A double standard view of Timor-Leste - responding to Ted McDonnell’s article “Timor-Leste lawless state not worthy of ASEAN entry”

*Cosme da Costa Araujo

 

Ted McDonnell, a professional, independent, and expert on Timor-Leste wrote a piece last week argues that Timor-Leste is not worthy of ASEAN entry. In addition to other academics and analysts who label Timor-Leste with colorful name-callings, McDonnell comes up with a new creative nickname for Timor-Leste – a lawless state.

 

He argues that by “sacking all foreign judges, introducing archaic media laws and detaining Mauk Moruk and his comrades”, Timor-Leste is a lawless state and therefore is not worthy of joining ASEAN. I find his argument similar to Susan Marx, Asia Foundation Country Representative, and Madhu Narasimha, whom Ramos Horta refers to as “an obscure and pseudo academic”.

 

I have the privilege of reading many of the author’s articles on Timor-Leste and I find most, to be biased, unbalanced, opinionated, and subjective and interest, which not reflects the characteristic of a professional journalist. His articles do not represent the professional standards or at least Timor-Leste Journalist Code of Ethics (Arts. 1 &5) he aspires to abide by. Reporting and not confirming the other side of the story simply shows his unfitness for that profession.

 

As in my response to Susan’s article two weeks ago, the issued resolution is within the boundary of the Constitution. The National Parliament acts within its constitutional power of making political decision. The issued resolution is a political decision to safeguard the national interest of the country. Dr. Benevides Correia Barros, spokesperson for Timor Lorosa’e Lawyer Association (TLLA), seconds the argument by stating “the State has constitutional power to safeguard the national interest of the country”.

 

The resolution is simply the presentation of evidence by the Parliament for the Superior Council of the Magistrate (SCM) to consider and decide on of whether the Parliament’s call for the termination of the contracts of international judges and advisers is justifiable. The Parliament calls for the termination of judges’ contract because of national interest, force majeure, and the judges’ “inadequate technical capacity” and indications of “committing various incidents of judicial irregularities”.

 

Days after the Parliament issued the resolution; the President of the High Court issued a communiqué urging all the judges to continue working, while waiting for decision from SCM. The SCM’s finally made its decision last week to terminate the contracts their contracts. I therefore see no interference from the Parliament with the competencies of the SCM.

 

Pedro Bacelar Vasconselor, a renowned Portuguese constitutional lawyer who helped with the work of annotated Constitution, argues that, “it is legal to carry out an audit of the Timorese system including the suspension of contract of international judges”. He stated the issued resolution is “a small concern of a bigger issue that leaders of the country preoccupy with”. He later asserts that, “matters of national interest should not be decided by foreigners, but the Timorese”.

 

According to Timor Lorosa’e Lawyer Association (TLLA), “the resolution is not in breach of the Constitution”. Dr. Benevides Correia Barros, spokesperson for TLLA, states that, “Timor-Leste adopts a relative, not absolute separation of power”. It is articulated in Article 69, which does not only talk about “separation of power” but also “interdependence” of sovereign bodies in exercising their powers. Therefore, he elaborates that, “under Article 118 (2), the Court is required, when exercising its function, to seek cooperation with other Sovereign Bodies, in particular to safeguard the national interest of the country”. He also argues that, “the resolution does not beach Article 121 (3), as it applies only to local, but not international judges”.

 

Reading through his article, I find the author to be inconsistent, contradictory and at worst hypocrite. In one hand, he staunchly supports and fights for the respect of Constitution, separation of power, rule of law, and principles of democracy, but on the other hand, he supports Mauk Moruk and his revolutionary movement.

 

I sympathize with Mauk Moruk’s revolutionary ideas (fight corruption and inefficiencies), but not the means he proposes to achieve them. Mauk Moruk calls for the abolition of the Constitution, dissolving democratically elected Parliament and Government, which are in essence against the Constitution, rule of law and principles of democracy. The Parliament issues a resolution to ban Mauk Moruk and his movement, which, they see posing a threat to the national security of this country. In the US, Mauk Moruk would have been charged and tried under “terrorist act”. McDonnell may be right and he knows better that Mauk Moruk initially comes with a good intention, but he may be hijacked, or “set up” and “manipulated” by foreign interest to destabilize this country.  

 

A professional journalist with an objective, balanced, and independent view of Timor-Leste would the find the author’s calling of Timor-Leste “lawless state” is unjustifiable and at best prejudice.

 

I also find the author’s argument that Timor-Leste is not worthy joining ASEAN to be inconsistent or to put nicely double standard. In one hand, he is so critical of Timor-Leste’s worthiness of joining ASEAN, while turning his blind eye on the developments in other countries like Thailand and Myanmar.

 

If the author tries a bit harder to research on what is going on with other ASEAN member countries, he will find that in Thailand, new military dictatorship detained members of political class, shutdown media, dissolved the senate, in charge of government ministries and assumed total control of the country and much worse wait to come. In Vietnam, recently two blogger soon to be charged for violating Penal Code Article 258 on “abusing freedom and democracy to infringe upon the interest of the State”.  Bloggers were detained for posting essays that “had the potential to tarnish the state apparatus’ prestige”. In Myanmar, since the court denied and annulled an election won by Aun Sha Su Chi, the country is haunted by the omnipresence of military junta and as a consequence of that, all the democratic institutions and processes, which the author fights so hard for, are non-existent.

 

If the author thinks Timor-Leste is not worthy of joining ASEAN, then my question is what makes these countries “worthier” to remain as members of the “respected Association”.

 

If the author follows closely the development in the region, “the credibility of the respected Association” had long been tarnished with the Indonesian invasion of Timor-Leste, systematic and massive abuses of human rights, Myanmar’s court denial of Aun San Su Kyi victorious election, and the subsequent omnipresence of military dictatorship in Myanmar, and the military’s overthrowing of two democratically elected governments in Thailand. If the author believes that there is such a thing as “credible Association”, then the United Nations have no credibility for allowing country like North Korea to join and similarly the prestigious English speaking countries association – Commonwealth, for allowing country like Zimbabwe and then apartheid-South Africa to join.

 

I also find the author’s remark of “PM Xanana’s anti-foreigner drive” is appalling. If the author had thoroughly done his research, he would find that the number of foreigners or “malae” working in the public institutions, not to mention private sector, had increased dramatically since PM Xanana come to office in 2007. In addition, Timor-Leste has every right to be befriend with Indonesian, that is what I hear experts call – pragmatism and real politic. It would be childish and naïve not to do so.

 

The suspension of contract of foreign judges has nothing to do with anti-malae. They are found to be “technically incompetent” and “committed various judicial irregularities”. You would expect this to happen in any normal work-related contract, when an employee would be dismissed if he/she is not performing according to the contractual arrangement or causing detriment to the employer. An anti-foreigner sentiment would be like “putting asylum seekers in detention center”, “riots in Coronal beach”, and subsequent “assaults on Indians” and “the recent assault on Chinese expats in Vietnam”.

 

Furthermore, leaders of this country including PM Xanana are elected not to appease any foreigners, but to serve the best interest of the Timorese people. I doubt the author, an outsider, knows better than PM Xanana, who sacrificed his whole life for this country, of what is the national interest of this country.

 

If Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore, leaders of Communist Party of the People Republic of China and founding fathers of South Korea in earlier years listen to the lecture by pundits on about how to run their countries, they would not have become of what are they are today.

 

To end, I would like to help the author with the lists of “criteria” for countries that fall under his famous term – lawless state.

 

A lawless state should include also countries that unilaterally invade and help to invade other countries, spy on its citizen, leaders and citizen of other countries, put asylum seekers or “boat people” in detention center (even they themselves were originally “convicts” or migrants from other countries), withdraw from international court for fearing of a “fair dinkum” trial, ban Muslim women from wearing burka in public place, allow people to own gun and shoot at anyone for self-defense, charge its citizen for whistleblowing, prevent its citizen and confiscate their passports from testifying against the state, enact legislation that authorize indefinite detentions of immigrants, allow police to search telephone, email and financial records without a court order and a state proclaims to serve its people, but in fact serves only the interest of big corporations.

 

With all these hypocrisies that happen in the world, one has no right to tell, lecture or even impose on others of what to do and not to do. Therefore, when I see a professional journalist calls for a regime change; it makes me doubt his credibility as a professional journalist and his fitness for that profession.