ASEAN’s frameworks and policies, are they effective?

*Picture by The ASEAN Post, https://theaseanpost.com/article/child-labour-rise-amid-pandemic. 

South-East Asian countries like Laos suffer in the battle against child labour. Despite efforts, the countries remain restricted by the deeply entrenched poverty within many households. 

In recent efforts to mitigate and ameliorate the state of child labour in ASEAN, ministers have eagerly proposed multiple frameworks and policies, including “VEIL” and “LIMITS”. However, despite the multitude of plans and strategies discussed, these constructs do not adequately address the budding issues that ministers of less economically developed countries have mentioned. 

As brought up by the Indonesian minister, “Some of the solutions have overlapped with past ASEAN initiatives.” Rather than focusing on past actions, attention should be shifted towards moving forward. Duplicated efforts are futile as we have to manage economic sustainability with greater literacy for children. 

However, many of the frameworks lack action plans. VEIL’s proposed solutions in progressing towards the eradication of child labour mainly involve the establishment of a digital regional outreach platform allowing child labourers to seek help without compromising anonymity. However, little elaboration has been made regarding its integration into countries reliant on child labour. Ministers of Australia and Cambodia have raised concerns about “vague policies which lack definition and implementation”, with the U.S. also calling for “redefinition of child labour to better help struggling economies”, referring to economies reliant on child labour, in regards to the “economy of affected countries.”

Child labour stems primarily from poverty. As such, it would be improbable that child labourers would have access to digital phones or devices of any sort. The call for a “regional body” to communicate between governments and their people also needs room for development, as child labour, in domestic sectors especially, is often largely undetectable. 

Furthermore, some of the ideas proposed rely a great deal on the transparency and accountability of businesses. Frameworks like PASS provide poor incentives for businesses to stop, since the ethical labelling of products does little to encourage consumers to purchase more. 

In light of the rigid progress, Cambodia has raised stronger concerns and shifted to the economic welfare of countries and, in turn, its citizens. Aiming to progress without considering the social and economic welfare of child labourers whose families struggle to survive could be an oversight that member states cannot afford to bear the brunt of. 

ASEAN ministers expressed their desire to discuss cross-border control, but without sufficiently addressing economic ramifications first, many people will suffer as a result. Therefore, a greater emphasis remains on the importance of addressing their needs. Without doing so, child labour cannot be effectively dealt with without an ethical and social disaster following. 

In response to the question of economic downturn, the Minister of Indonesia mentioned, “After a gradual decrease in the number of child labourers over the years, in the process, we would find alternatives, like job vacancies and vocational training, so that they can do proper work. Vocational training can develop skills, which will help them get into higher-paying jobs.” 

Through this, the ASEAN countries will not lose revenue long-term, as when youth are enrolled in an education system, they will move up the ladder and will increase the revenue of the country. 

Education has been a key cornerstone of solving poverty. An example of this would be the ASEAN nation Singapore, which emerged from a state of poverty through strong meritocratic reforms. Not only does Indonesia stress this, but also the significance of education to reduce child labour, in which many states, including Cambodia, agree on its importance. 

However, education will only be a short-term measure. Many countries depend on child labour for major job sectors, which contribute to a large percentage of their revenue. In Cambodia, 70.9% of child labourers work in the agricultural sector, contributing substantially to its economy. Vietnam and Laos in particular. Cambodia raised this issue, but ministers struggled to find a proper solution to address this face-on. This leaves the doubts about this solution unanswered. 

Moving forward, ASEAN should enact policies that will soften the blow on the developing economies of ASEAN nations. Loans could be offered, especially by countries with developed economies like the GCC and the US. A policy could also be drafted to invite expertise on how to soften the economic blow. However, none of these were raised in the meeting, due to the persistent focus on other policies. 

Although the solutions do have positive impacts on the efforts to reduce child labour, ministers should address the pertinent issue of the immediate economic effects. Especially in an era of economic uncertainty in Trump’s second term, developing ASEAN countries will be forced to bear the brunt of the economic effects that will follow – if no appropriate action is taken.

Written by Lecus Koh Luck Khye, Tan Wee Kiat Nicolas, and Ryan Ong Wei Heng