Social Welfare and Social Protection of Vulnerable Communities in ASEAN: Status, Challenges
and Way Forward
By Braema Mathiaparanam, Immediate Past President of International Council of Social Welfare
The Association of Southeast Nations (ASEAN) has regionally been focusing on the
development of people through social development and welfare programmes, besides just
securing economic cooperation and investments for the region. Though set up primarily to
become more viable economically, it has since 1967, organised itself into an organization that
also addresses political-security and social welfare issues. The social welfare and social
protection (SPF) schemes have sharpened, since the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 to also focus
on vulnerable communities and programmes in a more targeted manner at the ASEAN Member
State (AMS) level. At the regional level there are sharing of practices and learning from each
other as well as from the International community. In this paper I will be looking at SPF
programmes, ASEAN’s structural frameworks, the vulnerable communities and assess the
measures taken, before making some suggestions.
Background
1. ASEAN, Its People and their Status
There are about 630 million people in ASEAN, spread across 10 countries. The population has
increased largely due to high fertility rates and increased longevity among the people. Based on
the World Population data prepared by United Nations Population Division, the population of
ASEAN will increase from 633 million people in 2015 to 717 million in 2030 and by 2035 to
741 million people, a rate of 0.85% increase per annum. In 2030, three countries in ASEAN will
have a population of over 100 million people: - Indonesia (284 million); Philippines (127
1
million) and Viet Nam (103 million)1. Population increases will put stresses on countries,
infrastructurally and on the economic mapping for ASEAN and its Member States.
ASEAN remains a mix of strong developing countries and also of countries with weak
development. Singapore and Brunei remain the outliers in the economic development in ASEAN
whilst Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam (often referred to as CMLV countries) deal with
weaker development . Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia are often seen as the
countries in the middle band of economic and human development in ASEAN. In discussing
human development it has to be understood that it goes beyond economic development and that
it is also linked to the economic growth of the country in terms of per capita income as a means
to human capital development.
ASEAN has a combined total land area of 4.4 million square kilometres, of which over 94
million hectares are arable land. Majority of the population – 56 per cent – live in rural areas.
Females comprise 49 per cent of the population. 46 per cent of the people are employed in
agriculture, with approximately 46 percent being women employees. Southeast Asia has a
combined GDP of US $610 billion, with exports from the region accounting for over US$404
billion while combined imports are US$353 billion2. Most of the ASEAN countries worked at
establishing industries and also building up on their agricultural produce for domestic and for
export markets. Singapore was the most successful in this effort of industrialization and in
creating an export-driven market. Over the years the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the
broadest measure of goods and services produced by the economy, shows that ASEAN’s
nominal GDP reached US$ 2.31 trillion in 2012 with ASEAN’s top countries accounting for the
lion’s share of the ASEAN aggregate at US$ 2.1 trillion. These developments have somehow
translated to an improved GDP per capita at US$ 3,751, in export-driven market3. In recent years
there is an emphasis on the service industry with some movement away from agriculture. The
services sector along with industry accounted for more than 80 percent of the GDP of most
1
ASEAN+6 Population Forecast: Global Share, Aging and Dependency Ratio;
http://www.miti.gov.my/cms/documentstorage/com.tms.cms.document.Document_a57b35ac-c0a8157326b77801-3c7aaa84/ASEAN_Population%20Forecast.pdf
2
UNDP; Southeast Asia Human Development Report 2005; http://dirp3.pids.gov.ph/seahdr/outputs.html
3
http://www.asean.org/images/2013/resources/statistics/statistical_publication/aseanstats_gdp_snapshot_21oct1
3.pdf
2
ASEAN economies. In 2012, services sector accounted for the highest share of GDP in eight
ASEAN Member States, compared to six ASEAN Member States (AMS) four years ago.4 The
shifts in market emphasis also mean that the people sector needs knowledge management and
training opportunities that are accessible. In also raises questions on how land acquisition takes
place, how displacement and skills are replenished and how people are compensated when there
is a loss of income. It also begs some reflection and introspection on how communities are
impacted and how their social issues are addressed.
ASEAN countries have diverse political systems, many of which are previous colonies. Some
countries – Thailand, Brunei – are monarchies. Indonesia and Philippines remain as the most
democratic of countries in Southeast Asia whilst Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore offer varying
semblances of democracies. The CMLV countries are still dealing with histories that are fraught
with war experiences. All ASEAN countries are predominantly governed by men in Parliament
and in the Cabinet.
Southeast Asia is also home to many religions, cultural practices. Buddhism, Christianity, and
Islam are dominant faiths. By ethnic groups whilst there are majorities there are also countries
that have many ethnic groups such as Myanmar/Burma that is 75 percent Burmese/Myanmarese,
10 percent Karean, 6 percent Karen, and the rest are Indian-Pakistani, Chinese, Kachin, and Chin
groups. There is also the community of Rohingyas or people from the Rakhine province that are
currently in an identity and citizenship crisis. Cambodia is 90 percent Khmer, 6 percent Chinese,
1 percent Cham and 1 percent Mon-Khmer tribes. Indonesia is 45 percent Javanese, 14 percent
Sundanese, 8 percent Madurese, and about 3 percent Chinese. Malaysia is 44 percent Malay, 35
percent Chinese, and 11 percent Indian, while Singapore is roughly 77 percent Chinese, 14
percent Malay, and 7 percent Indian5. This is an indication that the population is not homogenous
and culturally and by faith there is diversity in the 10 ASEAN countries. This point of diversity
is currently a challenging issue for all of ASEAN as conflicts have been intra- at this point in
time with the potential of becoming cross-border conflicts especially when island and land
4
Ibid;
http://www.asean.org/images/resources/Statistics/2014/StatisticalPublications/asean%20stattistical%20yearbook
%202013%20(publication).pdf
5
dirp3.pids.gov.ph/seahdr/sept6chap2.pd
3
ownerships are claimed over time. The resilience to deal with tensions that come from living
with diversity especially in urban environments will remain a challenge in ASEAN, as it is
globally. This means as history has also shown often the poorest among the poor will being
survivors, remain on a non-sustainability curve.
ASEAN Structures
ASEAN’s objectives are important to how ASEAN runs itself. ASEAN primarily wants to
accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region through joint
endeavours in the spirit of equality and partnerships in order to strengthen the foundation for a
prosperous and peaceful community of Southeast Asian nations. The ASEAN Charter (2009) has
brought forward the principles, the Code of Conduct and the legal entity of ASEAN for AMS to
agree upon and to abide by. ASEAN’s Vision and Policy Framework have given rise to three
Communities – the Political -Security, The Economic and the Social-Cultural – as structural
entities to carry on these development action plans based on the principles. These Communities
are governed and directed by Blueprints. The ASEAN Summit is the peak body for decisionmaking as State Leaders discuss issues and agree on course(s) of action for the region. Sectoral
Ministers and/or Senior Officials also attend various meetings in their area which stream from
Summit direction and execute on compliance with the work plan of the Community Blueprints.
ASEAN Secretariat manages the whole of ASEAN from an administration and executive
position. However it also needs to be said that regional agreements and meetings sometimes can
still be at odds with the national plans of individual AMS. The Council of Permanent Residents
(CPR) of each AMS resides in Jakarta close to the ASEAN Secretariat. Some have regular
discussions with the Secretary-General and/or the Director Generals of each Community sector
in the Secretariat. Please see Appendix (Annex 1) for the organizational map of the leading
functions within the Secretariat to understand structure and the both roles/meetings to enhance
development or at times they do become an impediment to the pace at which things can move.
The most often grouse is the navigational challenge, the human resources that are called up for
representation on issues, the numerous meetings that most officers attend and the inconsistent
official help from AMS’ national based staff.
4
The Community Blueprints and the ASEAN Social and Cultural Community Blueprints
In the Cha’am Hua Hin Declaration on the Roadmap for the ASEAN Community ( 2009-2015)
the leaders of each AMS agreed that the ASEAN Political-Security Blueprint, the ASEAN
Community Blueprint and the ASEAN Social-Cultural Blueprint and the Initiative for ASEAN
Integration ( IAI) Work Plan 2( 2009-2015), were to constitute the roadmap for the ASEAN
Community (2009-2015) and each Asean Member State “shall ensure its timely
implementation”6. This is a task for each Community Blueprint and the mid-term reviews (
MTR) show successes and delays at certain levels.
In the ASEAN Social-Cultural Community (ASCC) Blueprint
7
it is clear that the work puts
emphasis to “equitable access to opportunities”, “human potentials are (to be) nurtured to the
fullest”, “vulnerable groups – children, women, youths and persons with disabilities” are
supported through distributive and social justice programmes. The four core elements under the
ASCC are to build a community of caring societies, managing the social impact of economic
integration, enhancing environmental sustainability and strengthening the foundations. The
interventions are on six characteristics:
Human Development;

Social Welfare and Protection;

Social Justice and Rights;

Ensuring Environmental Sustainability;

Building the ASEAN Identity;

Narrowing the Development Gap.
The interventions are on the issues of Health, Decent Work, Employment, Youths, Women,
Rural Development and Poverty Eradication, Education, Disaster Management, Science and
Technology, Culture and Information, Corporate Social Responsibility. Work plans and
frameworks have been developed. And an MTR report is also done.8 They all aim to bring about
6
Cha’am Hua Hin Declaration on the Roadmap for the ASEAN Community
Appendix, Annexe 2
8
http://www.asean.org/images/resources/2014/Apr/FA_Consolidated_Final_MTR_Report_FINAL-WEB[1].pdf
7
5
the four core elements and to develop the human being to the best of potential through equitable
access to opportunities.
An assessment of the Work plan shows this vast range of issues, concepts and challenges that the
regional and national teams had to manage and implement for the people. Except for ‘Narrowing
the Development Gap’, each of the characteristics is further broken down into a number of
elements. The ASCC Blueprint has 40 elements and 339 actions that need to be implemented for
2009- 2015. But much of the actions remain aspirational with only 40 actions line remaining
clear and focused on targets.9 About 86% (or 293 out of the 339) of the total ASCC actions have
been (or currently being) addressed through the implementation of various activities. In general,
about 63% of all activities implemented are of the confidence building type of activities. The rest
of the activities were classified as follows: Harmonisation; 6%; Special Assistance; 8.4%; Joint
Efforts: 21% and Regional Integration and Expansion; 1.3%. It was also assessed in the mid-term
report that since there is no indication of how much it would cost to implement the ASCC
Blueprint, it is difficult to declare that USD 240M is already a huge amount that has been
mobilized. The ASEAN Secretariat had then proposed a monitoring and scorecard system that
can provide, as much as possible, a comprehensive illustration of how ASEAN is progressing
towards achieving the strategic objectives and primary goals set. There have also been a number
of Declarations that have arisen over the years to give AMS and senior officials the guidance
needed to get into action lines.10 In a nutshell there are many good plans to implement on the
Blueprints of the ASCC. However ASCC is complex in itself and the activities are challenges by
a lack of adequate resources – human and financial – and a commitment at AMS level to work
more at the grassroots level as this is mostly about prevention, protection processes in the course
of the interventions over the issues identified.
Vulnerabilities and New Vulnerabilities
There is still a large young population in ASEAN aged between 15 and 60 years. But there is
also a growing population that is growing older in fast ageing societies such as Singapore, Brunei
9
Progress report on the Implementation of the ASCC; ASEAN Secretariat Paper SOC; 25th June 2012.
10
See Appendix, Annexe 3 for the list of Declarations
6
and Malaysia. This then means that the ASCC’s human resources and funds will need to be
managed to provide adequate sustainability and development for the population. That remains a
challenge.
The literacy rate is about 90 per cent in countries like Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam
whereas it is lower at 80 percent in Thailand and Indonesia. Universal health services in terms of
immunization programmes are available in most countries. Migration of people – rural to urban
and trans border – is a trial to all countries. And most of the labour force in ASEAN remains
informal especially in the CMLV countries where the figure stands at 63 per cent.11 Women,
especially women and girls, form poor backgrounds or rural set-ups find it harder to achieve
economic well-being. In addition people with disabilities struggle severely to live independently
in most of the countries. Migrant workers – documented and undocumented – remain prone to
abuse through the current cycle of migration, the lack of human rights and the inconsistent
protection practices. ASEAN has tribal, ethnic communities, some of which struggle without any
documentation and live at the borders in largely impoverished conditions. Refugees who are in
the region seem to be to seek some comfort in certain countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and
Indonesia.
Disasters cripple communities as the re-building takes time and some families never regain their
previous status of sustainability. Conflicts and prolonged living in bad conditions also increase
the vulnerability of the people and has the potential to increase domestic violence, destruction of
buildings and increasing the risk of harm to persons and communities.12 Vulnerability is
described as a state of defencelessness and insecurity. Human vulnerability is about the prospect
of eroding human development achievements and their sustainability13.
Hence the vulnerable communities in ASEAN remain as those who are poor and below the
poverty line as identified by the AMS or by international standards. It is also women and youths
who are struggling to be resilient despite the odds stacked against them. Migrant labour –
documented and undocumented – remains a challenge despite some of them holding onto jobs,
11
See Human Development Index table in Appendix 4
Human Development Report, 2014
13
Ibid: pp 15
12
7
usually as domestic workers or in the construction industries. Refugees are often not wanted in
AMS but Thailand, Malaysia struggle to have them, on humanitarian grounds. Provisions of
them are best minimal and often with no long-term sustainable plan. Trafficked persons are an
area that still remains largely unharnessed in terms of the ASCC. Older persons, the disabled
person and the child also continue to pose challenges for AMS. The figure below show where
people in ASEAN are and the vulnerabilities are based on low incomes, weak skills and the
access to opportunities.
Social Welfare and Social Protection
The definition of social security is not absolute. But statements from the International Labour
Organisation ( ILO) show through its documents that there are nine areas that offer life-long
security to a person and that they need to be protected by themselves, the government and the
private sector. These as outlined in the Convention No. 102 are:
medical (health) care;

sickness benefits;

unemployment benefits;
8

old age benefits;

employment injury benefits;

family benefits;

maternity benefits;

invalidity benefits;

Survivor benefits.
If governments can provide well across these nine areas then the chances are high to develop
individuals to their best potential. ILO has also argued for greater protection of workers. The UN
Advisory Group puts Social Protection (SP) clearly as an approach to guarantee that basic
income security in the form of various social transfers (in cash or in kind) such as pensions for
the elderly, and persons with disabilities, child benefits, income support benefits and/or
employment guarantees and services for the unemployed and the working poor are in place. The
second guarantee is that there must be universal access to essential affordable social services in
the areas of health, water, sanitation, education, food security, housing, and others defined by
national priorities.14
To meet these provisions there are many schemes such as social insurance, universal coverage,
provident funds, individual private accounts, employer-liability and social assistance. From an
ILO report of 200815 ILO identifies the following as attributes of the different schemes:
Social insurance, the most prevalent form of social security, consists of employmentrelated programs that are publicly administered and financed primarily by contributions
from workers and employers.

Universal coverage refers to programs that are financed from general government
revenues and that apply to the entire resident population, subject to whatever eligibility
requirements may be prescribed in the scheme’s legislation.
14
Report of the Advisory Group: Social Protection Floor for a Fair and Inclusive Globalisation; 2011
15
Edward Tamagno; ILO Asian Regional Programme on Governance of Labour Migration; Working Paper No.10. Strengthening Social
Protection for ASEAN Migrant Workers through Social Security Agreement; Jan 2008
9

Provident funds are mandatory collective savings schemes that are publicly administered
and financed from contributions by workers and/or employers and from the investment
earnings of the fund.

Individual private accounts are retirement savings schemes which are similar to
provident funds in that they are financed by contributions by workers and/or employers,
and those contributions are credited to a worker’s account along with earnings from the
investment of previous contributions

Employer-liability schemes are ones under which each employer is obligated to provide
benefits or services to its employees when specific contingencies occur – for example, on
termination of employment or if a worker suffers an employment injury.

Social assistance programs are essentially the same as universal coverage schemes,
except that entitlement is subject to a means-test. Benefits, therefore, are only available
to persons with low or modest incomes.
Social Protection Floors (SPF) are nationally defined sets of basic social security guarantees that
should ensure, as a minimum that, over the life cycle, all in need have access to essential health
care and to basic income security which together secure effective access to goods and services
defined as necessary at the national level. It is also seen as an investment in a country’s “human
infrastructure” no less important than investments in its physical infrastructure. Recognizing the
importance of ensuring social protection for all, the United Nations System Chief Executives
Board for Coordination (UNCEB) adopted, in April 2009, the Social Protection Floor initiative,
as one of the nine UN joint initiatives to cope with the effects of the economic crisis. This
Initiative was reinforced in 2012 when government, employers and workers adopted the Social
Protection Floors Recommendation (No. 202) in 2012. In March 2014, the UNDG Chair, Helen
Clark, and ILO Director General, Guy Ryder, renewed this engagement.
As In ASEAN most workers are in the informal sector and mostly women it is important to study
the SPF and see how coverage for informal workers, the poor can be brought systematically to
the status of the formal workers who also, in some instance, need better coverage. The diagram
below best explains how social security needs to be worked at social protection levels.
10
These approaches to Social Welfare and Social Protection Schemes have been emphasized as
means to reduce poverty. Hence a Social Protection Floor Initiative (SPFI) too has emerged as an
as global social policy approach to ensure universal access to at least the following guarantees:

Access to essential health care, including maternity care;

Basic income security for children;

Basic income security for persons in active age who are unable to work (eg persons with
disabilities, unemployed);

Basic income security for older persons16.
Investing in an SPFI is seen as investing in social justice and economic development. Social
protection schemes are important tools to reduce poverty and inequality. A fundamental is that
social security is a human right as well as a social and economic necessity. But the World Report
on Social Protection (2014) states that often the fundamental human right to social security
remains unfulfilled for the large majority of the world’s population. Only 27 per cent of the
global population enjoys access to comprehensive social security systems, whereas 73 per cent
u
11
are covered partially or not at all. Absent policies and inadequate ones lead to persistent levels of
poverty and economic insecurity. This lessens domestic demand and affects economic
transformation which then can affect what we today freely call decent work. The ILO Social
Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202), provides practical guidance for setting
national social protection floors and building comprehensive social security systems. It reflects a
consensus on the extension of social security reached among governments and employers’ and
workers’ organizations from 185 countries at all levels of development and across a life-cycle
approach.
In the context of the ASCC, ASEAN identifies elements of poverty alleviation, social safety nets
and protection from negative impacts of integration and globalization, enhancing food security
and safety, access to healthcare and promotion of healthy lifestyles, improving capability to
control communicable diseases, ensuring a drug-free ASEAN and building disaster-resilient
nations and safer communities.17 The MTR highlights improvements made to the HDI and
declines in absolute poverty rates between 2000 and 2010 especially in the CMLV countries.
There are also improved situations in controlling the levels of incidences for communicable
diseases. There is stronger coordination and partnerships among ASEAN, sectoral bodies and the
setting up of the ASEAN Consortium of Social Work to improve the implementation of the
action lines.
But it is also felt that there needs to be a deeper understanding on the concept of SPFI as a lifecourse approach of having sustainable programmes across an individual’s life-time. It is
fundamental bedrock of providing social security to the people. It is a good way to begin
working with vulnerable communities in a sustainable manner in terms of implementation of
measures. ASCC is on that pathway but there is also a need for a review of the elements and the
action lines. There is also an opportunity to develop long-term work plans for vulnerable
communities which is being done, to a certain extent, for communities caught in disasters. This
process in the progression is also evidenced by the many agreed upon documents to map
compliance.18
17
18
Mid-Term Report on the ASCC Blueprint; pp 12
Please see Annexe 3
12
Therefore the thinking on SPF (I) has to change, dramatically, to see it clearly as an investment.
The expenditure on SPF(I) programmes are also not astronomical19. Building up measuring tools
around SPF(I) is also seen as an index development which is defined by the Asian Development
Bank20 as “(t)he SPI is a relatively simple indicator that divides total expenditures on social
protection by the total number of intended beneficiaries of all social protection programs. For
assessment purposes, this ratio of expenditures to beneficiaries is compared with poverty-line
expenditures. For example, if the SPI were 0.100 in country X, this index number would mean
that total social protection expenditures (per intended beneficiary) represent 10% of poverty-line
expenditures. The higher this index number, the better a country’s performance.” In addition the
SPF (I) can also assesses the relative importance of the major programs of social insurance,
19
Social protection expenditures comprise social security, social assistance, and labour market policies.
Data from 2009-2010. Source: The Social Protection Index: Assessing Results for Asia and the Pacific. Asia
Development Bank. 2013, Philippines. Downloadable at: http://www.adb.org/publications/social-protection-indexassessing-results-asia-and-pacific?ref=sectors/social-protection/publications
20
Source: Asian Development Bank 2013 http://spi.adb.org/spidmz/index.jsp#. From the Book of Development
and Welfare Policy in South Asia Edited by Gabriele Koehler and Deepta Chopra; Routledge, February 2014;
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com/catalogs/environment_and_sustainability/1/2/
Source: ADB 2013. The Social Protection Index. Assessing Results for Asia and the Pacific . P. xii
13
social assistance, and labor market programs. ILO studies show that it is between 1.6 and 5 per
cent of the GDP for an adaptable and flexible programme to target meeting the needs of the
people to build up their potential across their lifetimes.
14
Approaches to Social Protection Programmes and Social Security
There are quite of number of programmes that have been introduced, enhanced and maintained
in the countries to meet vulnerable groups. Some of the approaches taken are targeted and in
other cases it is for all who are close or under the poverty line. In this section I will share some of
the programmes, the approach taken through the ASCC. In all these programmes what is crucial
is outreach into the community and access for people to be part of the programme.
Examples of Social Protection Programmes
1. National Insurance Programmes

Social Pension;
Example: Thailand
Thailand offers the highest level of social protection coverage of its population among
ASEAN states in terms of universal coverage to social protection. For example it offered
elderly social pensions to all its seniors aged 60 years and above at 600 baht (US$14) per
15
month. This free national health insurance covers 100 per cent of the population.
However it needs to be notes that the national poverty line is 1453 baht (US$ 41).
Nevertheless it is a good start for this outreach programme for a vulnerable community.
 Malaysia's Vision 2020 provided the overall direction for future development planning
and included age-related issues, such as increased educational opportunities, better
nutrition and health care and strengthening family institution to supplement the older
persons' income security and well-being.
There are now Mobile Clinics that are open from 10 am to 10 pm 7 days a week, manned
by assistant medical officers who can treat common illnesses, and provide follow-up
checks for chronic diseases. The cost is 1 Malaysian Ringgit for Malaysians and 15
Ringgit (flat rate) for foreigners
 Malaysia's National Policy for Older Persons also uses a means-tested system to support
older persons financially. The programme's benefit amounts to US$39 per month per
person and currently boasts a membership of 23,800 persons
 The Government of the Philippines developed major policies in this regard since the
adoption of Madrid International Plan of Active Ageing.
Two examples are the Republic Act No. 9257 (Enacted on 26 February 2004): "An act
granting additional benefits and privileges to senior citizens amending for the purpose
Republic Act 7432 otherwise known as "An act to maximize the contribution of senior
citizens to nation building, grant benefits and special privileges and for other purposes"
and its Implementing Rules and Regulations" and Republic Act No. 7876 - An Act
establishing a Senior Citizens Centre in all Cities and Municipalities of the Philippines
and according funds therefore.
Additionally, a number of local governments provide social pension schemes in the
Philippines, although limited in coverage compared to other countries. For example,
Muntilupa City disburses US$10 per month to older person over 90 years old. However,
the Government of the Philippines is studying the feasibility of a conditional cash transfer
programme with the support of the World Bank.
2.
Social Health Insurance (SHI) Schemes
SHI can play an important role in financing health systems through equitable
contributions, providing financial social protection by pooling risks and funds, and thus
16
contributing to national health. The biggest challenge, in this regard in the ASEAN
context, is to increase population coverage, health insurance benefits, and pooling to
minimize healthcare costs to individuals. There is also a strong need to integrate and
merge fragmented social health protection schemes where necessary to increase national
coverage, access, social health protection, and the effectiveness of aid. This often requires
strong government leadership.
 In Thailand the road to universal coverage started in 1997 through the
Constitutional right of Thai citizens to equal access to healthcare and defining the
role of public and private sectors in providing health services. Three main factors
led to universal coverage reform:(i)
Providing access with the “30-baht scheme” was a political agenda and
(ii)
It was supported by civic movements, health policy makers, and
researchers who studied the feasibility and design of universal coverage.
(iii)
Following this reform, Thailand adopted the 30-baht scheme - a SHI
scheme - covering both the formal salaried and informal sectors. The 30baht scheme reduced the number of uninsured people from 16.5 million,
or 26.6 per cent of the population in 2001, to 2.9 million, or 4.4 per cent of
the population in 2005.
 Preliminary evaluation suggests that the program succeeded in making the
coverage universal and improving access to healthcare. Such country experiences
suggest that only strong government support and high levels of subsidization
increase coverage, especially among workers in the informal economy.
 In Vietnam (SHI) was introduced through the National Health Insurance Law in
November 2008, which came into effect on 1 July 2009. Nationwide
implementation of this law will result in extending health insurance coverage to
17 million poor people, whose contribution is expected to be fully subsidized by
the government. This policy decision did not come overnight - it was the result of
a long journey. Like other low-income developing countries, Viet Nam faced a
shortage of funding for its healthcare system in the late 1980s.
3. Community-Based Health Insurance Programme (CBHI)
17
The national social health protection frameworks include mandatory Social Health Insurance
for the formal sector, community-based health insurance for the rural and self-employed
populations, and social safety nets in the form of health equity funds for the poor and
vulnerable
 Examples: Cambodia, Lao PDR and Philippines
For urban and rural self-employed people to complement nationwide healthcare coverage
and improve the strategy to improve people’s access to healthcare under certain
circumstances. The CBHI schemes in the region are recently introduced and their
performance is modest. However, they have some important design features such as
affordable contributions to the scheme, family coverage, risk pooling, and ambulatory
and in-patient care with no or minimal co-payments. A non-governmental organsiation,
COSE, trains villagers with basic medical skills
4. Public Works Programme (PWP)
Temporary, short-term and do not address poverty but to meet emergencies. These are
appropriate for those in transient rather than chronic poverty situations.

In Laos where access to roads has reduced poverty. So ‘block grants’ as SPFI to improve
roads, water, and sanitation and reduce poverty. The aim is to stabilise incomes of poor
households during periods of no or very low income opportunities. Part of recovery
actions after a natural disaster, or post-harvest to prevent the sale of agricultural or
household assets.
Work on the community or public works that improve or rehabilitate community services or
infrastructure (most often roads, bridges, walkways). PWPs are more appropriate when the
link between poverty and unemployment or underemployment is exceptionally strong.

In Cambodia, participants in public works programs receive rice in return for their labour
in rural infrastructure projects (such as tertiary roads; irrigation canals; water
systems/reservoirs) aimed at increasing food production and/or access to markets. The
cash wages paid in public works programmes are generally enough for people to be able
to meet basic living costs but remain low to ensure that the temporary work programs do
not compete with the regular labour market.
5. Rural Micro finance
18

In Lao PDR, for example, ILO, together with the Lao Community Sustainable
Development Promotion Association implemented village banks in five provinces in the
country covering 125 villages in 22 districts. Villages that had a high number of
trafficking victims or at-risk individuals were targeted and complementary vocational
and business management training offered as a balanced solution to risky migration.

Rural Microfinance has had a significant impact for poverty reduction in rural
households but have also been used to provide protection against other social risks such
as human trafficking by creating local alternative income generating options.
6. Cash Transfers
Cash transfers have been used in several countries to support access to education and health
services, even when these services are “free”. Poor households need support to overcome
costs such as transportation, school-uniforms, school text books and materials. These costs
often exclude the vulnerable households from participating (e.g. transportation costs
preventing a chronically ill person living in a remote being able to access free health care).
What is unclear though is the numbers of people who are vulnerable and the action lines that
does impactful outreach and access to give them the opportunities. The MTR is a first step to this
kind of assessment. AMS countries also have Declarations on Social Protection to help them
ease with the situations. Some of the clustering of action lines on Disasters have served well to
serve the people. But a look at the ASCC also shows some varied focus within the sub-topics.
This can cause a conflict of approaches and tensions in relations that can run the risk of focusing
on the matter at hand of getting an SPF job done.
Social Protection, Vulnerability and ASEAN
The ASCC Blueprints and the MTR are good efforts to structure ASEAN’s regional approaches
and also enable national efforts. In the time that the ASEAN Charter was formed and the
Blueprints were decided upon, it needs to be acknowledged that remarkable work has taken
place.
19
But going forward it is crucial at this stage of ASEAN’s development to become more critical
and self-reflexive in planning for the next Community Blueprints and the Work plan. As this area
is about SPF and Social Security I would like to make the following suggestions as we review
and plan.
Organizationally-Speaking:
It is important to review the roles and the authority of ASEAN official and the interweaving and inter-locking roles between them, as civil service officers and the political
leadership of each AMS. Declarations are agreed upon by State Leaders or Sectoral
Ministers and the approach has to be to move to implementation of action lines. The
organizational chart shows that much time can be spent in beau racy clearance. Clearer
delineation will enable everyone in the work to build up people’s potential and
sustainability for their own independent living.

It is also equally important to secure funding over 10-years as the social protection
programmes are longer-term based. Grant-makers also need to become more sensitized to
the needs of funding SPF programmes that are targeted at the communities.

The Declarations and the SPF(I) direct an approach and a conceptual framing. But all
officers – regionally and nationally - are not fully cognizant of the concept to develop
useful elements and action lines for implementation. The ASEAN Consortium on Social
Work can play a useful role here along with other partners such the International Council
of Social Welfare that is also specializing in SPF.
Speaking from ASCC Blueprint Perspective

This section needs to be reviewed in its entirety as Human Rights plays a bigger role in
ASEAN with some targeted approach on women, children and migrant workers. As such
it will need to be written more with the principles of the SPF as a premise for this section.
For example elements in Decent Work and Healthcare can be cited as examples that need
a rights-based approach in the discussion. Secondly in the review the ASCC also needs to
be connected more closely with the ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint and the
20
Political-Security Blueprint. The elements are connected and both prevention and
protection elements need to be discussed in the AEC and the APSC.

As ASEAN and globally many evolved, it is important to review some of the elements
and raise the issue is Environment ought to be in ASCC or does it deserve another
Blueprint as it is an important area. Likewise should Corporate Social Responsibility be
in this Blueprint. In the same vein it is also important to devote a section to trafficked
persons and refugees. They are all part of ASEAN and currently the AMS commitment to
these communities is not stable enough or consistent.

There is a need to discuss consumerism, cultivation of crops, sea and land use as part of
an approach in the ASCC. This is important area as it is also guidance to all AMS to be
compliant with what they had agreed upon and for the private sector to be mindful of the
limitations.

A National Task Force on SPF could be set up with regional consultations from all
Communities for greater collaboration and synergies.

An ASEAN Best Practice – from a conceptual framing of SPF and the measures taken to
build sustainable communities – will be a great way to boost the work in this difficult
area.

Capacity-Building is crucial and budgets need to be allocated for this training.

Monitoring and Evaluation need to become a participatory approach with the community.
A key element of SPF is access. A quick example in a dialogue in Malaysia was when
NGOs asked the government on the access route of the Mobile Clinic and it was found
that it was taking only a limited route. The outcome was the government promising more
routes for this Mobile Clinic. Hence the measurement tools need to reflect ‘accesses as a
fundamental component to measure success or possible improvements. The SPF also
offers various tools for analysis.

Civil Societies play a crucial role at the grassroots level. They need to become partners in
this effort. Their advocacy also needs to be embraced as often they are aware of what is
working/not working at the local levels. Any review needs their consultation to make the
ASCC and the other Blueprints better documents for all.
21
I have taken an approach here to bring about greater seamlessness, rather than just stay focused
on SPF and Social Security. The reason is that for the review we need SPF to become a premise
and not just a topic by itself. The more this can be worked out at the region the chances of
meeting the needs of the vulnerable communities at the national level, will remain much higher.
22
Appendix
Annexe 1
ASEAN Secretariat Organisational Structure
23
Annexe 2
ASEAN Socio-Cultural Blueprint
Social Welfare and Protection
ASEAN is committed to enhancing the well-being and the livelihood of the peoples of ASEAN through
alleviating poverty, ensuring social welfare and protection, building a safe, secure and drug free
environment, enhancing disaster resilience and addressing health development concerns.
B.1. Poverty Alleviation
Strategic objective: Fully address socio-economic disparities and poverty that persist across ASEAN
Member States including achieving the MDG goal of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger.
Actions:
1.) Develop and implement an ASEAN Roadmap towards realizing the UN Millennium Development
Goals in consultation among concerned sectoral bodies with a view to identify and extend technical
assistance required in the field of poverty reduction;
2.) Support ASEAN Member States’ community-driven initiatives for poverty reduction towards
narrowing the development gap within ASEAN;
3.) Intensify efforts to implement projects related to poverty alleviation particularly in area of rural
infrastructure, water supply, sanitation under the Initiative for ASEAN Integration and other subregional cooperation frameworks;
4.) Improve ASEAN capacity in simple and applicable assessment and monitoring poverty reduction
strategies through a targeting system that ensures low exclusion and leakage rates;
5.) Families living under poverty to be aided with appropriate support system to enable them to
become self-reliant;
6.) Strengthen ASEAN cooperation in microfinance, including strengthening cooperation and
networking between microfinance institutions in poverty-stricken areas with due regard to local
values and traditions as well as addressing the phenomenon of the feminization of poverty;
7.) Work towards the establishment of an ASEAN data bank on poverty incidence and poverty reduction
programme, which can be shared among Member States;
8.) Continue sharing experiences and best practices through regular holding of workshops and seminars
on poverty alleviation in ASEAN Member States and its dialogue partners;
9.) Establish an ASEAN Network for Family Development; and facilitate the rural volunteers movement
and the exchange of young professional in rural development in ASEAN.
24
B.2. Social safety net and protection from the negative impacts of integration and globalization
Strategic objective: Ensure that all ASEAN peoples are provided with social welfare and protection from
the possible negative impacts of globalization and integration by improving the quality, coverage and
sustainability of social protection and increasing the capacity of social risk management. Expand the role
of civil society and citizens groups in integrity efforts and governance.
Actions:
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
5.)
6.)
7.)
8.)
9.)
Undertake a survey of existing social protection regimes in ASEAN;
Enhance exchange of best practices in social security systems;
Include social protection in ASEAN’s cooperation in progressive labour practices;
Explore the establishment of the social insurance system to cover the informal sector;
Establish a network of social protection agencies to promote the well-being and living conditions of
the poor, vulnerable, underserved and disadvantaged groups affected by adverse impacts of
integration process and globalisation;
Study on enhancement of support for natural disaster risk safety mechanism in agriculture, forestry
and fisheries;
Conduct research studies on the impact of economic integration and globalization from gender
perspective in order to have concrete bases in formulating appropriate gender-responsive
interventions;
Develop appropriate actions and preventive measures against the use of the internet and
pornography which exploit women, children, and other vulnerable groups;
Develop appropriate actions and preventive measures against the use of the internet to disrupt
social harmony by inciting hatred, discrimination, and intolerance; and Strengthen ASEAN
cooperation in protecting female migrant workers.
B.3. Enhancing food security and safety
Strategic objective: Ensure adequate access to food at all times for all ASEAN peoples and ensure food
safety in ASEAN Member States.
Actions:
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
5.)
Undertake a survey of existing social protection regimes in ASEAN;
Enhance exchange of best practices in social security systems;
Include social protection in ASEAN’s cooperation in progressive labour practices;
Explore the establishment of the social insurance system to cover the informal sector;
Establish a network of social protection agencies to promote the well-being and living conditions of
the poor, vulnerable, underserved and disadvantaged groups affected by adverse impacts of
integration process and globalisation;
6.) Study on enhancement of support for natural disaster risk safety mechanism in agriculture, forestry
and fisheries;
25
7.) Conduct research studies on the impact of economic integration and globalization from gender
perspective in order to have concrete bases in formulating appropriate gender-responsive
interventions;
8.) Develop appropriate actions and preventive measures against the use of the internet and
pornography which exploit women, children, and other vulnerable groups;
9.) Develop appropriate actions and preventive measures against the use of the internet to disrupt
social harmony by inciting hatred, discrimination, and intolerance; and
10.) Strengthen ASEAN cooperation in protecting female migrant workers.
11.) Harmonise national food safety regulations with internationally-accepted standard, including
quarantine and inspection procedures for the movement of plants, animals, and their products;
12.) Strengthen the work of ASEAN Coordinating Committee on Food Safety to better coordinate all
ASEAN Food bodies/subsidiaries, and the implementation of their work programmes;
13.) Promote production of safe and healthy food by producers at all levels;
14.) Develop model food legislative framework and guidelines and strengthen food inspection and
certification system from farm to table in ASEAN Member States;
15.) Develop further the competency of existing network of food laboratories in ASEAN to facilitate the
exchange of information, findings, experiences, and best practices relating food laboratories works
and new technology;
16.) Strengthen the capability of ASEAN Member States to conduct risk analysis;
17.) Enhance consumer participation and empowerment in food safety;
18.) Enhance the roles of ASEAN Food Security Reserve Board (AFSRB) as well as increase regional staple
food reserves;
19.) Strengthen the cooperation with regional and international institutions including private
organisations to secure food for the region;
20.) Establish a network to enhance intra and extra ASEAN food trade cooperation to ensure stability in
regional food distribution;
21.) Ensure that food is available at all times for all ASEAN citizens;
22.) Encourage the application of environmentally sound technologies in farming and food processing;
23.) Improve the quality of surveillance and the effectiveness of responses to food-borne diseases and
food poisoning outbreaks through, among others, information sharing and exchange of expertise.
26
Annexe 3
Summary from ASEAN Socio-Cultural Blueprint’s Mid-Term Review Report
Social Protection and Welfare
Characteristics and Elements Milestones
Characteristics and Elements
1. Poverty alleviation
2. Social safety net and protection from the negative impacts of integration and globalization
3. Enhancing food security and safety
4. Access to healthcare and promotion of healthy lifestyles
5. Improving capability to control communicable diseases
6. Ensuring a drug-free ASEAN
7. Building disaster-resilient nations and safer communities
Milestones
Labour

2010: ASEAN Guidelines on Classification Labelling and Packaging of Hazardous Chemicals
(Apr 2010)
Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation






Joint Declaration on the Attainment of MDGs in ASEAN (Mar 2009)
ASEAN Roadmap for the Attainment of MDGs (Aug 2011)
The first of the annual ASEAN Forum on Rural Development and Poverty Eradication was
held (Jun 2012, Viet Nam) as a platform of dialogue between governments and NGOs/CSOs
in AMS following its establishment in Oct 2011.
Development of the regular ASEAN Rural Development and Poverty Eradication Leadership
Awards (Oct 2011). The First of the biennial Awards were presented to nine accomplished
NGOs/CSOs from AMS in conjunction with the 8th AMRDPE in Aug 2013.
ASEAN+3 Youth Rural Activist Exchange Programme (Sep 2012, Indonesia) as the first
implementation of ASEAN Volunteers Programme in rural development and poverty
eradication sector.
2012: RDPE Framework Action Plan 2011-2015
Social Welfare and Development
27













2010: Establishment of the ASEAN Social Work Consortium (Dec 2008) with its Terms of
Reference and Work Plan were then endorsed in Jan 2010
2010: Hanoi Declaration on the Enhancement of Welfare and Development of ASEAN
Women and Children (May 10)
2011: Bali Declaration on the Enhancement of the Role and Participation of the Persons
with Disabilities (Nov 11)
2011: ASEAN Decade of Persons with Disabilities (2011-2020) (Nov 2011)
2012: Mobilisation Framework of the ASEAN Decade of Persons with Disabilities (20112012) (Sep 2012) Health
2010: ASEAN Strategic Framework on Health Development for 2010-2015 (July 2010)
2010: Establishment of Regional Mechanisms in Responding to Emerging Infectious Diseases
including: ASEAN Plus Three EID Website (2008), ASEAN Plus Three Field Epidemiology
Training Network (2010); ASEAN Plus Three Partnership Laboratories (2010); ASEAN Risk
Communication Center (2010)
2010: Endorsement of ASEAN Strategic Framework on Health Development for 2010 to
2015
2011: ASEAN Declaration of Commitment: Getting to Zero New HIV Infections, Zero
Discrimination, Zero AIDS Related Deaths (Nov 2011)
2011: Launching of 15 June as ASEAN Dengue Day (15 June 2011 Jakarta, Indonesia) as
endorsed by the 10th AHMM, July 2010)
2011: Policy on Smoke-free ASEAN Events (July 2011)
2011: ASEAN Position Paper on Non-Communicable Diseases at the High Level Meeting on
Non-Communicable Diseases: Prevention and Control, UN General Assembly, September
2011, New York
2011: Four new Task Forces: Traditional Medicine, Mental Health, Non-Communicable
Diseases, Maternal and Child
Health






2012: ASEAN Health Publications: ASEAN Health Profile; ASEAN Tobacco Control Report;
ASEAN E-Health Bulletins
2012: Signed Memorandum of Understanding Between the Governments of the Member
States of The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Government of the
People's Republic of China on Health Cooperation (6 July 2012, Phuket - Thailand)
2012: Establishment of ASEAN Plus Three Universal Health Coverage (UHC) Network (11 - 12
December 2012, Bangkok - Thailand)
2012: Declaration of the 7th East Asia Summit on Regional Responses to Malaria Control
and Addressing Resistance to Antimalarial Medicines Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 20November
2012
2012: Nomination of 13 sites for the ASEAN Cities Getting to Zeros Project in eight (8)
ASEAN Member States
2013: Four (4) ASEAN Focal Points on Tobacco Control (AFPTC) Recommendations and One
(1) Endorsed Sharing Mechanism of Pictorial Health Warning. The four (4)
Recommendations namely: 1) AFPTC Recommendations on Providing Protection from
Exposure to Tobacco Smoke;2) AFTPC Recommendations on Protecting Public Health Policy
with Respect to Tobacco Control Industry Interference; 3) AFPTC Recommendations on
Price and Tax Measures to Reduce the Demand for Tobacco Products; 4) AFPTC
28

Recommendations on Banning Tobacco Advertising, Promotion, and Sponsorship (TAPS)
(May 2013)
Bandar Seri Begawan Declaration on Non- communicable Diseases in ASEAN endorsement
at the 8th SOMHD Meeting. (August 2013)
Disaster Management















2009: Assignment of Secretary-General of ASEAN as the ASEAN Humanitarian Assistance
Coordinator by the ASEAN Leaders at the 14th ASEAN Summit (March 2009)
2009: Entry into force of the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency
Response (December 2009)
2009: Cooperation with the AADMER Partnership Group (APG) to get the civil society to
support implementation of AADMER (July 2009)
2010: Adoption of the AADMER Work Programme for 2010-2015 (March 2010) and launch
to the partners at the First AADMER Partnership Conference (May 2010)
2010: Closing of the ASEAN-led coordinating mechanism in Myanmar in response to Cyclone
Nargis, and launch of the ASEAN Book Series on Post-Nargis Response (July 2010)
2010: Adoption of the Joint Declaration on ASEAN-UN Collaboration in Disaster
Management (October 2010)
2011: Launch and signing of the Agreement on the Establishment of the AHA Centre
(November 2011)
2011: Launch of the ASEAN Disaster Risk Financing and Insurance (DRFI) Roadmap adopted
by three ASEAN’s sectors (November 2011)
2012: Convening of the First Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the AADMER
(March 2012)
2012: Setting up of the ASEAN Disaster Management and Emergency Relief (ADMER) Fund
(March 2012)
2012: Setting up of the annual and equal contributions for the AHA Centre Fund (March
2012)
2012: Adoption of the ASEAN-UN Strategic Plan on Disaster Management (March 2012)
2012: First AHA Centre’s response and deployment of the logistic stockpile to a disaster
within the region (November 2012)
2012: Launch of the ASEAN Disaster Emergency Logistic System for ASEAN (DELSA) in
Subang, Malaysia (December 2012)
2012: Launch of the ASEAN Disaster Monitoring and Response System (DMRS) at the AHA
Centre (November 2012)
29