Between law and practice: why cannot freedom of expression and information be protected as a constitutional right in ASEAN?

This thesis addresses the extent which freedom of expression and information (FOE/I) right have been extended to citizens in the ASEAN states. Criteria to access the conformance with international standards in FOE/I are established with reference to major European human rights conventions and laws. These criteria for FOE/I and possible restrictions on the right are notably provided by law, being legitimate, being necessary etc. are then applied to the cases of four ASEAN states. These states are Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam) which are selected to represent different political situation and state of practice. The analysis shows these states are variably political committed to FOE/I in laws and practice but none yet meet international standards and jurisprudence. The major arguments made by states to justify non-compliance with international standards are namely Asian Values and national security needs. Neither of these positions seems generally justified. In order to move human rights playing field close to an equal position, the following key recommendations are made: (i) FOE/I should be constitutionalized at a regional level through effect of a regional human right mechanism. (ii) stronger dialogues for norm setting and interpretation on the right should be strengthen so that ASEAN states can become closer and collectively link to global human rights regime in a constructive regional human rights and international relation; (iii) states of ASEAN could undertake the constitutional building process in line with international standards in the process of development of regional law and regional human right mechanism that give right to democracy and FOE/I at the state level