出版 Publication (CN/EN)

前言 Foreword

《東南亞公民空間緊縮趨勢與東南亞四國的結社權現況探討》

Download 下載報告

這份報告是由來自台灣及東南亞四個國家的共十個具備法案倡議和個案訴訟經驗的公民社會組織共同撰寫而成，旨在描繪並替一個棘手的問題提出有價值與操作性的政策建議：「結社權」在印尼、馬來西亞、泰國與菲律賓這四個與台灣鄰近的東南亞國家，究竟遭逢了什麼挑戰和限制，使人們無法受到法律保護並不受干預的長期集結、發展公民社會組織以推動人權、正義及其他公共利益？這樣的負面發展如何影響區域公民社會發展？

當前，東南亞公民空間緊縮的步伐未見減緩，無論對個人（如：行動者、人權捍衛者、記者、律師、性少數群體等），或者集體（公民社會組織、政治團體、工會等），管制和騷擾都大幅提升且形成趨勢。公民空間是人們可以聚集表達反對意見、進行公共辯論和發展集體行動以促進群體利益的場域，民眾透過集會遊行與結社來監督政治權力、推進社會正義與其他群體利益。公民空間的開放程度直接影響了所有人行使包含集會、結社和言論自由等基本人權受保障的程度。換句話說，公民空間緊縮將使所有人的權利遭受程度不一的侵害，也將我們置於風險或更為直接的危險中。

針對公民空間緊縮的研究很多，大多關注在更具急迫性的言論與集會自由，針對結社權的討論或個案資料很少，目前也尚沒有涵蓋東南亞所有國家結社權的報告出版。因此，這份報告在此刻出版的特殊性在於（一）呈現並分析四個東南亞國家的結社權法規政策現況。在泰國、印尼與馬來西亞的章節中，我們（二）以一手訪談提供實際個案作為分析素材以描繪更為現實的結社權現況。由於（三）書寫主體是在這些區域長期行動的公民社會組織，這份報告更加重視公民團體在不同政治社會脈絡下的實際經驗與應對策略，並能提出更符合公民社會需求的政策建議。這份報告（四）擴充對結社權的理解，探討結社權並非只是分析公民社會組織依法立案的程序，而是包含組織是否受法律保護具備募款自由、公民社會組織與政府間是否具備對話之穩定管道、組織對受聘僱員工的保護及政府以至於社會是否對公民社會組織等具備敵意或接納等面向。

結社權至少受到《公民政治權利公約》、《人權捍衛者宣言》以及國際勞工組織的《結社自由及保障組織權利公約》在內的國際法保障。值得注意的是，雖然結社權和集會權在國際法框架下具有較高的關聯性和互補性，例如：這兩項最基本的公民政治權利由同一位聯合國特別報告員（Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association）負責，但它們的本質和應用範疇相當不同，進而遭受限制的型態與後果也因此不同。因此，當我們探究如何改革與保障單一項權利時，我們必須在理解它們高度關聯卻是相互獨立的權利的前提下，更為謹慎的區分結社權與集會遊行權。這本報告討論的主題「結社權」是指更具備時間持久性、組織架構與內部規範、組織營運與存續性、財政與聘雇等範疇的公民社會組織化活動，並非相對而言即時性、臨時性、短期性和自發性的集會遊行集體行動。

撰寫這份報告所遭逢的困難莫過於理解各個國家法律與社會脈絡下結社權的真實樣貌，共同為保障結社權想像一個符合本區域現實的標準和理想實踐，並發展在各國或區域層級實際推行結社權保障的策略。我們希望透過出版這份報告，讓更多公民社會組織、區域與國際組織、政府與立法機構能夠重視結社權保障，並盡力使各國有關結社權的政策符合國際人權法。下一階段，本研究小組也將持續發展推動結社權保障的策略與進行更具比較性的研究。

林文亮

亞洲公民未來協會執行長

FOREWORD: The Shrinking Civic Space in Southeast Asia and the Current Status of the Freedom of Right to Association in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines

This report is jointly written by ten civil society organizations from Taiwan and four Southeast Asian countries, all of which possess extensive experience in legislative advocacy, legal research or litigation. The objective of this report is to demonstrate the current status of the Freedom of Right to Association in the four Southeast Asian countries and to provide valuable and practical policy recommendations on a critical issue: What challenges and restrictions does the right to association face in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines—four neighboring Southeast Asian countries—that prevent individuals from forming long-term associations, developing civil society organizations, and advancing human rights, justice, and other public interests, under adequate legal protection?

Currently, the pace of shrinking civic space in Southeast Asia shows no signs of slowing down. Both individuals (such as activists, human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, LGBTQ+ communities, etc) and collectives (civil society organizations, political groups, trade unions, etc) face significantly increased levels of restriction and harassment, forming a troubling trend. Civic space serves as a vital arena where people can gather to express dissenting opinions, engage in public debate, and take collective action to promote the interests of their communities or the broader society. Through assemblies and associations, citizens hold political power accountable, advance social justice, and safeguard human rights and collective interests. The degree to which civic space remains open directly influences how well fundamental rights—such as the freedoms of assembly, association, and expression—are protected for everyone. In other words, the shrinking of civic space leads to varying degrees of violation on the rights of all individuals, placing us at risk, or in some cases, in more immediate danger.

There is extensive research on the shrinking of civic space, with most studies focusing on the more urgent issues of freedom of speech and assembly. However, discussions and case data on the right to association are scarce, and there has yet to be a report covering the right to association in all Southeast Asian countries. Thus, this report is unique in that it (1) demonstrates and analyzes the current state of laws and policies concerning the right to association in four Southeast Asian countries. In the chapters on Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia, (2) we provide real-life case studies, offering a more practical depiction of the current situation regarding the right to association. Since (3) the report is authored by civil society organizations that have been actively operating in these regions for a long time, it places significant emphasis on the actual experiences and response strategies of these groups in different political and social contexts, enabling it to provide policy recommendations that are more aligned with the needs of civil society. Furthermore, (4) this report expands the understanding of the right to association, exploring it not only as the legal registration process of civil society organizations, but also addressing whether organizations enjoy legal protection and the freedom to fundraise, whether there are stable channels for dialogue between civil society and governments, how organizations protect their hired employees, and whether the government and society at large exhibit hostility or acceptance toward civil society organizations.

The right to freedom of association is guaranteed by major international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, and the International Labour Organization's Convention on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise. It is worth noting that, although the rights to association and assembly are highly interrelated and complementary within the framework of international law — for instance, both of these fundamental civil and political rights fall under the mandate of the same UN Special Rapporteur (Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association) — their nature and scope of application are significantly different. Consequently, the types of restrictions they face and the resulting consequences also vary. Therefore, when we explore how to reform and safeguard any single right, it is critical to carefully distinguish between the right to association and the right to peaceful assembly, understanding that they are closely connected yet distinct rights.

This report focuses on the right to association, which refers to more enduring, structured, and organized activities within civil society. It encompasses aspects such as organizational structure and internal regulations, the operational sustainability of organizations, financial matters, and employment. This contrasts with the more immediate, temporary, short-term, and spontaneous nature of collective actions, such as assemblies and demonstrations.

One of the main challenges in drafting this report has been understanding the true nature of the right to association within the legal and social contexts of each country, and jointly envisioning a standard and ideal practice for the protection of the right to association that better aligns with the realities of this region. Additionally, formulating strategies for the effective implementation of such standards at both national and regional levels has posed significant challenges, particularly in the current political climate. Through the publication of this report, we hope to raise awareness among civil society organizations, regional and international bodies, as well as governments and legislative institutions, encouraging them to prioritize the protection of the right to association and to ensure that relevant national policies comply with international human rights law. In the next phase, this research team will continue to develop strategies to promote the protection of the right to association and engage in more comparative studies.

Leah Lin

Executive Director, Asia Citizen Future Association (ACFA)

前言 Foreword

東南亞公民空間緊縮危機下，台灣如何建立在區域的角色？就從雨天送傘開始

Download 下載報告

文：亞洲公民未來協會執行長 林文亮

曼谷與香港曾是東亞及東南亞區域內重要的公民社會場域，這兩個豐富且具有活力的城市接納了區域內外的組織，各種議題、在地組織、行動者、國際基金、國際非政府組織(INGO)都能存在，各類倡議、培訓、組織活動、辯論與串聯都可能發生。今日，當我們仍痛心於香港血淚的境遇時，我們也已見證了過去曾被視為東南亞非政府組織首都的曼谷，對尋求庇護者而言已早已淪為危險叢林的事實。

公民空間從出現緊縮徵兆到徹底封閉的歷程是如此迅速。我們看見層出不窮的，以安全、公衛甚至其他進步名義施行的政治與社會控制，正張牙舞爪地進逼日常生活，導致行使基本人權的代價如此高昂。被判處重刑的不再只有最突出的社運領袖或政治異議家，公民社會組織的存續也危如累卵。在這樣的環境下，人們敏銳地察覺這條時而隱晦時而現形的紅線，甚至在踩到紅線之前早已懂得閃避。這條不由你我劃設的紅線，和人們逐漸提高規避意識和能力的過程，就是公民空間一寸一寸緊縮烙印在「普通人」身上的鐵證。

亞 洲 公 民 未 來 協 會(Asia Citizen Future Association, ACFA)成立的宗旨是連結台灣與東南亞的公民社會，並共同發展抵禦公民空間緊縮的能力與策略。有別於國際組織常見以提供個人避險遷移(relocation)與緊急資金(urgent grants)一類即時性與短期的援助，亞洲公民未來協會更加重視於建立有利台灣與東南亞公民社會合作的基礎建設。我們相信，支持跨公民社會維持對話與日常連結，才能產生抵禦的知識和行動;而不間斷的行動，才能稱為韌性 (resilience)。同時，組織作為許多個人的集 體，擁有組織規章、治理與文化，更存在有別於個人行動者的需求，在公民社會與運動中皆扮演關鍵角色。因此，提供公民社會組織(civil society organization, CSO)存續的條件與支援，是迎戰公民空間緊縮的關鍵。推動跨公民社會 合作的基礎建設，是區域內一個務實且緊迫的目標，當前仍缺少一些關鍵條件，有待我們共同努力創造。

亞洲公民未來協會的「台灣對東南CSOs的可近性(accessibility)」研究案，與這份《探索台灣在東南亞區域公民空間緊縮下的角色》報告，是亞洲公民未來協會第一年的重要成果，同時是我們對「東南亞公民空間緊縮的危機下，台灣可以扮演什麼角色?」的一次回應。

本研究的核心問題是:台灣作為鄰近東協區域的民主國家，是否有能力提供具備包容性的替代性公民空間(alternative civic space)，接待來自東南亞正激增的尋求庇護 CSOs，以減輕東南亞公民空間緊縮危機對組織與行動者造成的直接負面影響。藉由承擔保護人權捍衛者的責任，維護他們行使人權與追求正義的動能，進一步支持區域內的民主與人權發展。

本研究涵蓋兩大面向，並在最後兩章節提出給台灣政府及國際資助者的政策建議。

透過訪談在台設立之國際/外國公民社會組織，本研究分析外籍人士在台設立社會組織、聘雇、納稅及社會保險之現況與挑戰，以討論台灣公民空間對東南亞 CSOs 的可近性。透過文本分析，足見台灣結社相關法規仍和國際人權 法與規範存在明顯不一致。相關立法除了仍以「管制」為核心思維，《人團法》更限制了社會組織僅能以「協會」一種形式立案，並針對發起人人數、發起人資格、戶籍等設有限制，導致依法結社不易。

另一方面，基於全球範圍內現存之東南亞公民空間緊縮研究成果，本研究深度訪談來自七個東南亞國家的組織及其決策者，著重於理解他們在高壓環境下持續從事組織活動的相應策略與需求。組織遷移至海外，本質上可視為組織主動控制風險與應對威脅的一種行動，身處公民空間緊縮的危機與趨勢中，單單以流亡來描繪組織搬遷至海外的行動，或許已不足夠真正理解這項決策的影響力。本研究並非試圖以七 個組織的個別經驗普遍化東南亞 CSOs 在公民空間緊縮下的處境;相反，透過理解面臨危殆的組織應對各自處境所採行的多元策略及思維過程，可以使我們理解對東南亞 CSOs 遷移決策具備影響性的關鍵因素，使讀者理解東南亞 CSOs 對台灣作為替代性公民空間抱持的觀點與評價，更可能促使台灣更務實的理解自身條件與思索台灣在區域中的角色。

東協作為一個政治集體，在安全、經濟與主權議題上利益紛雜，本身就難以統合出集體議程。近年隨著中美角力與地緣政治急遽變化，東協個別成員國如今更是越來越難保持以往的等距外交與舒適立場。這樣的態勢如何影響東南亞境內的公民社會，這樣的影響如何牽動台灣與區域公民社會本身就稀薄的關係，值得我們持續關注。基於這樣的關心和理解，或許台灣可以逐漸擺脫自身在東南亞區域內始終模糊不清的角色，主動走下民主「神壇」，嘗試重新探索與鄰近的東南亞建立實際連結與合作的方式。

作者: 亞洲公民未來協會研究團隊

林文亮|研究計畫主持人

楊俐英|研究計畫研究員

2023 年 8 月於台灣出版

Copyright © 2023 Asia Citizen Future Association 版權所有。

如需請求許可，請寄 Email 至社團法人亞洲公民未來協會信箱: contact@acfa.tw

FOREWORD: When Civil Society Organizations Are Seeking Asylum, Is Taiwan an 'Alternative Civic Space' for Them?

Bangkok and Hong Kong were once significant regional hubs for civil society organizations in East and Southeast Asia. Both vibrant and abundant cities hosted organizations from within and outside the region. Grassroots organizations, activists, international foundations, and international non- governmental organizations (INGOs) carried out all kinds of advocacy, trainings, debates, networking, and collaborations for various issues in these hubs. Today, we are still grieving for the bloodshed and crisis in Hong Kong. But we are, at the same time, witnessing Bangkok—once considered the NGO capital of Southeast Asia—becoming a dangerous jungle for asylum seekers, human rights defenders, dissidents and CSOs.

It was a quick process from the initial signs of the deterioration of civic space to its total closure. We have seen a proliferation of political and social control, with the justifications of national security, public health, development, and so forth, pushing their way into our everyday life—making the practice of fundamental human rights costly. Heavy criminal offenses are no longer reserved for prominent social movement leaders or political dissidents, but the survival of civil society organizations (CSOs) are themselves at stake. In such an environment, people become keenly aware of the sometimes subtle, sometimes visible “red line”, and come to know how to avoid and not to step on it. This “red line” and the gradual process where people learn to be aware of it and to avoid it, is the hard evidence of the shrinking civic space that has come to gradually entrap the ‘ordinary people’.

The Asia Citizen Future Association (ACFA) was established with an aim to connect the civil societies among Taiwan and Southeast Asia and to develop the capacity and strategies to defend civic space. Compare to international organizations that tend to provide short-term urgent grants and individual relocation aid, ACFA focuses on building the infrastructure that facilitates collaboration between civil societies in Taiwan and Southeast Asia. We believe that the necessary support for cross-civil society dialogue and regular connections is what generates knowledge and actions for resistance, and that constant actions is what is known as resilience. At the same time, organizations, as collectives of individuals, which have organization charters, governance, and internal cultures of their own, inherently have different needs from the individual activists’ when confronting the threats of closing civic space. Organizations play crucial roles in both the civil society and social movements. Consequently, providing the necessary support for the survival of CSOs is the key to confront the deterioration of regional civic space. Establishing infrastructure for cross-civil society collaboration, then, is a pragmatic and urgent goal for the region, but for this to occur, there are a number of conditions that need to be met.

The research project "Scrutinizing the Accessibility of Taiwan for CSOs From Southeast Asia" and the research report "Exploring Taiwan's Role Amid the Crisis of Closing Civic Space in Southeast Asia" are the primary achievements of the first year of the Asia Citizen Future Association. This report is also our response to the pressing question: 'what role can Taiwan play amid the crisis of closing civic space in Southeast Asia?'

The central question of this research is: whether Taiwan, as a democracy adjacent to the ASEAN region, has the capacity to provide an inclusive 'alternative civic space' to accommodate the surge of asylum-seeking CSOs from Southeast Asia, so as to alleviate the challenge of closing civic space witnessed in Southeast Asia. By assuming the responsibility to protect human rights defenders and allowing them to maintain momentum in practicing human rights and pursue justice, we will be able to further support the development of democracy and human rights in the region.

This study covers two dimensions, with policy recommendations for the Taiwanese government and international donors in the final two chapters.

Through conducting interviews with INGOs and foreign CSOs that have established themselves in Taiwan, this study analyzes the present situation and challenges faced by foreigners when establishing social organizations. It focuses on areas such as employment, taxation, and social insurance in Taiwan. The goal is to gain a deeper understanding of the extent to which Taiwan's civic space is accessible to CSOs from Southeast Asia. Utilizing textual analysis, the study identifies notable inconsistencies between Taiwan's laws related to associations, human rights norms, and international human rights law. Notably, the 'Civil Associations Act' places restrictions on social organizations, limiting their registration to 'associations.' These restrictions encompass aspects such as household registration, the number and conditions of initiators, creating legal hurdles for association registration.

Drawing from existing research on the shrinking of civic space in Southeast Asia, this study conducts in-depth interviews with decision-makers from seven organizations in as many Southeast Asian countries. The primary aim is to comprehend the strategies and necessities pursued by these interviewees in sustaining their organizational activities within high-pressure environments.

Relocating organizations overseas can essentially be understood as a proactive measure, enabling them to manage risks and counteract threats. Our research finds that a mere categorization of relocations as acts of exile might fall short in truly grasping the motivations behind organizations' decisions to operate overseas.

The study does not attempt to make broad generalizations about the situation of CSOs in Southeast Asia solely based on the experiences of seven specific organizations. Instead, the study is aimed at comprehending the strategies and thought processes these organizations employ to deal with their unique situations. This understanding is crucial in identifying the key factors that influence the decisions of Southeast Asian CSOs to relocate.

Simultaneously, this approach empowers readers to gain insights into the nuanced perspectives of Southeast Asian CSOs regarding Taiwan as a potential 'alternate civic space'. This nuanced comprehension equips Taiwan to pragmatically assess its own conditions and contribute effectively to shaping its role within the region, particularly amidst the ongoing crisis revolving around the contraction of civic space.

As a political collective, ASEAN holds a diverse array of interests spanning security, economy, and sovereignty. This diversity often hinders the integration of a cohesive collective agenda. In the face of escalating tensions between the US and China, coupled with rapid shifts in geopolitics, maintaining equidistant diplomacy and hedging behavior becomes increasingly challenging for individual ASEAN member states. The repercussions of this evolving situation on civil society in Southeast Asia, as well as its impact on the delicate relationship between Taiwan and the regional civil society, demand our sustained attention. By fostering a deeper mutual understanding amidst these dynamics, Taiwan can gradually relinquish its ambiguous attitudes and step away from mere lofty ideal of democracy. This transition opens avenues for establishing pragmatic connections and fostering collaborations with its neighboring Southeast Asian countries.

Leah Lin, Executive Director & Founder

Asia Citizen Future Association

Authors:

Leah, LIN Wenliang, Research Team Leader  

Doris, YANG Liying, Researcher

Published by Asia Citizen Future Association (ACFA) in Taiwan

Copyright © 2023 Asia Citizen Future Association All rights reserved.

None of the materials provided in this report may be used, reproduced, distributed, or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without permission in writing from the publisher. To request such permission or for further enquiries, please write to: contact@acfa.tw