Key Findings

---

• In many Asian countries, pandemic civic space restrictions were unnecessarily expansive, lacked ‘sunset’ clauses, were extended without democratic mandates, and led to massive rights violations.
• Many countries adopted a securitized response to COVID-19, using military and police to violently enforce curfews and lockdowns.
• Emergency measures and assembly bans were frequently used as justifications to shut down legitimate gatherings and social movements.
• Many countries attempted to police ‘false information,’ but failed to stem misinformation. Instead, disinformation laws were used to crack down on journalists.
• Restrictions on philanthropy and foreign funding led to shortfalls of humanitarian resources, hampering the COVID-19 response.
• Civic space restrictions impeded progress on many Sustainable Development Goals.
• Surveillance and privacy violations proliferated, thanks to the widespread rollout of largely unregulated technologies. Much of this technology remains in place.
• Many governments used COVID-19 to justify rolling back public participation rights, eliminating transparency and oversight.
• While Asia had some of the most restrictive pandemic approaches, it also had some of the best. South Korea, New Zealand, Japan, and Taiwan stand out as countries that protected democratic and civic freedoms while effectively managing the pandemic. Their collaborative governance approaches offer guidance for how to protect both rights and public health in the future. 
• Other governments adopted some positive practices, from regularly publishing updated health data (Singapore), to encouraging government scrutiny and transparency around pandemic policies (Thailand, Australia, Timor-Leste), to reducing barriers to funding and project approvals (Nepal, Bangladesh).  
• Civil society learned how to mobilize during the lockdown era and conduct advocacy remotely and creatively.

ICNL Reports: Emergency Governance

Pandemic Governance & Civic Freedoms: Best Practices from Japan

FULL RESOURCE

Balancing Rights and Civic Freedoms with Effective Pandemic Governance: The Aotearoa New Zealand Experience

FULL RESOURCE

Pandemic Governance in South Korea: The Collaboration Dynamics of Government and Civil Society During COVID-19

FULL RESOURCE

Collaborative Governance in Taiwan’s Covid-19 Pandemic Response: Lessons Learned From a Human Rights Perspective

FULL RESOURCE

 

 

Partner Reports

REPORTS are listed below

Civil society partners conducted ground-breaking reporting and advocacy in novel areas, from the rampant use of surveillance technology during the pandemic, to the abuse of emergency laws in countries like Thailand and Malaysia. The following is a selection of key partner resources.  

• SAFENet: Breaking Barriers to Multistakeholder Collaboration: Southeast Asia Civil Society and Covid-19 Surveillance Technology
• iLaw: Thailand’s COVID Emergency Decree: Suppressing Dissent in the Name of Public Health
• Asia Centre: Moving Beyond COVID-19 Restrictions in Asia: Pushing Back Against Authoritarian Pandemic Governance 
  • Southeast Asia Report 
  • South Asia Briefer 
  • East Asia Briefer 
• Media Defence:
  • Training Modules on Litigating Freedom of Expression and Digital Rights in South and Southeast Asia
• FORUM-ASIA 
  • Towards a Better Partnership Between Civil Society Organisations, National Human Rights Institutions, and ASEAN Human Rights Mechanisms to Address the Pandemic’s Impact on the Human Rights Crisis in Southeast Asia   
  • Repressive Measures During COVID-19 Pandemic in South Asia  
  • Human Rights in Southeast Asia in Times of Pandemic 
  • Report on the ACWC+10: Assessing the Commission’s Impact on Protecting Women and Children’s Rights in ASEAN  
  • State of Disruption: Assessing the Impact of Malaysia’s COVID-19 laws on civic space  

Thematic Briefers

Briefers are listed below

These briefers, written by Meghna Sharma, Prashant Singh, and Kirana Anjani, explore specific rights and topics related to authoritarian emergency governance, including freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, vulnerable groups, privacy, and civil society responses to government overreach.  

• A Pandemic of Silence: Impact of Authoritarian COVID-19 Policies on Freedom of Expression in the Indo-Pacific 
• Resilience in Southeast Asia: Civil Society’s Response to Government Pandemic Overreach 
• Freedom of Assembly During COVID-19 
• COVID-19, vulnerable groups, and civic freedoms 
• Privacy Rights During COVID-19 
• Briefer: Freedom of Expression During COVID-19 

Country-Specific Summaries

Throughout this program, ICNL supported partner organizations including iLaw (Thailand), SAFENet (Indonesia), RMIT Vietnam, CODE-NGO, Center for Development Programs in the Cordillera (CDPC) and the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (the Philippines), APAC GATES (Taiwan), Dignity Initiative, Collective Campaign for Peace (COCAP), and Informal Sector Service Centre (INSEC) (Nepal), Asia Centre (regional), VOICE (Bangladesh), PRIA and Internet Freedom Foundation (India), and DHRRA Malaysia to carry out local and national advocacy with governments to protect civic space during times of emergency. 

Below are short country summaries of COVID-19 tracking data and desk research on how pandemic responses impacted civic freedoms: