be set into motion by a power grab. The history of our countries and the region is replete with examples attesting that a lack of respect to civilian supremacy and shortcuts in democratic processlead to the escalation of human rights violation and grest abuse of power.

While we hold Mr. Thaksin accountable and urge him to face squarely the cases filed against him by the Thai people and to completely keep out of Thai politics, we reiterate that we do not condone the use of military might to declare Martila Law once again in Thailand. Countries in the region that have gone through Martial Law can well describe the chilling effects of military rule. This recent action taken by Thai military is a major setback to the democratic gains that the people of Thailand have worked so hard for.

The military takeover in Thailand is clearly a step backward, especially at time when many patriotic civilian groups in the region are taking steps to achieve genuine democracy in their own countries. It is unfortunate that the political crisis brought about by corruption issues of the Thaksin government seems to be resulting in a greater bind: the violation of the basic right of the people to resolve their own issues and determine the shape of their politics via democratic means.

We sternly warn against any force in Thailand, the Military Junta in particular, against using the situation to instigate a violaent crackdown against any group that will continue to exercise their right to peaceful means of dissents and actions.

Our solidarity in the defense of the fundamental rights of the people of Thailand will remain steadfast. Never must we allow small groups of armed men take over our democratic space, no matter how small, under the guise of benevolent stewardship. Our solidarity extends to genuine collective action that will be led by the people of Thailand towards a peaceful, democratic and just resolution of any and all political conflict.

We call for more democracy in Thailand, not less. The key democratic institutions like the media and press freedom must be immedaitely restored and safeguarded.

We urge the so-called "Administrative Reform Group under the Democratic System" to restore civilian order and call for elections!

We appeal to young people in the region to make a people-centered democracy a reality in Southeast Asia!

Signatories:

Student Federation of Thailand [SFT], Young People for Democracy [YPD], Khmer Youth Association [KYA], People Center for Democracy and Peace [PDP Center], Pergerakan Indonesia [PI], Senjarta Kartini [SEKAR], Malaysia Youth and Student Democratic Movement [DEMA], Democratic Action Party - Socialist Youth [DAPSY], Progressive and Democratic Youth Movement [PRODEM], Student Council Alliance of the Philippines [SCAP], Movement for the Advancement of Student Power [MASP], AKBAYAN! Citizen's Action Party - Youth Wing [AKBAYAN! Youth], Alyansa ng Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Kabataan [ALYANSA], Bukluran sa Ika-uunlad ng Sosyalistang Isip at Gawa [BISIG Youth], First Time Voter's Network [FTV Network]

Young Progressives say NO to Proclamation 1017!

2006-03-02T07:40:00.000+08:00

We are the community of young progressives in Southeast Asia – individual activists and members of social movements, political organizations and progressive parties – committed to the advancement of democracy in our own countries and in the region. Together, we have vowed to promote the spirit and practice of genuine democracy where there is none and be the sentinels of our own democracies – as we work on improving its imperfections – for we are convinced that there is no other acceptable way of doing politics.

Young progressives in the Philippines were at first stunned and shamed by the audacity of the Arroyo government to issue Proclamation 1017, declaring an unconstitutional and baseless “state of national emergency” on 24 February that has led to violent dispersals of people’s assemblies, the veiled and direct attacks on media and the press and the arbitrary arrests of opposition leaders. The harsher irony for pro-democracy progressives is the fact that Gloria Arroyo chose to declare this illegal edict on the very day remembered by millions of Filipinos as the culmination of the long fight for freedom from a dictatorship and the dark years of martial rule. For the Filipino people who, 20 years ago, have been beacons of hope and paragons of “people power” that inspired democratic transitions across the globe, the turn of events the past few days is a cause for alarm, lament and now, righteous anger.

The act of Gloria Arroyo is a bare-faced abuse of presidential power by a person whose mandate as president is under very serious cloud of doubt. This proclamation, with the attendant General Order No. 5, merely highlights the insecurity of Mrs. Arroyo and the self-serving design of a government intensifying the use of its coercive powers and training its weapons on its own people.

While we do not condone any violent schemes of grabbing power, we shall stand by the inalienable right of people’s movements to protest abuses and defend fundamental freedoms. The first lesson of democracy is, after all, the defense of the right to unhampered expression of ideas including those we disagree with. We must also reiterate our conviction that democracy and the full exercise of our rights are not anathema to economic progress. A free and empowered people in a genuinely democratic society is the best investment that can push the Philippine economy forward and deliver the economic benefits to those who have long been at the bottom and therefore need it most. Gloating about economic gains under a “police state” shall ring hollow and vain. The international community is watching.

As Filipino young progressives, we are the rightful inheritors of the proud legacy of women and men who braved a dictator’s Martial Law and re-established Philippine democracy that is imperfect but evolving. Freedom is our birthright.

As we wage our own battle in Manila, we are also expressing our solidarity with our comrades and friends in Thailand and Cambodia who, in the face of anti-democratic forces of the State, remain steadfast in living progressive politics and fighting for the democratic ideals we hold dear.

Make no mistake about it: we will resist, we will defy, we will fight – with all our creative energies and physical strength – against any assault on hard-won freedoms. We are young; we will not grow weary.

Stop the attacks on our freedoms and human rights! Stop the arbitrary arrests!
Restore genuine democracy in the Philippines! Lift Proclamation 1017 now!

- YOUNG PROGRESSIVES SOUTHEAST ASIA (YPSEA) -
YPSEA – Philippine Groups:

Akbayan Youth; First-Time Voters (FTV) Network; BISIG Youth; Movement for the Advancement of Student Power (MASP); Student Council Alliance of the Philippines (SCAP); National Alliance of Community-based Young People (Alyansa); Young progressives of De La Salle University, Ateneo de Manila, Miriam College, Philippine Normal University,
University of the Philippines and other universities

YPSEA Statement on the WTO

2005-12-09T17:38:00.000+08:00

WTO Statement for YPSEA

WTO was established as a platform for trade negotiation but we believe that a “one size fits all” solution to solve the problem of international trade is not at all viable as each country especially the developing countries have peculiarities and specificities that would require different approaches.

In the past WTO negotiations, WTO had transformed the world economy game from rules based to power based system. The few most powerful countries have more say than the others. Information and negotiating capacities of WTO member countries has been asymmetrical, favoring the developed countries, and the chance to speak in the negotiation table is not equally shared by all delegates.

The underlying principle in the WTO is based on the economic philosophy of laissez-faire, which privileges the powerful companies and corporations. Thus, Young Progressive for Southeast Asia (YPSEA), stands for the following reforms in the WTO:

1) We call for a reform in the WTO negotiation process and also demand the involvement of International Labor Organization (ILO) during the negotiation to safeguard the benefit of workers.

2) WTO should uphold the platform for fair trade, not a free trade. The implementation of lower tariffs will only lead to a ‘race to the bottom’ and a weakened role of the state in solving internal economic problem.

3) Members of WTO should be aware that each region and each country is developed in an uneven manner. The negotiation in each WTO Ministerial meeting had excluded many industrial sectors such as small farmers, small-medium enterprise (SME), workers and many others, who do not have sustainable jobs and do not benefited from growth. The negotiation should not only concern the profits and losses of big corporations but also the welfare of the people and development.

4) All the agreements should be done based on democratic principles.

5) We call upon the governments of Southeast Asian countries to unite and negotiate the trade issues based on the welfare and interests of its citizens.

Hence, YPSEA believes that negotiations should be built upon an equal platform and the result of negotiations should benefit all member countries.

2005-12-09T15:33:00.000+08:00

Young Progressives Southeast Asia Brochure

Please feel free to download and print (back-to-back) the brochure files.

YOUNG PEOPLE SHAPING GLOBALIZATION

2005-12-09T14:43:00.000+08:00

Conference Summary
3rd Regional Seminar
Young Progressives Southeast Asia

The third regional seminar of the Young Progressives Southeast Asia (YPSEA) network was held last October 24 to 27, 2005, at the Magellan Room of the Discovery Centre in Pasig City, Philippines. With the theme “Young People Shaping Globalization,” the conference featured lectures, discussions, and workshops on the World Trade Organization (WTO), the trade regime it promotes and is embedded in, and its differential and uneven impact on the global economy. Also relevant were efforts to map out possible strategies and techniques that would hopefully lead to the construction of a more humane global economic order.

Knowing the WTO

The starting point of the seminar is the diversity of perspectives on the WTO. Official discourses emanating from the WTO and neoliberal institutions, individuals, and think thanks, for example, hail the organization as “democratic” and capable of furthering development. More critical minded actors, on the other hand, assert that the WTO and free trade have led to increased inequality and poverty. In the face of these competing perspectives, there is a real need to re-examine existing conceptions of the WTO and come up with a more nuanced position.

A significant portion of the seminar was devoted on exploring how the WTO is characterized by and is embedded within unequal power relations. Within the Organization, for example, power asymmetry exists, with industrialized and northern countries having more influence than countries from the global south. At the same time, economically advanced countries have more capacity when it comes to negotiations. Multinational corporations (MNCs) also exert undue influence on processes within the organization, thereby belying claims that WTO is an institution for democratic global governance.

After looking at the asymmetries that characterize the WTO, the seminar turned to the impact of the WTO on the global south, particularly on Southeast Asia. Although it was recognized that it is difficult to isolate the specific impacts of the WTO, it was affirmed that it is still possible to come up with general statements about the WTO. In particular, it was seen that the WTO has been instrumental in neoliberalism’s attainment of its near-hegemonic status. Similarly, it was seen that the policies forwarded by the WTO has led to economic, political, and social forms of exclusion that foment global conflict and instability.

In the area of labor, for example, the WTO, contrary to its mantra of liberalization, actually re-regulates the flow of workers. It does this by re-defining and classifying what kinds of movements are permitted (e.g., restricted to certain occupational categories, not defined as labor, temporary only). In this sense, the discourse of freedom that the WTO engages in is, in fact, misleading and only serves to conceal how the WTO privileges the interests of a few countries and MNCs.

In the area of health, it was pointed out that WTO policies have led to increased poverty and inequality which, in turn, have led to the intensification of public health problems. Classic public health problems are seeing resurgence while emergent diseases are increasingly becoming threats to public life. Consistent with the neoliberal policies advocated by the WTO and other international institutions, governments have increasingly cut down on public health services. Such policies have also led to the continued domination of big pharmaceutical companies. With the intellectual property rights regime, drug availability has become problematic. In addition, the present economic order encourages labor migration which leads to brain drain in the health sector and to increased medical costs. Together, these phenomena impinge on the right to live a healthful life.

Finally, in the area of education, it was pointed out that the WTO has had both direct and indirect impact. Directly, it has encouraged the privatization of education services. Indirectly, its policies have led to the increase of poverty incidence which causes an increase in the number of out of school youth and children. With the GATS, education will be transformed on at least five fronts: enrollment (global demand will be emphasized vis-à-vis social demands), governance structure (emphasis on inter- and multi-disciplinarity; valorization of international recognition and accreditation), functions and roles (increased salience of continuing education), modes of delivery, and educational divide (migration will lead to brain drain and low quality of education).

Considering the impact of WTO and neoliberal trade and economic policies on the majority of the world’s population, it became clear during the seminar that there is an urgent need for a new framework that will govern international trade, one that is anchored on a people-centered vision of development. Such an alternative framework partly requires a movement away from an unhealthy reliance on national and international elites. It also requires renewed efforts at community-building and formation of future leaders.

In the context of grappling with alternatives to the WTO-led free trade regime, the participants of the seminar had to confront the question of whether or not the WTO should be abolished. Various positions on the issue were presented. In the end, however, a consensus emerged that while the current status of the WTO is unacceptable, it should not be abolished because there is a need for multilateral institutions of global governance. Instead, the WTO should be reformed on the basis of justice, transparency, and accountability.

During the seminar, it became apparent that in pursuing an alternative trade regime, progressive forces should not forget the role of states. That is, while regional initiatives are important, states remain important sites of resistance. Neoliberal policies are, after all, partially authored by them. Moreover, as the experience of the Philippines suggests, state action remains important. However, states are effective if they engage other stakeholders in the crafting and implementation of trade policies; if they are able to master the technical language of the WTO, as well as other skills needed in trade negotiations; if they have credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of the public; and if they are able to cooperate with other countries from the global south.

It was also emphasized that in addition to states, regional organizations can play in the construction of an alternative trade regime. It is in this context that the need to strengthen the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was underscored.

The role of social movements and civil society actors in crafting a new trade regime was likewise affirmed during the seminar. The participants, however, noted that social movements and civil society actors face several challenges in their quest for a more just trade regime. In addition to the need to acquire technical competence, progressive forces face capacity issues such as financial and technological needs. There is also the problem of responsiveness of policymakers. In Germany and the European Union, for example, trade unions have problems having an impact on policymakers. Moreover, with the rising popularity of civil society discourse, there is the danger of cooptation. Indeed, there are arguments saying that the proliferation of civil society organizations is, in fact, consistent with the emphasis of neoliberalism on “rolling back the state.”

Finally, it was recognized that there is a need to disaggregate “the West.” This means that it is important to recognize that within developed countries, there exist progressive forces that are sympathetic to the causes of developing and least developed countries. Hence, in addition to South-to-South cooperation, progressive forces in the South also need to work with progressive forces in the North.

Simulating the WTO

A core feature of the seminar is a simulation of the WTO where participants were assigned to represent various countries (United States, the European Union, Japan, India, Brazil, Mexico, the Philippines, Argentina, South Africa, Thailand, and Pakistan) in a negotiation round focusing on agricultural subsidies. Participants were given mission orders detailing the objectives of their respective countries for the negotiation.

Countries belonging to the G20 proposed a three-band approach to the reduction of agricultural subsidies: countries that provide support totaling over $60 billion would have to cut by 80 percent, those with support of $10-60 billion would cut by 75 percent, and those with $0-10 billion would cut by 70 percent. Developing countries should be in a separate band for overall cuts. On LDCs, they should be exempt from reduction commitments; developed countries should provide duty-and quota-free access to all products originating from LDCs; steps should be taken to promote their export capacities, including addressing their supply constraints.

Northern countries, on the other hand, moved towards the softening of the G20’s stance. While supporting in principle the three-band approach, northern countries negotiated that they be placed in the middle or lower band. They also maneuvered to accentuate the cracks and divisions among the G20. In addition, they offered technical assistance in the form of military aid, debt-equity swap in intellectual property rights, soft loans, and capacity-building measures. Moreover, they moved that agricultural subsidies of developing countries be reduced.

Initially, G20 countries were successful in derailing the negotiations. However, the governments of northern countries began pressuring the governments of the G20 countries, asking that their trade negotiators “behave” in the negotiation process. At the same time, MNCs, such as Monsanto, began lobbying G20 countries. As notes and letters from their governments started to arrive, one by one, G20 countries began acceding to the wishes of northern countries. Ultimately, the proposal of the G20 was rejected and the proposal of the United States was accepted. This happened despite the attempts of civil society actors to influence the negotiation process.

After the simulation, a debriefing session was held. Participants expressed their views and constructive criticisms on the simulation. Many participants expressed disappointment with the outcome of the simulation. This is especially true for the participants representing G20 countries. They would have pursued their stance, except that they received instructions from their home governments to take a different position. Several participants also pointed out that there exists an information asymmetry in the simulation, with northern countries having access to more information. This enabled northern countries to take advantage of Southern countries. Some of the participants noted that the simulation highlighted the need for progressive forces to take action at the level of both the state and the WTO. However, a few participants noted that the simulation tends to emphasize that trade problems lie more on governments than on the WTO itself. Cautioning against oversimplification, they argued that the WTO itself is a flawed institutional arrangement for global trade. Finally, several participants noted that in addition to looking at power politics within the WTO, the simulation points to the need to consider cultural and epistemic factors in looking at the Organization.

The organizers responded by noting that the simulation is actually a work in progress. They also noted that there was a need for simplicity and to factor in the role of domestic politics. The organizers pointed out that while the simulation focused on a single issue, real negotiations are multi-faceted and complex. They challenged the participants to enrich the simulation by studying closely the rules of the WTO and by forwarding their suggestions to the secretariat. An effective simulation, they emphasized, will help progressives come face-to-face with the dilemmas inherent in the WTO issue. In the end, an effective simulation will help progressive groups understand and critique the WTO.

Preparing for the future: The WTO Ministerial Meeting in Hong Kong and beyond

A network meeting was held during the third day of the seminar. The meeting tackled the following issues: comparative research on education; organizational structure and membership; and plans for activities.

A presentation on the current status of the comparative research on education was given, after which the body decided to affirm Marie Chris Cabreros’ appointment as point person for the research. It was also agreed that the three members of the education committee (who all hail from Indonesia) should meet and discuss what steps to take. Finally, it was agreed that country coordinators for the research will have to be appointed.

After a lengthy discussion on the issue of organizational structure and membership, the body agreed that membership will be open to organizations. However, individuals may become affiliate members of the network. The premium placed on organizations is partly due to the recognition that youth struggles take place in the context of organizations. It is also a way of encouraging interested individuals to organize in their particular contexts.

Furthermore, the body agreed that official membership to the network will be contingent on the recommendation of one of the founding and/or existing member organizations. Also, the application of prospective members will only be considered after two years of active participation in the network’s activities. While waiting for their official membership, applying organizations will be invited to participate as observers in the network’s endeavors.

With regard to organizational structure, the body agreed, on an ad hoc basis, that the highest policy making body will be the general assembly. It will be composed of the representatives of the various member-organizations. No individual will be allowed to participate in the general assembly. The body also agreed that the implementing or executive body of the network will be an executive committee composed of a coordinator and three other members. The members of the executive committee will come from different countries. Countries that are part of the executive committee will be chosen on a rotation basis. The main task of the executive committee will be to implement the decisions of the general assembly. It was likewise agreed upon that a secretariat, whose main task would be to coordinate activities, will be formed. In the absence of funding and other resources, a member organization will be asked to act as the network’s secretariat. Finally, the body agreed that coordinating bodies will be constituted per country. Those bodies will be composed of the representatives of the member organizations in that country. A contact person will also be identified per country. It was also noted that member-individuals of the network will be given opportunities to participate in the country-level coordinating bodies. However, it was emphasized in the meeting that country-level bodies are not forms of bureaucracy but are mere tools for coordination.

The body then approved the creation of a preparatory committee for the general assembly / regional conference next year (May 2006). The members of the committee are Lee Ying Ha (Malaysia), Metha Matkhao (Thailand), Tunggal Pawestri (Indonesia), and Jonas Bagas / Marie Chris Cabreros (The Philippines). The committee will prepare a proposal for the body’s consideration. The proposal will be submitted to the FES office by late November.

In line with the WTO Ministerial Meeting in Hong Kong this December, the body agreed to come up with a statement that will be circulated in the members’ respective countries, as well as during the ministerial meeting itself. The statement, the body agreed, should be catchy and general enough so it can be localized. The Malaysia Youth and Student Democratic Movement (DEMA) volunteered to draft the statement. It will be circulated for approval by mid-November.

Considering the lack of time and resources, the body agreed that those who will go to Hong Kong in December will bring the YPSEA flag, circulate the network’s statement, and sign statements and co-organize events on the network’s behalf. In the meantime, members of the network are urged to research via the internet possible activities or statements that the network can do or sign.

At the country level, the body agreed to sponsor events that will carry the network’s name. Such events include the circulation of national statements, forums on the WTO (on what’s bad about it and on possible alternatives to it), the production of toolkits (simulation games, how tos, etc.), workshops, campus tours, and media campaigns.

After discussing network activities related to the WTO ministerial meeting, the body identified possible activities for 2006. These activities are outlined in the table below.

Possible Activity
Details

Regional Conference

Possible location: Dili, Cambodia, or Malaysia
Possible themes: democratization, election, gender and political participation, the ASEAN, the evolution of the capitalist system and its impact on progressive struggles, foreign debt
(It was noted that there is a need for in-depth [vs. broad] discussion. It was also noted that suggested themes may be combined.)

Capability-building measures

Trainings
Consultations
Manuals for organizing
Exposure trips
“best practices”
Possible themes: conflict resolution, electoral interventions, media campaigns

Study exchange

With European groups (c/o FES)
Will be done once the network is formally established

Publications

Books, studies, education research, briefing papers in various languages

The seminar and the network meeting were adjourned after the identification of activities for 2006.

Go! Young Progressives in Southeast Asia

2005-11-22T14:51:00.000+08:00

Welcome to the site of Young Progressives Southeast Asia (YPSEA)!

A simple blog site. Yes, this is just a simple blog site! However, all things must be started from simple matters. This blog is created in the spirit of the young progressives who just held their 2nd conference in Jakarta, from 1-3 August 2005. Our first conference was held in Manila, 13-15 October 2004. In these conferences the young progressives in Southeast Asia decided to go further to enhance democracy in their respective countries. They decided to progress, equipped themselves by sharing ideas and experiences and build a network of young leaders in the region. This blog is just a first step of making the network works better. And by this network we will build Southeast Asia as a region of social justice and democracy.Countries that were represented in the 2nd Regional Conference of Progressive Young People in Southeast Asia, 1-3 August 2005 in Jakarta: Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, Timor L'este.

What on Earth is YPSEA?

2005-11-22T14:46:00.000+08:00

Southeast Asia is known as the “highway of conquerors” to mean that this is where, more than many other regions in the world, external forces have had a determinant impact on. When the countries in the region began the process of decolonization, groups occupying the margins of Southeast Asian political discourse, which include the women, the economically disadvantaged, and the young, have slowly began articulating their voices, albeit in incremental steps.Political participation is essential for an efficient and emerging democracy. It is, therefore, of prime importance to involve the young generation in politics to gain new insights and implement changes. If the society does not listen to what the young people say, their perspectives and criticisms, hopes and aspirations, campaigns and strategies, the society has neglected its own future.

It is this potent link between young people and political participation that the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) Philippine Office explored and sought to reaffirm through the series of regional seminars of young progressives in Southeast Asia. The initial thrust was to focus more on "young people" rather than use the term "youth," which for most implies age-specific concerns and limited engagements. Another aim was to gather like-minded "progressives" who either as young politicians or members of political parties or as activists in social movements, or NGO workers, or media practitioners actively engage their institutions and governments to make real the timeless concepts of equality, social justice, democracy, human rights, gender equality and peace, among