Article
Since 2005, the ACSC/APF remains a valuable platform for civil society organizations in Southeast Asia fostering regional advocacy and solidarity. Over the years, it has attracted diverse organisations such as the members of the LGBTQI+. As the 2024 forum was recently held in Timor-Leste in September, this article looks back, reflects on the particular issues and concerns observed through the years and how these could be addressed to provide safe spaces for CSOs, particularly to countries with restrictive regimes, such as Vietnam and Laos.
Alongside challenges such as securing funding, lack of support from their governments, individual and organisational differences, and language barrier, the safety and security of participants remain pressing concerns – particularly following the disappearance of Lao civil society leader Sombath Somphone in 2012. This article identifies key areas for improvement to ensure that ACSC/APF conferences will remain to be safe spaces for dialogues and empowerment of marginalised voices.
The ASEAN Civil Society Conference/ASEAN People's Forum (ACSC/APF) is an annual gathering of civil society organizations (CSO) in Southeast Asia, typically hosted by the country holding the ASEAN chairmanship. Established in 2005, it has evolved into a significant platform for regional advocacy and solidarity. Initially attended by 100 participants, the forum has grown to over 3,000 in 2014. While traditionally held in the ASEAN chair country, exceptions have been made. Timor-Leste, which hosted the forum in 2016, the country hosted the forum again in September 2024.
In 2014, I served as a Singaporean CSO representative on the Regional Steering Committee (RSC) of the ACSC/APF of Singapore. During this time, I gained valuable insights into the conference's dynamics. The RSC, composed of representatives from ASEAN member states, Timor-Leste, and regional CSOs, oversees the organization of the event. While the 2014 conference faced challenges such as electricity outages and disagreements on sensitive local issues, it also demonstrated the potential for regional solidarity and advocacy.
I also gained firsthand experience of the logistical challenges and stress involved in organizing such a large-scale conference. Before discussing these challenges, let us revisit the decision to host the ACSC/APF in Timor-Leste in 2016 and 2024, rather than Laos, the ASEAN chair during both years.
The decision to hold the conference in Timor-Leste was due to the similar political environments of Laos and Vietnam – both communist states. Civil society organizations often encounter restrictions and pressure to align with the government's narrative in these countries. While Singapore experienced similar constraints in the late 1960s and 1980s, its legal framework and political system differ from those of communist states. Punishments for similar offenses could be harsher in communist regimes. Although we have civil society organizations in Vietnam and Laos, they are more pressured to self-censor, hence, blurring the line between Government Organised Non-Government Organisations (GONGO) and independent NGO/CSO. We can also contrast this to another non-original ASEAN member, Cambodia, which has always had a strong civil society fighting to maintain their space.
During the preparations for the 2016 ACSC/APF, the Laos CSO national organizing committee (NOC) expressed enthusiasm for hosting the event. However, the decision to host the 2016 ACSC/APF in Timor-Leste, rather than Laos, was influenced by several factors. First, as a communist state, the Lao government, has imposed restrictions on civil society organizations and their activities. These restrictions have made it challenging to ensure the safety and security of participants and organizers. Additionally, the disappearance of Lao civil society leader, Sombath Somphone in 2012 raised serious concerns about the government's treatment of civil society.
In 2023, the Laos NOC announced that it would not be taking up the role of hosting and organising the ACSC/APF 2024. We can only speculate on the reasons, but it could easily be due to the same concerns that were facing the Laos CSO and their government in 2016. Timor Leste’s NOC readily took up the mantle to host the ACSC/APF after this announcement.
The ACSC/APF has faced ongoing challenges in maintaining its relevance and effectiveness. Efforts to institutionalise the forum have included the establishment of a Follow-up and Monitoring Body (FCCA) and the development of a strategic direction. However, these initiatives have encountered obstacles, such as differing national contexts and limited resources. Next, let us explore key areas for improvement in the ACSC/APF.
Institutionalisation: Balancing the need for a more structured approach with the importance of maintaining a grassroots-driven platform.
There have been calls to do more from within CSOs to institutionalise the ACSC/APF. Some are cautious of CSOs trying to emulate the ASEAN secretariat with the proposals for a regional secretariat. So far, the majority agreement among interested parties is to focus on collective leadership and pooling of resources. The key question is where the coordination should be anchored; ideally it should be in the National Organizing Committees (NOCs) of each country and their respective processes.
Commitment: Ensuring consistent participation and support from national civil society organizations.
The question of time and commitment by each country process has been a contentious issue in many organising meetings. The resources and bandwidth of interest of civil society vary between countries and need not be the same. This is also true within each country over time. However, a simple and clearer organising process could be adopted. Past attempts at establishing a strategic direction have largely neglected to appreciate the differences and context of each country. It is very possible to agree in the guiding principles and modalities we currently adopt while embracing different perspectives in organising and collaborating with different stakeholders.
Movement building: Fostering decentralised issue-based movements to strengthen advocacy efforts.
In ACSC/APF 2017 Philippines, NOC introduced convergence spaces to allow for decentralised issue-based convergence spaces to discuss and prepare issues and recommendations to bring to the conference. Again, the success is dependent on the commitment of those involved, but this seems to be a step in the right direction to sustain interest in important regional advocacy issues.
Regional spaces for national advocacy: Providing a platform for CSOs from countries with limited domestic space to engage in regional advocacy.
Many agree that regional advocacy is essential for countries where CSOs have very limited spaces to manoeuvre and advocate.
Singapore is one such state where regional and international advocacy provides a rare opportunity to critically examine its national policies and receive official governmental response Regional advocacy is also where we find meaningful discussion on cross border issues relating to the environment, migration, trafficking, mega development projects such as dams, and territorial boundaries, among others.
Safe civil society spaces: Addressing concerns about the safety of participants and organizers, especially in countries with restrictive political environments.
Some participants have expressed growing concerns for the safety of other participants attending a very public event like the ACSC/APF. There have been instances of individuals being blacklisted in relation to their participation at the event, while others have been harassed by authorities upon return to their home countries. Organisers must honestly determine what kind of conference they want to hold. It would be impractical to host a large number of participants while disallowing phones and media coverage. In fact, it goes against the goal of raising awareness of the ACSC/APF. Each year, the Regional Steering Committee (RSC) and host NOC should assess the necessary measures to ensure that the conference and related meetings nocare safe spaces for CSO collaboration.
Inclusivity and regional solidarity: Promoting inclusivity by addressing language barriers and ensuring participation from marginalized groups.
In the very beginning, the conference embraced openness, and that is also probably the reason that we now have a diverse range of participants and CSO stakeholders. It has attracted more LGBTIQ+ community participation, and representatives from other marginalised groups.
The most obvious barrier to effective communication at the ACSC/APF is language, particularly for participants from rural communities and grassroots organizations where English may not be widely spoken. Over time, we have also observed a knowledge gap among participants regarding the specific issues highlighted by organizers. While workshops can address this to some extent, short speaking panels are unlikely to provide comprehensive understanding. In plenary sessions with large audiences, it is challenging to discuss topics without prior familiarity. This knowledge disparity often surfaces during the drafting of the conference statement, leading to disagreements among participants who are not directly involved in relevant issues. The convergence space tracks have been helpful in fostering more focused and productive discussions on specific topics.
Building trust among NOCs and creating a safe space for sharing challenges is another essential aspect of successful organization. Our experience in hosting the 2018 conference in Singapore highlighted this need. With limited resources, we struggled to manage logistics and ensure balanced participation from all countries. In contrast to the nearly 2000 participants in 2017, we were forced to limit attendance to around 200. This misunderstanding of the host NOC’s intentions led to a boycott by CSOs from Indonesia and Malaysia and straining relationships among CSO leaders.
Funding: Securing sustainable funding sources to support the ACSC/APF's activities.
Securing funding for the ACSC/APF has always been a challenge. In the past, the focus on conference statements and interactions with ASEAN heads of state attracted more attention, but the diminishing relevance of these elements has led to decreased interest. Many CSOs are disappointed by the superficial approach of donor agencies, which often prioritize projects with overly simplified solutions.
ASEAN's lack of institutionalization in its engagement with the ACSC/APF highlights its internal divisions and limited commitment to civil society. The early leaders of the ACSC/APF had ambitious goals of achieving tangible results with ASEAN, but these aspirations now seem naive. Engaging with ASEAN often requires compromising on standards and accepting the lowest common denominator.
Fundraising efforts have become more challenging, with regional CSOs showing less interest in donor briefings and RSC participation. This may reflect a loss of faith in the ACSC/APF's effectiveness or influence from donor agencies.
During our 2018 stint as host, we proposed a decentralized fundraising model where each NOC would raise funds within their respective countries. While this idea was not new, it faced resistance due to lack of interest or support from national processes. The emergence of COVID-19 and the unfamiliarity with hybrid meetings further hindered its adoption. We envisioned a joint hybrid conference across 11 countries, combining national forums with shared workshops and plenary sessions. This approach would have been more cost-effective and inclusive, but it failed to gain traction among other NOCs and RSC members.
In terms of event planning, there is no shortage of inspiration we can take from other conferences and forums being organised. However, before we decide on that, the biggest elephants in the room need to be addressed.
Elephants in CSO space: Commitment among the country processes.
The 2022 Regional Context Analysis workshop hosted by the Cambodian NOC underscored the need for a robust movement to serve as the foundation of the ACSC/APF. Building such a movement may require challenging existing dynamics within the civil society landscape. While the format of the ACSC/APF is secondary, our primary focus should be on uniting those who genuinely believe in regional solidarity and hope. Individuals who are primarily interested in superficial aspects, like interactions with ASEAN leaders or promoting themselves should not be encouraged to pursue such agendas inside the ACSC/APF.
Our experience as a small NGO in Singapore, has taught us the value of flexibility, adaptability, and the power of committed teams. This approach can be replicated at the NOC and country levels, fostering dedicated regional organizing committees. By empowering NOCs to lead their respective country processes, we can address language barriers, knowledge gaps, and outreach challenges. NOCs can also bridge divides between diverse communities and groups.
Each NOC should develop a clear country vision that aligns with the broader goals of Southeast Asian peoples. This will facilitate the creation of a shared regional vision. While the RSC in the past had not fully embraced bottom-up movement building, it is essential for NOCs to take ownership of their national processes and contribute to the collective effort.
Primary Goals: Invest in people’s solidarity and collective engagement with ASEAN.
These two core objectives have remained consistent throughout our efforts and have a significant multiplier effect. By fostering solidarity among civil society organizations and promoting collective engagement with ASEAN, we can create a more cohesive and impactful regional movement. This will enable us to advocate for shared goals, address common challenges, and build stronger relationships within the ASEAN community.
Achieving our collective goals requires unwavering commitment, trust, and continuous improvement in our processes and outcomes. With this commitment and effort, I firmly believe that future civil society leaders who join the ACSC/APF will also come to appreciate the skills and experiences we have gained. These include diplomacy, facilitation, shared values, knowledge sharing, diversity, people-to-people solidarity, mutual recognition, understanding different perspectives and contexts, and building lasting friendships beyond disagreements.
The ACSC/APF remains a valuable platform for civil society organizations in Southeast Asia to engage in regional advocacy and solidarity. By addressing the challenges and opportunities outlined above, the forum can continue to play a vital role in promoting human rights, democracy, and sustainable development in the region.
__
Soe Min Than is the Convenor-Consultant of the Task Force on ASEAN Migrant Workers (TFAMW) since 2013 to coordinate at the national level and to contribute at the regional level (Southeast Asia) the advocacy project on the protection and promotion of the rights of the migrant workers. He is currently the Singapore member of the Regional Steering Committee in the ASEAN Civil Society Conference/ASEAN People's Forum (ACSC/APF) 2024 and Executive Secretary of Singapore NGO, Think Centre.
Disclaimer: This published work was prepared with the support of the Heinrich Böll Stiftung. The views and analysis contained in the work are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the foundation. The author is responsible for any liability claims against copyright breaches of graphics, photograph, images, audio, and text used.
References
South East Asia Peoples’ Engagement Towards a People-Centered ASEAN: A Ten-Year Review of the ASEAN Civil Society Conference/
ASEAN Peoples’ Forum (ACSC/APF) 2005-2015 - By Consuelo Katrina A. Lopa
