FOREIGN INTERFERENCE LAWS
IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
Deepening the Shrinkage of Civic SpaceFOREIGN INTERFERENCE LAWS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA:

Deepening the Shrinkage of Civic Space

February 2022
Asia CentreCopyright © 2022 Asia Centre. All rights reserved.
No part of this report in printed or electronic form may be reproduced, transmitted orutilised in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise,
without written permission of the Asia Centre.
Copyright belongs to Asia Centre unless otherwise stated.
Civil society organisations and educational institutions may use this report without
requesting permission on the strict condition that such use is not for commercial
purposes.
When using or quoting this report, every reasonable attempt must be made to identify
owners of the copyright.
Errors or omissions will be corrected in subsequent editions.
Requests for permission should include the following information:
The title of the document for which permission to copy material is desired.
A description of the material for which permission to copy is desired.
The purpose for which the copied material will be used and the manner in which it
will be used.
Your name, title, company or organization name, telephone number, e-mail address
and mailing address.
Please send all requests for permission to:
Asia Centre
128/183 Phayathai Plaza Building (17th Floor),
Phayathai Road, Thung-Phayathai,
Rachatewi, Bangkok 10400 Thailand
contact@asiacentre.org

CONTENTS
Page
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... V
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... VI
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
a Methodology ............................................................................................................... 1b Rhetoric of Foreign Interference ...................................................................................... 1
c The Global Emergence of Foreign Inference Laws ............................................................... 3
2 Foreign Interference Laws in Southeast Asia ........................................................................ 6a Existing Legislation ....................................................................................................... 6b Singapore’s Foreign Interference Act (FICA) ....................................................................... 8c Ongoing Legal Developments in the Region ...................................................................... 10
3 Impact on Cross-border Collaboration and Partnerships ........................................................ 12
a Shutting Down INGOs and NGOs ..................................................................................... 12b Blocking Foreign Funding .............................................................................................. 13
c Public Rebuke .............................................................................................................. 14
d Shift to Government Partnerships .................................................................................... 14
e Strategising Relocation and Remote Working ..................................................................... 15
4 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 17
5 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 18
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 19

Abbreviations
CSO
DFA

Civil Society Organisation
Department of Foreign Affairs (Indonesia)

FICA
HIC
INGO
MOU
NGO
OHCHR
PSP

Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (Singapore)
Hostile Information Campaign
International Non-Governmental Organisation
Memorandum of Understanding
Non-Governmental Organisation
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Politically Significant Person

SEA
UN

Southeast Asia
United Nations

US

United States

Executive Summary
There is a growing tendency to label collaboration between local civil society, organisations andindividuals working with INGOs, international aid-agencies and diplomatic missions as ‘foreigninterference’ from democratic and authoritarian governments alike. The purported aim is to preventthe manipulation by overseas entities on the basis that these entities are acting on behalf of foreign
governments or interests. This has provided justification for ‘NGO laws’ and other related legislation
being introduced in the region to contain strict provisions on ‘foreign interference’, monitoring andcontrolling the activities and funding of local CSOs, political parties and individuals. However, incountries without independent oversight mechanisms, such legislation often runs contrary tocommonly accepted human rights standards concerning freedom of expression and freedom of
association and presents a grave danger to the civic space in the region. Recently, many countries
have also adopted their own ‘foreign interference’ laws seeking to place the threat of foreigninterference at the centre of such laws, with aims of controlling any individuals and organisations
within the country. This holds the potential for an unprecedented shrinkage of civic space for thoseworking on civil and political rights.
In Southeast Asia, a comprehensive regulation against ‘foreign interference’ was first found in
Singapore’s ‘Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act’ or FICA (2021). It confers a wide range ofvague powers to the government to oversee activities and funding sources of who it designates aspolitically significant. Developments in Singapore have spurred momentum in countries in the region
to similarly adopt provisions against foreign interference in their updated NGO laws, while some haveannounced plans to pursue their own version of FICA.
The introduction of laws aimed at curbing ‘foreign interference’ has its consequences. It has resulted
in the government shutting down INGOs, CSOs and blocking access to foreign funds. Even without
these laws, the government has threatened and rebuked some organisations publicly as foreign
agents. This has caused INGOs, development aid agencies and embassies to reassess their operations
and strategy in Southeast Asia. As a result, there is a shift among aid agencies and diplomatic missions
to engage and spend resources on government partnerships to reduce risks. In other cases, INGOs
opt to shut down their country offices and relocate outside the region and consider remote working
for their in-country staff. Overall, this impacts the future of civic space as foreign interference laws
make it challenging for cross-border partnerships and the receipt of funds in the region.
To address these concerns, the report offers some recommendations. The primary actions that must
be swiftly taken is to repeal these problematic laws. Additionally, public education is needed to clear
the negative perception of genuine cross-border collaboration as foreign interference.
Parliamentarians and international organisations share the burden of overseeing the Government
labelling of cross-border collaboration as foreign interference. At the same time, local organisations
should also become more self-sustaining through crowdfunding, relying less on third-party funding,domestic or otherwise.

Executive Summary
The rapidly shrinking civic space coming about as Southeast Asian governments move to adopt
restrictive laws under the guise of protecting against foreign interference poses a major concern.
Individuals, CSOs, INGOs, diplomatic missions and aid agencies have been more watchful of what
they do and who they collaborate with, while governments clamp down on their foreign sources offunds and their activities. These laws and rhetoric have reversed decades of progress in terms of civilpolitical rights and democratisation, even more so as the civil society sphere as a whole finds it harderand harder to voice their concerns over the authoritarian conducts of regional governments. It is thus
critical that foreign interference laws in the region be repealed and the work of these organisations beprotected.

Introduction

1 Introduction
There is a global emergence of ‘anti-foreign interference’ laws or ‘NGO (Non-Governmental Organisation)’laws that aim to control cross-border collaborations in the name of deterring foreign influence andprotecting national security. This has entrenched the shrinkage of civic space as governments infringe
upon the rights and freedoms of individuals, civil society organisations (CSOs), international nongovernmental organisations (INGOs), diplomatic missions and other agencies working on civil and politicalrights to organise and express their concerns. This report seeks to review developments in laws related to‘foreign interference’, with a specific focus on how these laws have evolved over time and how they are1
being introduced in Southeast Asia specifically. It also reviews the laws’ impacts in terms of offices being
shut down, organisations being denied access to foreign funding and members being publicly
condemned as foreign agents. The phenomena of shifting to government partnerships and relocation will
also be discussed. Asia Centre, following a review of the situation in the region, makes some concrete
recommendations to address the impact on civic space.

1a Methodology
Desk research for the baseline study was undertaken from December 2021 to February 2022. The researchcovers political and legal developments related to the attempts to bar foreign interference in Southeast
Asia. It examines existing and emerging legislation that specifically targets and puts limits on foreign
influence on individuals, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), media outlets, parliamentarians, politicalleaders and political parties. Other documents consulted include United Nations (UN) documents thatoutline international standards on cross-border collaborations and evaluative reports by internationalorganisations. As part of this study, the Asia Centre research team participated in three workshop sessions,on 29 November 2021, 23 December 2021 and 26 January 2022, that were held among researchers of theTokyo Democracy Forum 2022 during which the team presented its interim findings and sought feedback.
The research takes into account inputs from a questionnaire sent to the participants of these workshops on
their views and draw’s from Asia Centre’s participant observation. The consolidated findings were
presented at the Tokyo Democracy Forum 2022, 14-15 February 2022 and the report was further revised
following the feedback received.

1b Rhetoric of Foreign Interference
Collaborations by INGOs, aid agencies and diplomatic missions with local individuals and organisations arethat which governments have portrayed as inherently ‘foreign interference’. The specific interferences
cited are funding of local CSO activities, meetings by embassy officials with civil society representative,
election candidates and opposition parties, statements and reports on human rights issued by foreign
government agencies and INGOs and stints of international education and visitor programmes are labelled
as acts of interfering in domestic affairs or influencing individuals and organisations. These and othersimilar rhetoric had been used to designate individuals and organisations as foreign agents, especially iftheir activities are critical of policies of the sitting government. Hence, it is not uncommon for governments
to argue that resistance to government policy is due to foreign agitators.
The political upsets of 2016 highlight this new danger: hostile foreign powers may exploit newtechnologies such as social media and various forms of advocacy to interfere with the domestic politics of a1

1 This report forms part of Asia Centre’s work in tracking developments related to 'foreign interference' laws
and how they affect civic space in the region. There are plans to revise and update the research here into a
new report at a later date.

Introduction
nation in a clandestine manner in service of their own agenda and often to the detriment of the recipient
nation. The most famous example is Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 US election to ensure thevictory of Donald Trump by a concentrated misinformation campaign through social media (Hosenball,2020). Moreover, in a Facebook study of disinformation campaigns in more than 50 countries during 20172020, it uncovered Russia as a top source of these ‘coordinated inauthentic behaviours’ – totalling 27
networks (Facebook, 2021). One such case was its sustained information operations in Ukraine since 2014.
Ukraine has seen an uptick of these operations in December 2021 and January 2022 with claims that the
US is planning a chemical attack on Russian-speakers in Ukraine or that NATO is similarly planning to attack
pro-Russia Ukrainians. The campaign has had results as far as South America and Africa, whose
populations have been more on the fence on whether to see the US or Russia as perpetrator of the
Ukrainian crisis (Barnes, 2022).

Figure 1: Rhetoric of Foreign Interference

Local CSOs
Foreign Funded

INGOs
Foreign Agents

Election
Manipulation

Embassy
Interference

Similarly, the People’s Republic of China has been accused of exploiting its growing influence andpresence on the international stage to interfere in the domestic affairs of various target countries. One caseof note is Australia, where China used means of clandestine lobbying of various interest groups. This has
included, to name a few, monetary incentives to politicians, threats to mobilise Chinese-Australians and coopting Chinese media and local CSOs to promote pro-Beijing narratives (Searight, 2020). In Southeast Asia,
it has strengthened ties with Chinese media outlets and with the Chinese diaspora across the region, while
offering technical support in telecommunications and education to the governments in Cambodia and
Myanmar (International Republican Institute, 2019). It has been maintaining good relations with theleadership in Laos and Cambodia – two countries arguably most friendly to it – while helping the rulingparties to stay in power. This is similar in Myanmar, where it has been currying favours with the militaryelites (Ibid.). China’s concurrent connection with insurgent ethnic groups, has contributed to theprolonged Myanmar’s internal conflict, despite both the military and the ex-civilian leadership’s desire toend the war (Ibid.). Singapore also has similar concerns of Chinese information operations asserting the
Chinese identity, playing on the country’s ethno-religious diversity (Yahya, 2018). The Philippines saw amore confrontational approach of interference, when bots and fake accounts were used to influence online
debate on the issue of the South China Sea (Chieu and Deng, 2020).

Table 1: Concerns of Foreign Interference in Democratic and Authoritarian Regimes
Democratic
Cyberattacks: Disrupting official government websites, online
services, electronic voting systems and internet infrastructure
Educational Institutions: Covert funding of research and teaching
institutions to influence opinions or steal intellectual property
Elections: Influencing political parties and influencing election
outcomes through online content manipulation
Funding: Covert funding to institutions and persons that can
influence the democratic values and institutions
Media: Actions towards media outlets or media professionals to
encourage or dissuade publications in the interests of a foreign
state
NGOs: Covert funding, partnership or involvement aiming to
disrupt NGOs operations or influence their ability to collaborate
with their partners
Terrorism: Encouraging, funding, offering protection to persons
planning or having committed acts of terrorism locally andabroad2

Authoritarian
Civil Society Empowerment:
Barriers against local civil society
organisations’ ability to advocate
for issues
Loss of Economic Monopolies:
Safeguards economic control,
including corrupt access, to ensure
ability to perpetuate stay in power
Loss of Political Power: Protect
political control against creation of
independent institutions whichchallenge its central authority
Western Interventionism: Against
political ideas and values that may
challenge the views of those inpower

Introduction
For Southeast Asian governments, what is more readily accused as ‘foreign interference’ aredemocratisation and development work by local CSOs and their international partners. The idea that
advocacy for human rights and democratisation is somehow a foreign plot to bring down the government
is not a new one and has been creeping into government rhetoric in Southeast Asia and other non-Westerncountries for a while. However, hybrid and authoritarian governments are increasingly turning tolegislation. Beyond portraying and attacking their critics as puppets or mouthpieces for foreign interests,
emerging laws facilitate surveillance, control activities and block foreign funding. This evolution fromrhetoric to legislative action is the main focus of this report. This chapter provides a basic overview of the
global trends in adopting such laws before proceeding to explore the situation specifically in Southeast
Asia in the coming chapters.

1c The Global Emergence of Foreign Interference Laws
While the rhetoric of ‘foreign interference’ is not uncommon in Southeast Asia, the region has witnessed
adoption of laws and even stronger rhetoric since 2020 as part of a larger global trend. This is evident fromthe fact that there is often significant similarity between the laws adopted in Southeast Asia and outside theregion, such as that of Russia. Accordingly, a fitting starting point will be to review this larger global trend.
This section provides a review of a selection of NGO and anti-foreign interference laws across the globe
prior to moving on specifically to Southeast Asia.

RussiaThe global rise of these ‘foreign interference laws’ reflects on growing anxiety surrounding the increasing
sophistication of governments’ ability to clandestinely interfere with each other’s domestic politics. One
should be hardly surprised that the Russian Federation, who has been accused of being most active insuch clandestine interference in recent years, is also at the forefront of anti-foreign interference laws, often
exploited to stifle civil society most critical to its rule. The country has a slew of anti-foreign interference andNGO laws, and it is usually considered to be the progenitor of such legislation.
In 2012, it adopted ‘On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation Regarding theRegulation of the Activities of Non-Commercial Organizations Performing the Functions of a Foreign
Agent’. The amendment defines non-commercial enterprises as foreign agents if they receive funds fromabroad (Russian Federal Assembly, 2012). It establishes the narrative of characterising foreign-supported
NGO as instruments of the agenda of foreign powers, a narrative which permeates to laws in othercountries; and more generally, it has also been used to classify NGO working on domestic violence, LGBT
rights and anti-corruption as ‘foreign agents’. Organisations registered as foreign agents are subject tospecial registration and monitoring rules (Library of Congress, 2015).
In 2015, Russia adopted ‘On Amending Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation’, popularly
known as the ‘undesirable organisations law’. The law criminalises the work of NGOs that the government
has designated as undesirable by a fine of up to ~$6400 or incarceration of 2 to 6 years. Once designatedas such, an NGO may not (a) open any offices in the country, (b) publish any materials in the country or (c)launch any projects in the country (Russian Federal Assembly, 2015). In 2021, further amendments wereadded that require all materials related to a ‘foreign agent’ NGOs to be labelled as originating from aforeign agent with a fine of ~$5000 for failing to do so (Library of Congress, 2015). The move is seen as
seeking to characterise the values and norms promoted by the country’s civil society as alien to Russia anda ploy by foreign interests to undermine the security of the state.

3

Introduction

Hungary
The conservative government of Hungary has followed the suit of Russia in developing its own NGO laws.
This is hardly surprising in light of the ruling FIDESZ party’s friendly relations with Putin, despite the party’s
anti-Soviet origins. In 2017, Hungary adopted its own NGO funding law that sought to monitor the use offoreign funds by NGOs in the country. The law classified such organisations as ‘organisations receiving
foreign funds’. The details of these NGOs were to be published on the Civil Information Portal, including thesource of the funds (Hungarian National Assembly, 2017; EURACTIV, 2021). The law showed a lot ofsimilarities to the 2012 Russian law in its objective to characterise foreign NGO as instruments of foreign
powers. The law was repealed in 2021 (Amnesty International, 2021). However, the law is to be replaced by
new requirements concerning NGOs, including a requirement to submit to a yearly audit by the State Audit
Office, a requirement to which sport or religious organisations are exempted (EURACTIV, 2021; Amnesty
International, 2021). While the laws in Hungary were weaker than those observed in Russia, they still
demonstrate a hostile attitude towards the work of NGOs in similar ways to their Russian counterpart.

PolandIn 2017, Poland adopted the ‘National Freedom Institute Act’, which created a central government
authority to disperse public and EU funds within the CSO sphere (LibertiesEU, 2017; HFHR, 2017; OSCE
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 2017). The institute gives an opportunity to thegovernment to punitively distribute funds away from organisations that do not fall in line with thegovernment. In 2020, the Ministry of Environment also announced that it seeks to make the country’s civilsociety sphere more transparent by publishing the funding of various NGOs, following the model set up by
Hungary (Reuters, 2020).

India
In 2020 India passed the ‘Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill’, a follow up to the ‘Foreign
Contribution (Regulation) Act’ of 2010, which places severe limits on foreign funding to civil society. Under
the act, an organisation of political nature may not accept foreign funds. An organisation can be
designated as ‘of political nature’ even if it is not a political party (Parliament of India, 2010). The
amendment adds public servants to this list, i.e. anyone who is in service or paid by the government or
remunerated by the government for the performance of any public duty (PRS India, 2020). This opens
individuals such as lecturers to the jurisdiction of the Act. Persons or organisations ‘having a definite
cultural, economic, educational, religious or social programme’ can accept foreign contributions only if
registered with the government (Parliament of India, 2010). Contributions can only be accepted through asingle account in a designated bank, classified as an ‘FCRA account’ and no other funds can be depositedin such an account. Under the amended act, it is illegal to transfer foreign contributions from a registeredentity to others. There are also restrictions on how the funds can be used: for example, only 20% can beused for administrative expenditure (PRS India, 2020). The Act clearly erects administrative barriers to makethe receiving and management of foreign funds difficult for those who are not outright banned fromreceiving such support in the first place.

4

Introduction

Australia
In 2018, Australia passed two legislations, the ‘Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill and the
Espionage and Foreign Interference Bill’ (Library of Congress, 2018), to deter foreign interference. The
transparency scheme requires individuals or entities to register specific activities done on behalf of aforeign principal, such as lobbying, communication or disbursement. Australia maintains a ‘transparency
registrar’ to list all registered activities under the scheme. The laws are a reflection of growing anxiety
concerning interference from the People’s Republic of China in the country’s affairs (BBC, 2018).
Based on the laws above, one can see that foreign interference laws or provisions within NGO laws havethe common characteristics of seeking to erect administrative or other barriers to the effective functioningof individuals and organisations with cross-border ties in the name of transparency, national security and/or
preventing money laundering. The tactics utilised are common: there is a deliberate attempt to equatecross-border collaboration and funding as foreign interference. ‘Foreign interference’ is often exploited byauthoritarian governments to limit political participation. Extreme forms of these laws seek to actively
interfere with the day-to-day working of individuals and organisations and to give the government theauthority to determine who and in what manner can receive foreign assistance of any kind.
Under these laws, it is becoming increasingly difficult, if not virtually impossible for cross-bordercollaborations to take place if they do not do so at the pleasure of the governments’ interpretation of vague
laws. International partnerships are increasingly viewed as avenues to spread foreign norms and values,
without considering that cross-border partnerships are part of the work INGOs, development aid-agencies
and diplomatic missions undertake globally. The next section will examine the status of foreigninterference laws in Southeast Asia specifically.

5

Foreign Interference Laws in Southeast Asia

2 Foreign Interference Laws in Southeast Asia
The previous chapter has taken a global outlook at how rhetoric of foreign interference is matched by thegrowing adoption of laws seeking to combat them. Governments wield blunt instruments and often use
these fears as justification for cracking down on civil society, impeding advocacy and stifling dissent in thename of protecting national security. This chapter looks at (1) existing laws in Southeast Asia governing
local civils society’s relationship with foreign entities, specifically of (2) Singapore’s introduction of ‘Foreign
Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA)’ and how it represents an evolution on the regional baselineand (3) the region’s potential to follow suit to the detriment of civil space.

2a Existing Laws
Much of the Southeast Asian region has adopted laws that hinder the place restriction on political activities,
operation of political parties and other civil society or mass organisations. Foreign interference laws andprovisions focus on implementing bureaucratic barriers that only allow organisations that may have ordevelop political influence to operate at the pleasure of the Government as well as stepping up monitoringof financial matters. Individuals, political parties and CSOs negatively framed as agents of foreign interests
are subject to surveillance and face restrictive operating conditions.

Figure 2: Provision of Existing NGO Laws
Registration

Financial
Oversight

Activity
Oversight

Expulsion,
Criminalisation

Cambodia
In 2015, Cambodia passed the ‘Law on Associations and Non-Governmental Organizations’. The law
requires foreign NGOs to register with the government or seek government approval for any short-term
projects (Art. 12). Essentially, an NGO wishing to implement a project in the country needs to enter into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the government, valid for 3 years and subject to extension
afterwards. By law, NGOs must maintain neutrality towards any political party in Cambodia (Art. 24). The
law directs the government to immediately stop the work of any foreign NGO that is not registered or had
its MOU suspended, including expelling foreign personnel working for that NGO. NGOs have the obligation
to report their finances to the Government yearly (Art. 25). Article 35 specifies that the Government may
terminate the MOU if the foreign association does not adhere to the MOU, or ‘conducts activities whichharm security, stability, and public order, or endanger the national security, national unity, culture, goodtraditions and customs of Cambodian national society’ (OHCHR, 2015). The law means that any foreign
NGO must operate in the country at the sole discretion of the Government and an MOU can be refused
without clear procedural grounds (Library of Congress, 2015).
In October 2021, a constitutional amendment was passed into law barring politicians with dual citizenshipto hold positions as speaker of the two Houses, head of the constitutional council and as a PM. The bid, by
Hun Sen to prove loyalty to the country and denounce oppositions who had lived in exile and gained
foreign citizenship, was justified as to ‘avoid foreign interference’ in the country’s domestic andinternational affairs (Reuters, 2021b).

6

Foreign Interference Laws in Southeast Asia

Indonesia
In 2013, Indonesia accepted the draft bill for the ‘Law on Mass Organization’. The law grants thegovernment power to screen any mass organisation in the country with the exception of the two largest
Islamic organisations operating prior to independence. The law requires any mass organisations to: (a)register and secure permits from the government, (b) uphold the unity of the nation, (c) maintain religious,
cultural and moral values, (d) preserve public order and (e) promote the state’s ideals or Pancasila.
Violations of the rules are punishable by the temporary suspension of the organisation’s operations or the
disbandment of the organisation (Library of Congress, 2013).
The law diminishes political participation from a wide range of actors and can be used to suppress a wide
range of civil society organisations and NGOs, especially those of foreign origin. International organisations
face nebulous demands not to disrupt the national unity of Indonesia or the diplomatic ties of the country
as well as face excessive bureaucratic controls such as having minimum 5 years of consecutive residency
in the country and $1 million prior to their establishment (CIVICUS, 2013). It is also stipulated thatinternational NGOs must not perform any political activities, profit-making or commercial activities and any
activity for fund-raising purposes. More broadly, is that INGOs could only work within the scope of the MOU
with the Ministry of Foreign Affair, a prerequisite condition to establishing a presence in Indonesia(Simbolon & Partners Lawfirm, n.d.). These conditions are applied discriminatorily against INGOs, denoting
them a potential risk to national security.
In July 2017, President Joko Widodo issued a decree amending the Mass Organisation law allowing thegovernment to sidestep the once lengthy court procedures to disband organisations that are deemed as athreat to national security (Aljazeera, 2017), a decree which was passed into law in October of the same
year (Almanar, 2017).

Laos
Laos’s Decree Associations No. 238 of 2017, in effect since November 2017, updated its previous law on
associations with articles requiring NGOs’ assets to be reviewed by authorities and requiring activities to bein-line with laws, regulations and official party policy (RFA, 2018). In a joint letter to repeal the Decree, rights
groups raised concerns that the law gives the Government power to control and monitor CSOs, order the
dissolution of said associations without the right to appeal and criminalise unregistered associations,allowing for prosecution of their members (CIVICUS, 2018). It also provides a vague power to the Ministryof Home Affairs to ‘discipline associations’ that disobeyed the law. Should an organisation request funding
from foreign sources, the request must also first be vetted and approved by the Government (RFA, 2018).

Malaysia
Malaysia has not yet adopted any new NGO law, instead it relies on 1966 ‘Societies Act’. The act requires‘societies’ to register with the Government, who can refuse the registration or declare a society illegal evenafter registration (Commissioner of Law Revision, Malaysia, 2006). In 2014, the Act was used to declare the‘Coalition of Malaysian NGOs in the UPR Process and Negare-Ku’ illegal on the basis of lacking official
registration (Amnesty International, 2019). The Malaysian example is not what one would strictly consider aforeign interference NGO law: it is not directed specifically at NGOs with foreign ties. But it can be used toachieve a similar effect at the government’s discretion.

7

Foreign Interference Laws in Southeast Asia

Philippines
In February 2021, Philippine’s Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) issued a directive addressed to all
diplomatic missions in the country that foreign government fundings for local NGOs must be coursed
through for appropriate clearance (Rocamora, 2021). The directive was in addition to a similar directive in2019 to European states to seek clearance with the DFA before funding CSOs in the Philippines (Mabasa,
2021). Justifying the move, Secretary Teodoro Loscin said that financial oversight of NGOs are part ofgovernment’s duty ‘in the face of insurgent and terrorist-secessionist threats’ (Reuters, 2021a). The move isunderstood as part of the country’s ongoing investigation and asset freezing of organisations theGovernment labelled as terrorists groups under the Anti-Terrorism Act and Terrorism Financing Prevention
and Suppression Act (Mabasa, 2021).
Overall, one can see that there are already strict laws present in the region to govern and limit the operationof local civil society, especially one with foreign ties. These laws represent the regional baseline: these laws
are designed to force these organisations to register and to open their books to the Government. There is a
special attention to creating a dichotomy between domestic and foreign organisations in virtually all ofthese laws: the goal is to portray ‘foreign-funded’ CSOs as alien to the country and representative of foreigninterests. Accordingly, CSOs with foreign ties face more bureaucratic hurdles and oversight compared totheir self- or domestically-funded counterparts. While the situation is not good in the region, it is expected
to get worse with the introduction of Singapore’s FICA law. FICA goes beyond the standard constraints oflegislation and financial monitoring: it actively deters foreign cooperation and provides the government
tools to isolate local civil society from the international community at large, including ordering cessation offoreign contacts and prohibiting foreign assistance or volunteers.

2b Singapore’s Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA)
As the previous section shows, the existing approach to NGO laws has been to erect bureaucratic barriers
through registration requirements. It has also been to classify these organisations as foreign if they are partof international efforts or receive assistance from abroad. Probing the source of funds has been a major
concern, but once an organisation has been established, the government maintains limited interferencewith their activities. Singapore’s new legislation, however, seeks to escalate the process by offering more
power to the Government to oversee the conduct of these organisations, while making central the threat of‘foreign agents’ in domestic politics.
In 2021, it introduced the ‘Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act’ (FICA). Officially, the Act seeks toempower the government to counter foreign interference in light of what it saw as the rise of high-profile
interferences in European and US politics (Ministry of Home Affairs, Singapore, 2021). The Act has twostated objective: (a) to empower the government to counter hostile information campaigns (HICs) such as
those suspected to be in play during the 2016 US election and BREXIT referendums and (b) to enhance‘protection’ to politically significant persons (PSP), a reflection on growing fears that foreign regimes mightseek to position compromised people for high office, a fear illustrated by the divisive presidency of Donald
Trump and the Australian political crisis surrounding the dual citizenship of members of parliament (ABCNews, 2017).
The act adopts a broad definition of what could potentially constitute foreign interference. It is defined as‘interference undertaken on behalf of a foreign principal’ (Parliament of Singapore, 2021). While the bill
devotes extensive space to definitions, ‘interference’ is defined simply as ‘interference, includes influence’8Foreign Interference Laws in Southeast Asia
(Ibid.). ‘Foreign principal’ covers any foreign entity and goes beyond a foreign government or governmentrelated individual (Ibid.). Essentially, the bill potentially defines foreign interference as any exercise of
influence in Singapore by a foreigner, with the only determining criteria being the government’s view thatsuch an act interferes with the politics of Singapore. The term ‘political aim’ covers any activities broadly
related to politics, from seeking to bring any change to a law in Singapore (8(e)) to influencing public
opinion on a matter of controversy (8(f)) and promoting or opposing views subject to political debate (8(g))(Ibid.). Essentially, any advocacy for political change or even engaging in political debate involving foreign
person or entity of any kind constitutes foreign interference.
The HIC provision seeks to counter online communications arising from fear of interference by malignforeign social media campaigns. The Ministry of Home Affairs assumes wide-reaching powers to identify,label and block such campaigns. The Government can direct entities involved in the dissemination of
information (social media platforms, internet service providers, website owners, etc.) not only to disable or
block certain content but to display messages mandated by the government; with the only legal thresholdto authorise these measures being if it is believed to be in the public interest. ‘Public interest’ includes
preventing any foreign interference towards a political end (7(f)) and preventing harming publicconfidence towards the government (7(e)). The same principles apply if the Minister suspects that suchactivity will or may take place (Ibid.). Under the definitions of the bill, any foreign-connected information
campaign that has political significance can be classified as a ‘HIC’ and accordingly ‘countered’. The billhas no definition of what constitutes foreign interference and potentially treats all acts of advocacy akin to
an attempt to undermine the government through covert means.
The PSP provisions of the law are equally problematic. While members of the Singaporean political sphere(members of parliament, political parties, etc.) are automatically designated as PSPs, the Government has
power to additionally designate any person or entity as a PSP. Section 47(a) states that a competentauthority may designate one as a PSP if their activities are directed towards the nebulous ‘political end’ as
discussed above, and 47(b) states that a competent authority may designate someone as a PSP if in their‘opinion’ it is in the public interest to apply the countermeasures specified in the act (Parliament ofSingapore, 2021). In practice, the government through the act has the power to designate any entity as a
PSP and apply the restrictions of the act. Under the act, once designated as a PSP, any gift or money orproperty (5a), any money lent on a non-commercial basis (5b), or the provision of any property, services(including the services of any persons) or facilities (5c) constitutes a political donation (Ibid.). Section 5(e)specifies that any contribution classifies as a political donation if it aims to cover the costs of the person’s
activity towards a political end. Theoretically the law would allow the Government to designate local CSOs
or academics as PSPs, and any assistance provided on a non-commercial basis, such as a research grant, toconstitute a political donation. The act imposes limitations on the acceptance of such political donations.
Under Section 67, the government may direct a designated PSP to not accept donations from specified
foreign entities and/or to return previously received donations. The donor is also required to disclose their
donations to such PSPs. Section 76 requires PSPs to disclose their foreign affiliations, which covers
everything from working for a foreign principal to being a member of a foreign principal or having any
association with a foreign principal, even if the principal is not directed at a political aim.
The act specifies ‘stepped up countermeasures’ at the disposal of the government: Section 83 may prohibit
foreigners from having membership with such PSPs, Section 84 may direct the PSPs to end affiliation with aforeign principal and Section 85 may prohibit the PSPs from accepting volunteer labour from foreigners.
Violating these provisions can result in steep fines and punishments. For accepting donations fromprohibited donors, one may face an up to ~$7400 fine or 12 months in jail, or both. For repeat offenders thefine is doubled, and the prison term is extended to 3 years. For violations of articles 83 to 85 one similarly
faces a fine up to ~$7400 or 12 months in jail. (Ibid.)

9

Foreign Interference Laws in Southeast Asia
The Government argues that it is not excessive because ‘the Minister can only issue a direction to stop
hostile information campaigns if he thinks this is a foreign involvement and it is in the public interest to doso’ (Ministry of Home Affairs, Singapore, 2021). Though, in practice, the Minister is not required to provethat there is foreign involvement taking place and the Government has broad mandate under its own
definition to determine the public interest, including protecting its own image. Once the ‘protective’
measures of the act are in place, there is limited recourse. There is no judicial review due to the invocationof state secrecy, and all appeals against HIC designation need to go through a Supreme Court Judge,
while PSP designations can be appealed through the Minister that issued the PSP designation in the firstplace (Ibid.).
The FICA bill incorporates elements of ‘NGO laws’ in the region, such as various reporting requirements
concerning foreign donations and affiliations, but it goes beyond by granting the government far reaching
mandates with minimal to no oversight to interfere with the work of entities it designates as politicallysignificant. FICA not only gives the government the authority to monitor or disclose foreign associations,but to actively prohibit any association or cooperation with a foreign principal or to replace any message
on the internet with its own. And it can do so with no oversight based on nebulous definitions that make noeffort to distinguish between threats to national security and messaging the Government disagrees with.
While existing NGO legislation in Southeast Asia has already been problematic, FICA pushes the envelope
further by seeking even more power for the Government to hinder the activities of political advocates andclassify any foreign association as a threat to Singapore’s sovereignty. The implications of FICA are far
reaching: it is likely that other regimes will follow suit, replicating the legislation and deflecting criticism bypointing out Singapore as a precedent.

2c Ongoing Legal Developments in the Region
There is an observable similarity between laws adopted by different regional governments: Indonesia’s
NGO law shows a lot of similarity to Cambodia’s, while both share similarities with their Russiancounterpart. The provisions of FICA display a lot of similarity with India’s Foreign Contribution Bill, pointing
to the potential for wider regional adoption of foriegn interference laws and provisions, with detrimental
effects on civic space.

Figure 3: Developments of 'Foreign Interference Laws' in the Region
Control
CSOs/INGOs

Copy Singapore

Threaten Audit

ThailandThe biggest push to enact laws over the conduct of NGO based in Thailand came about as a royalist group,the ‘Network of People Protecting the Royal Institution’, gained traction to expel Amnesty International andother NGO that undermine national security and the monarchy (Bangkok Post, 2021). As a result of this, theThai cabinet agreed in principle to the ‘Draft Act on Operations of Not-for-Profit Organisations’, which at thetime of drafting this report is in the process of entering into the legislature. The law adopts a broad
definition of ‘not-for-profit organisation’ that could potentially encompass all forms of associations.
Following the trend of previous NGO laws, the law would require such groups to register with the10Foreign Interference Laws in Southeast Asia
Government, making their operation conditional on the Government’s favour. However, the law would
grant ambiguous powers to the Government by allowing the Minister in charge of the act to dictate any
rules that NGO would need to comply with in order to not to run afoul of the law. Furthermore, if the NGO
accepts funds from non-Thai sources, it can only use it for activities that are approved by the Minister,
granting financial control to the government over foreign-funded organisations. In order to enforce thesestrict stipulations, the law would grant the authority to the Government to physically monitor the operationsof NGOs as well as to inspect all of their electronic communications. Non-compliance with the law would
impose stiff legal penalties, including a prison term of up to 5 years or a fine of up to ~$3,300 (Article19,2021). Thailand’s NGO bill proposal demonstrates a parallel to Singapore’s custodial sentences as
deterrent, compared to other regional legislations that emphasised the suspension of the activities of
CSOs, as well as a desire to directly interfere with the day to day operations of said organisations.

Indonesia
In December 2021, the Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs and Investment, Luhut Binsar Panjaitan,
threatened to audit NGOs in the country, accusing them of spreading false information. The threat cameafter environmental activists objected to the government’s data showing that deforestation was in decline(Diglogs, 2021). Later the minister’s spokesperson cited the audit as necessary for an increasedtransparency in the civil society, saying NGOs ‘have the potential to carry the interests of the funder’, andthat the public ‘has the right to obtain information about the source and use of NGO funds’ (Bhwana andMuthiariny, 2021).
Both the original threat by Panjaitan and the explanation given by his spokesperson share a similar view ofNGOs working as foreign agents seeking to delegitimise the Indonesian government and representing
foreign interest in the country under the guise of civil society work. This rhetoric is similar in narratives
leading up to Singapore’s FICA bill, which positions the centrality of the foreign threat. If Indonesia
successfully passes this audit into law, it will amend the terms in Law 17/2013 for NGOs with foreign funds,
giving it full oversight to the conduct and finance of NGOs.

Cambodia
The most direct case of using Singapore’s FICA bill as a call to action is in Cambodia. Despite its robust antiforeign interference rhetoric and NGO laws to persecute what the government deems as foreign agents(Tann, 2020), the Cambodian government announced in January 2022, that it is developing its own
foreign interference law using FICA as a model (Dara, 2022). Praising FICA as needed for Singapore to be
developed, independent and able to run itself ‘with no one giving orders’, the Spokesperson for the
Cambodian Interior Minister added that the law is needed to bar ‘colour revolution’. He also noted that thelaw would work in tandem with anti-terrorist and anti-money laundering legislation (Ibid.).
In order to stay in power, governments in the region share the common interest of extending their powerover civic space and stifling the operation of internationally funded CSOs – especially so if theseorganisations are extremely critical of the ruling authorities. FICA has not only set a precedent for otherstates to follow, but the existence of Singapore’s law will legitimise the adoption of similar laws in otherregional states that will deflect criticism by pointing to Singapore having had adopted a similar law. CSOs
have already been, and will continue to, face stigmatisation as foreign agents and have their work madeimpossible by bureaucratic barriers and active government interference. The next section of this report will
look at the impacts under the looming threat of legislation seeking to curtail cross-border collaborations.

11Impact on Cross-border Collaboration and Partnerships

3 Impact on Cross-border Collaboration and Partnerships
There are a number of key trends emerging in light of growing government restrictions and hostility
towards ‘foreign interference’. International and domestic organisations have either been denied
registration or have been shut down. Sources of funds have been questioned, stopped or have been used
as reason to halt or stop their operations. As a result there is a general sense of dread among INGOs, aid
agencies and diplomatic missions who are anxious to know more about these laws and how it might affectthem when they collaborate with CSOs and other organisations. Meanwhile, they are looking at other formsof work and modes of collaboration. This chapter examines how the foreign interference provisions andlaws have impacted cross-border collaboration and partnership.

Figure 4: Impact on Cross-border Collaboration and Partnerships
Shutting Down
Offices

Blocking Foreign
Funding

Public Rebuke

Government
Partnership

Relocation andRemote Working

3a Shutting Down INGOs and NGOs
The various foreign interference laws adopted by Southeast Asian countries make it very difficult for an
organisation to establish a presence in the region, or if already established, to maintain it. The bureaucratic
provisions of these laws give a lot of power to the government to hinder the establishment of theseorganisations or make it impossible to maintain one through various rules of registration, auditing andother forms of oversight.
In Malaysia, the Societies Act was used to declare several NGOs illegal for lack of registration and for goingagainst the national value: BERSIH in 2011 (CLJLaw, 2012), Negara-Ku in 2014 (Kanyakumari, 2014),
SUARAM, and the Sarawak Association for People’s Aspiration (FIDH, 2014). Notably, the declaration of
Coalition of Malaysian NGOs in the UPR Process (COMANGO) as illegal (2014) included the claim that thecoalition ‘champions rights that deviate from Islam’ in deregistering the coalition. The move is widelybelieved to be an act of reprisal by the Government following COMANGO’s submission of reports to be
used in the country’s UPR process (FIDH, 2014). This plus the red tape of registering NGOs through theSocieties Act, has traditionally pushed organisations to register as businesses. Some entities maintain asecond registration as a company limited by guarantee, however again that depends on approval from therelevant government department.
For Thailand, the Government’s effort to control and shut down NGOs was supplemented by its
coordinated informational operations targeting those critical of the military and the ruling government
through social media platforms and online blogs (Sattaburuth, 2021). The disinformation campaign has
successfully made the majority of the Thai population wary of NGOs in general (Fronde, 2022), especially if
the organisations have foreign connections, paving the way for easy enactment of its draft NGO law to shut
down NGOs. For example, in December 2021, a royalist group called for expelling Amnesty International, acall with the Government promptly endorsed. It promised that it will look into the organisation’s money trail
and possibly expel the organisation (Bangkok Post, 2021).

12

Impact on Cross-border Collaboration and Partnerships
Oftentimes, justification of MOU violation is also used as a basis to shut down ‘problematic’ organisations
and expel their foreign staff. Provisions of MOU in NGO laws of Cambodia, Indonesia and Laos already limit
the work of NGOs, INGOs and other such organisations to a vaguely-defined set of regulations, severely
limiting the scope of what activities could be undertaken. As a result, interpretation is up to theGovernment. For example, in 2017, Cambodia closed down the US registered branch of the National
Democratic Institute (NDI), an INGO primarily involved in promoting democratisation. The Government
argued that NDI had violated the local foreign interference law’s provisions of political neutrality byproviding support to opposition parties, without an MOU, and thus their operations were immediately
suspended and their foreign personnel expelled with a seven day notice (Meyn, 2017). However, the U.S.
Embassy in Phnom Penh stressed NDI had a valid MOU with the country’s electoral commission, and that
NDI had worked with both sides of the aisle on electoral communications and campaign (RFA, 2017). A
year prior, it also refused to renew an MOU with OHCHR, threatening to expel the Office unless a renewed
MOU included an explicit reference to the non-interference principle by UN and its staff (Davies, 2016). In
Indonesia, in 2020, the Indonesian branch of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) had its MOU with theIndonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry terminated. The official reasoning was that WWF wasworking on issues beyond the scope defined in the MOU. However, it is widely speculated that the move
was in reprisal to the public criticism that the Ministry was not working as much as WWF and after the
Ministry’s claim that WWF shifted the blame of the country’s to the Ministry (Jong, 2020).

3b Blocking Foreign Funding
Governments have also seized on the foreign funding to ferment anxiety about foreign interference.
Funding, including that form abroad, allows these organisations to operate, criticise and challenge theauthority of governments whose policies these entities disagree with. Regional Governments haveattacked local CSOs for their source of funding, with some enacting laws to block foreign funding
altogether.
In 2021, The Online Citizen (TOC), Singapore’s longest-running independent online media, was forced to
shut down following the suspension of its licence by the Infocomm and Media Development Authority due
to the organisation’s failure to declare all sources of its fundings (Kurohi, 2021). The Authority raised
concerns of TOC’s subscription model of fundraising, whereby it argued that posting subscriber-only
articles ‘could be an avenue for foreign influence’, as a loophole could be made for foreign subscribers to
pay for the TOC writing specific articles in their interest, possibly to the detriment of Singapore’s national
security (Palatino, 2021).
NGOs in Laos have also criticised the increased financial crackdown as making it impossible for them tocontinue operating, effectively forcing them to shut down (RFA, 2018). Anti-foreign fund stance of thegovernment forces local NGOs to have only a limited number of government-approved foreign funding
sources they can rely on (Kaur, 2018). It has also been noted that an increased oversight of financial
sources have forced local organisations to cater to both the government’s demands and demand of theirinternational donors. As a result, project implementation of those with mainly international funding has
been severely impacted, and they have limited capacity to seek international funding (Chanthaphouvong,2020).
In post-2021 coup Myanmar, the banking crisis exacerbated by the junta order to close banks for weeks on
end makes financing CSOs near impossible. Moreover, it scrutinises CSOs’ bank accounts and blocks
transactions it sees as being used to fund its enemies. It had also seized the bank account of the Myanmar
branch of the INGO Open Societies as a result of its suspicion of foreign funding to pro-democracy

13Impact on Cross-border Collaboration and Partnerships
movements (Liu, 2021).

3c Public Rebuke
Removing the civil society’s ability to participate in the political process through intimidation just as muchas through law is not only contrary to established human rights standards but neuters their ability to fulfil arole of meaningful advocacy. Governments have also employed their supporters in helping their cause ofsilencing them. One can see these threats across the region.
In Thailand, for example, a movement for constitutional amendment was targeted by the pro-Government
media and parliamentarians as having been spearheaded by a foreign-funded NGO (ThaiPBS, 2020),
discrediting the entire movement for reform. The disinformation campaign as addressed in Section 3a isanother way in which the government threatens their work through netizens and fake accounts. Threats ofdisrespecting the monarchy is also a surefire way to rile up the country’s conservative base.
Activists and media outlets in Singapore also faced similar threats before the introduction of FICA. For one,since 2018, PAP politicians have been accusing activists of being foreign traitors by showing solidarity withinternational movements or taking grant money from the Open Societies Foundation. In 2021, ‘Pink Dot’,
the country’s annual pride parade, was neither allowed to receive sponsorships from foreign companies,
nor have foreigners attend the event. Barricades were also set up around the event perimeter and the event
required participants to produce their ID cards (Annamalai, 2021).
Myanmar has, in 2017, also accused international aid workers of supporting terrorist movements in
Myanmar. This came about as online conspiracy theories spread about INGOs and aid groups aligning with
Muslims to take over the country. The State Counsellor’s Office, headed by the-then state counsellor Aung
Sang Suu Kyi, posted photos of UN foods present in what the Government claimed to be a terrorist camp.
This was compounded by the accusation that some items sent by these agencies were turned into
explosives (Arkin, 2017).
Although no legal actions have been taken by the Governments against these organisations, cases such asthese nevertheless show the trend towards shutting out cross-border collaboration of CSOs, especially asthese countries have announced intentions to regulate these organisations.

3d Shift to Government Partnership
Foreign interference laws seek to expand government control over local actors’ ability to associate or workwith foreign counterparts and make it conditional on government approval to engage in virtually any formof cross-border cooperation, moving far beyond simply controlling foreign funds. They are also
strategically ill-defined in crucial areas and meticulously detailed in outlining their punishments andbureaucratic mechanisms. This has created a deep existential fear and sense of dread in the sector. Overall,anxiety over the trend of anti-foreign influence rhetoric has undermined the security of establishedorganisations in the region. Anxiety over the use of the vaguely-worded laws has forced local CSOs andNGOs to seek clarifications through various channels to identify what behaviours specifically may run
contrary to established legislation. As a result, they have stunted any substantive work by the civil society
sector in fear of criminalisation or sudden expulsion. Rather, CSOs and INGOs operating in the region haveincreasingly been focusing their efforts to safeguard their existence.

14

Impact on Cross-border Collaboration and Partnerships
One clear impact has those that are directly based in their host countries being more risk averse andfocusing less on political issues for advocacy, while steering clear from issues related to democratisation,
election reform. This includes any issues that otherwise reflect poorly on the government or issues that are
sensitive to the government, such as the ethno-religious inequality, military, monarchy or corruption andabuse of power. This significantly reduces the impact of advocacy by narrowing the scope to noncontroversial issues and is extremely detrimental to the effectiveness of civil society as their advocacy isdependent on their ability to highlight issues of concern and bring them into ongoing political discourse.
Apart from reducing their critical voices, another risk aversion strategy in the face of anxiety is to actively
cooperate with the government sector. This strategy is justified as to maintain deeper connections with theruling power to safeguard the existence of their organisation within the host country, while also sustaining
continued operation – albeit piecemeal. For example, in Cambodia, the government joined a two-weekcampaign with an EU-UN joint initiative for elimination of violence against women (David, 2021).
Indonesia’s Presidential Regulation No. 16 was adopted to provide an opportunity for NGOs, which havebeen mainly foreign-funded, to take part in government procurements in services of helping marginalisedcommunities. This was in lieu with a prior Regulation in 2011 that allowed selected legal aid organisations
to claim government funding (Jackson, 2018). They also engage with the government in ventures with thegovernment and the business sector. For example, the NGO World Vision, together with the Singaporean
government, established a ‘partnership hub’ where business ventures, start-ups and other NGOs can offer
their ideas in providing clean water to marginalised communities of the region. The Bangladeshi,
Cambodian, Indian, Myanmar, Indonesian and the Filipino governments have also taken up the offer towork with World Vision and the Singaporean government (Apolitical, 2017).

3b Strategising Relocation and Remote Working
If foreign interference laws make country-based offices untenable or if it creates an atmosphere of anxiety
and uncertainty, it is reasonable to expect that key operations and staff will be relocated to more hospitablelocations. This is especially true of organisations that primarily, or are mandated to, work on issues of civilpolitical rights. Increasingly, regional offices of INGOs have had more direct role to play in the overall workof their organisations, recentralising works and projects that were once delegated to their country offices.
Taiwan, for example, has been attracting INGOs to set up an office in its country, selling itself as Asia’s NGO
haven. The country is known for its liberal governance and promotes democracy and freedom of assemblyand expression of the civil society. Unlike governments of Southeast Asia, the Taiwanese government does
not interfere with their work and harass their staff (Gardner, 2021). Its legal structure also facilitates theoperation of these organisations: NGOs do not have to be registered in most cases, except if they want
official membership, set up a bank account or expand their activities internationally (Kamalov, 2015).
Among others that have moved to the country are: Reporters Without Borders (in 2017), Friedrich
Naumann Foundation, which moved its offices from Hong Kong in 2020 (Gardner, 2021), the International
Republican Institute (2020), the National Democratic Institute (2020) and European Values Center for
Security Policy (2022).
These organisations also have been seeking to work around restrictions through other avenues such as
remote work. Based on the data on 10 February 2022, job listing websites impactpool.org and unjobs.org
of NGOs, CSOs, INGOs jobs, with the keyword ‘remote’ or ‘home-based’, lists 46 jobs and 7 jobs,
respectively, on organisations that work on issues in the Southeast Asian region. With developments intelecommunications technology, this number is expected to rise, especially if the government continues toantagonise CSOs.

15

Impact on Cross-border Collaboration and Partnerships
This chapter has shown that foreign interference laws and rhetoric have been used as punitive measuresby the government. Organisations that are critical of the governments are accused of being agents offoreign governments or entities and their operations are highly regulated. The government has invokedthese powers to shut down their offices, block their fundings, and publicly threaten to expel or criminallyprosecute them. Especially so as these laws are vaguely implemented, the anxiety over their existence has
forced them to be less critical of the ruling power and opt to partner with the government, mainly working
on less sensitive matters. INGOs have also chosen to move away from the region entirely and rely on
remote work to continue its operations in the region.

16

Recommendations

4 Recommendations
Foreign interference laws and provisions in the region merits a strong concern as momentum is built
towards the region adopting more of such laws. The impacts of these laws on the existence and continuityof INGOs, independent CSOs and individually led work in the region is detailed in the previous Chapter.
This Chapter lists a number of recommendations to mitigate this emerging threat to civic space and to preemptively counter potential damage of these laws on the existence of cross-border collaboration.
1. End rhetoric of foreign interference directed at individuals, CSOs and INGOs which amount to bullying
and harassment.
2. Repeal or significantly amend foreign interference laws and provisions to be in accordance withexisting human rights obligations that guarantee freedom of expression, freedom of association andother basic rights.
3. Challenge foreign interference laws and provisions in court.
4. Make laws governing conducts of CSOs, INGOs, aid agencies and diplomatic missions clear, without
ambiguities. These organisations should actively seek clarifications with the government regardingthese ‘foreign interference’ laws.
5. Establish independent oversight mechanisms that can monitor the implementation of such laws.
6. Reduce bureaucratic barriers to the establishment and operations of INGOs and CSOs. Financial
reporting required of INGOs and CSOs should not be used to frustrate and restrict their operations. Antiterrorist or money laundering provisions must not be generalised and used to regulate the entire civil
sphere.
7. Increase government funding available to CSOs locally and ensure that disbursement of these funds iscarried out by an independent commission.
8. Parliamentarians and political parties should use their law-making mandate to seek to reverse foreigninterference laws and to advocate against the punitive application of these laws on the civic sector.
9. UN human rights mechanisms should monitor and seek clarity from member states about foreigninterference laws and their implementations. More accountability in promoting compliance with humanrights obligations should be encouraged. Such mechanisms should also be more engaging with INGOs
and CSOs to provide them with a platform to hear their views and experiences in relation to these laws.
10. INGOs and CSOs need the broader community to understand their role in society, how cross-bordercollaborations function and why it is necessary. They also need to move towards greater selfsustainability and rely less on third-party funding. They could rely on crowdfunding schemes for local
communities to support their work.
Rhetoric and laws of foreign interference have been used against individuals and organisations that direct
criticisms against governments in the region. These recommendations aim to protect the freedom of
expression of those individuals and organisations and create an environment that is enabling.
Governments should reform their approach towards regulating the CSO sphere, while stakeholders in theparliament, international community and CSOs themselves, should also actively seek to promote crossborder collaboration and limit governmental overreach.

17Conclusion

5 Conclusion‘Foreign interference’ provisions and laws and rhetoric of ‘foreign interference’ are spreading across Southeast
Asia and Singapore’s FICA present a concerning view into the future of cross-border partnerships in the region.
While these laws are new and have not been used widely in a punitive manner, their potential to disrupt the civic
space is significant, especially in light of larger global trends.
Reviewing legislation from across the Southeast Asian region, one can see that regional trends all point towards
the same direction: increasing government interference in the operation of local, international organisations
working in the civil society sphere on issues of civil-political rights; and the increasing insecurity of theseorganisations to effectively carry out their mission without facing existential threats from disapproving
governments. Singapore’s FICA is the most extreme of the currently allowed legislation: a concerning
development knowing the country’s regional influence.
The rest of the region is likely to follow suit. Thailand’s own NGO draft is passed by the Cabinet and awaiting
parliamentary approval, Indonesia has announced a potential update to its own NGO laws, while Cambodia has
directly cited Singapore’s FICA for its own version of the anti-foreign interference bill. Each is expected to use theothers’ laws as precedent to justify their own, creating a downward spiral of adopting increasingly harshlegislation.
If the trend is not countered, it will be catastrophic for political participation and the region’s civic space. The
laws infer a broad array of punitive powers to governments to interfere with virtually all aspects of theseorganisation’s operation, eliminating any notion of independence in civil society. These laws have been used to
shut down offices, prevent and oversee foreign funding and altogether barred political participation of the civilsociety. As a result, those who work in the civil society are in constant anxiety over developments of key ‘foreigninterference’ laws, to the detriment of their work. This is especially so as vaguely-worded laws give thegovernment discretion over the scope of acceptable activities. For those that continue to operate in the region,
they have significantly dumbed down their civil-political advocacy project, and rather opting to advocate on
issues that are not sensitive to the ruling power. Even more, to continue its existence and funding, they haveshifted more towards government-CSO partnerships. Many country offices are also shutting down, while manyrefer to establishing regional offices in countries that are more free, sometimes in countries outside the region
altogether.
In response, this report suggests that problematic sections of these laws be immediately repealed or significantly
amended. Cross-border collaboration must be seen as a regular process of political participation andgovernments must not clamp down on these organisations. Parliamentarians must be watchful and seek to limit
the abuse of governmental powers. International mechanisms must be continued to monitor thesedevelopments and provide CSOs with a platform to speak. Ultimately, CSOs themselves must also adapt andengage with the public as to the critical importance of their work and develop ways in which they can rely lesson foreign funding. The core priority should be to ensure that their operations supporting vulnerable segmentsof society can carry on.
Fear mongering about the threat of foreign interference in light of wider democratisation of the Southeast Asian
region comes as a part of the ever-shrinking civic space of Southeast Asians as regional governments impose
restrictive laws to safeguard their status. Cross-border collaboration of local individuals and CSOs with INGOs,
diplomatic missions and aid agencies, among other organisations working to promote civil-political rights, local
development and wider democratisation have been at the forefront of these attacks. These efforts pose a threat
to the ability of the civil society sphere to voice their concerns over the conduct of governments.

18

Bibliography
ABC News (2017) ‘Fact file: The dual citizenship crisis’, ABC News, at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/201712-06/fact-file-the-dual-citizenship-scandal/9147418?nw=0&r=HtmlFragment.
Aljazeera (2017) ‘Indonesia signs decree to ban “extremist” groups’, Aljazeera, at:https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/7/12/indonesia-signs-decree-to-ban-extremist-groups.
Almanar (2017) ‘Strict regulation on mass organizations passed into law’, Jakarta Globe, at:https://jakartaglobe.id/news/strict-regulation-mass-organizations-passed-law.
Amnesty International (2019) ‘Laws designed to silence: The global crackdown on civil society
organizations, at: https://www.amnesty.my/2019/02/21/laws-designed-to-silence-the-global-crackdownon-civil-society-organizations-2.
Amnesty International (2021) ‘Hungary: LexNGO finally repealed but a new threat is on the horizon’,Amnesty International, at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/05/hungary-lexngo-finallyrepealed-but-a-new-threat-is-on-the-horizon.
Annamalai, Kokila (2021) ‘Singapore’s ‘foreign interference’ law will weaken people power’, Aljazeera, at:https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/10/18/singapores-foreign-interference-law-will-crush-peoplepower.
Apolitical (2017) ‘Asian countries, businesses and NGOs team up for better water’, Apolitical, at:https://apolitical.co/solution-articles/en/asian-countries-businesses-ngos-team-better-water.
Arkin, Fatima (2017) ‘Aid workers under attack in Myanmar as Rohingya conflict worsens’, Devex, at:https://www.devex.com/news/aid-workers-under-attack-in-myanmar-as-rohingya-conflict-worsens-90965.
Article19 (2021) ‘The Draft Act on Operations of Not-forProfit Organisations, 2021
Submission to Thailand’s Office of the Council of State’, Article19, at: https://www.article19.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/04/ARTICLE-19-submission-NGO-Law.pdf.
Bangkok Post (2021) ‘Royalists seek to expel Amnesty Thailand’, Bangkok Post, at:https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2221599/royalists-seek-to-expel-amnesty-thailand.
Barnes, Julian E. (2022) ‘Russia steps up propaganda war amid tensions with Ukraine’, New York Times, at:https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/us/politics/russia-ukraine-propaganda-disinformation.html.
BBC (2018) ‘Australia passes foreign interference laws amid China tension’, BBC, at:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-44624270.
Chanthaphouvong, Kheuavanh (2020) ‘Managing the Relationship Between the Government and Local
Non-Government Organisations in Laos’, Thesis submitted to Flinders University, at:https://flex.flinders.edu.au/file/a538d6e3-06ea-4a8a-9629508b08f02fd8/1/Final%20version%20for%20submission%20to%20Library%20K%20Chanthaphouvong%2
0Research%20thesis%20ID%202194646.pdf.

19

Chiu, Karen and Iris Deng (2020) ‘How a Chinese network of fake Facebook accounts influenced online
debate on South China Sea, US politics’, South China Morning Post, at:https://www.scmp.com/abacus/culture/article/3102672/how-chinese-network-fake-facebook-accountsinfluenced-online-debate.
CIVICUS (2013) ‘Indonesian NGO law a setback for freedom of association’, CIVICUS, at:https://www.civicus.org/index.php/media-resources/media-releases/2447-indonesian-ngo-law-a-setbackfor-freedom-of-association.
CIVICUS (2018) ‘Decree on associations imposes severe restrictions on civil society’, CIVICUS, at:https://monitor.civicus.org/updates/2018/03/14/decree-associations-imposes-severe-restrictions-civilsociety.
CLJLaw (2012) ‘Case of the Week: DATO’ AMBIGA SREENEVASAN & ORS v. MENTERI DALAM NEGERI &ORS’, CLJLaw, at: https://cljlaw.com/?page=cotw121109.
Commissioner of Law Revision (2006) ‘Societies Act 1966 – Incorporating all Amendments Up to 1 January
2006’, Malaysian Department of Insolvency, at:https://www.mdi.gov.my/images/documents/Laws/new/Act335SocietiesAct1966.pdf.
Dara, Mech (2022) ‘Cambodia pursues foreign interference law inspired by Singapore, Angkorian-era
invasions’, VOD, at: https://vodenglish.news/cambodia-pursues-foreign-interference-law-inspired-bysingapore-angkorian-era-invasions.
David, Sen (2021) ‘Government and NGOs hold drive to end violence against women’, Khmer Times, at:https://www.khmertimeskh.com/50978292/government-and-ngos-hold-drive-to-end-violence-againstwomen.
Davies, Jack (2020) ‘MoU tweak “likely irrelevant”’, Phnom Penh Post, at:https://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/mou-tweak-likely-irrelevant.
DigLogs (2021) ‘The wall of silence behind Luhut’s threat NGO audit’, DigLogs, at:https://www.diglogs.com/indonesia/the-wall-of-silence-behind-luhuts-threat-ngo-audit.
EURACTIV (2021) ‘Hungarian civil society raises alarm over NGO law change’, EURACTIV, at:https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/hungarian-civil-society-raises-alarm-over-ngolaw-change.
European Values Center for Security Policy (2022) ‘PRESS RELEASE: European Values Center for Security
Policy introduces its Taiwan Office with Czech and Taiwan`s Foreign Minister`s endorsement’, European
Values Center for Security Policy, at: https://europeanvalues.cz/en/press-release-european-values-centerfor-security-policy-introduces-its-taiwan-office-with-czech-and-taiwans-foreign-ministers-endorsement.
Facebook (2021) ‘Threat Report: The State of Influence Operations 2017-2020’, Meta, at:https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/IO-Threat-Report-May-20-2021.pdf.
FIDH (2014) ‘Malaysia: Coalition of Malaysian NGOs COMANGO declared an “unlawful organisation”’,
International Federation for Human Rights, at: https://www.fidh.org/en/region/asia/malaysia/14468malaysia-coalition-of-malaysian-ngos-comango-declared-an-unlawful.

20

Fronde, Neil (2022) ‘Poll: majority favour new draft bill that regulates NGOs’, The Thaiger, at:https://thethaiger.com/hot-news/protests/poll-majority-favour-new-draft-bill-that-regulates-ngos.
Gardner, Dinah (2021) ‘Taiwan reaches out to international media and NGOs’, Taiwan Business TOPICS,
American Chamber of Commerce in Taiwan, at: https://topics.amcham.com.tw/2021/02/taiwan-reachesinternationa-media-ngos.
Hosenball, Mark (2020) ‘Key findings from Senate inquiry into Russian interference in 2016 U.S. election’,
Reuters, at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-senate-findings-fact-idUSKCN25E2OY.
Hungarian National Assembly (2017) ‘Act LXXVI of 2017: On the Transparency of Organisations Receiving
Foreign Funds’, Hungarian Helsinki Committee, at: https://helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/LexNGOadopted-text-unofficial-ENG-14June2017.pdf.
HFHR, (2017) ‘National Freedom Institute Act: Helsinki Committee in Poland issues statement’, Helsinki
Foundation for Human Rights, at: https://www.hfhr.pl/en/national-freedom-institute-act-helsinki-committeein-poland-issues-statement.
International Republican Institute (2019) ‘Chinese Malign Influence and the Corrosion of Democracy’,International Republican Institute, at: https://www.iri.org/wpcontent/uploads/legacy/iri.org/chinese_malign_influence_report.pdf.
International Republican Institute (2020) ‘IRI to open office in Taiwan’, International Republican Institute, at:https://www.iri.org/news/iri-to-open-office-in-taiwan.
Impactpool (2022) ‘Jobs in United Nations, NGO, European Union’, Impactpool, at:https://www.impactpool.org.
Jackson, Elizabeth (2018) ‘Indonesian NGOs can now access government funds to provide services tocommunities’, The Conversation, at: https://theconversation.com/indonesian-ngos-can-now-accessgovernment-funds-to-provide-services-to-communities-101451.
Jong, Hans N. (2020) ‘Indonesian environment ministry ends WWF partnership amid public spat’,Mongabay, at: https://news.mongabay.com/2020/01/indonesia-environment-ministry-klhk-wwfpartnership-forest-conservation.
Kamalov, Erkinbek (2015) ‘Taiwan’s NGO policy: Lessons for Asia’ Open Asia, at:https://www.openasia.asia/taiwans-ngo-policy-lessons-for-asia.
Kanyakumari, D. (2014) ‘Home Ministry declares Negara-Ku illegal’, The Star, at:https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2014/07/26/home-ministry-declares-ngo-illegal.
Kaur, Raminder (2018) ‘Challenges Faced by Non-Profit Associations in Laos: A Case
Study of Huam Jai Asasamak’, internship paper presented at the University of Windsor,
https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=major-papers.
Koruhi, Rei (2021) ‘The Online Citizen taken offline, ahead of deadline set by IMDA after failure to declarefunding’, The Straits Times, at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/the-online-citizen-goes-dark-aheadof-deadline-set-by-imda.

21

LibertiesEU (2017) ‘Controversial Poland NGO funding bill becomes law’, LibertiesEU, at:https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/controversial-poland-ngo-funding-bill-becomes-law-sn-20400/39041.
Library of Congress (2013) ‘Indonesia: Law on mass organizations’, Library of Congress, at:https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2013-07-11/indonesia-law-on-mass-organizations
Library of Congress (2015) ‘Cambodia: Law on NGOs passed’, Library of Congress, at:https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2015-07-15/cambodia-law-on-ngos-passed.
Library of Congress (2018) ‘Australia: Bills containing new espionage, foreign interference offenses, andestablishing foreign agent registry enacted’, Library of Congress, at: https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legalmonitor/2018-08-21/australia-bills-containing-new-espionage-foreign-interference-offenses-andestablishing-foreign-agent-registry-enacted.
Library of Congress (2021) ‘Russian Federation: Restrictions on media with foreign funding imposed’,Library of Congress, at: https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-05-14/russian-federationrestrictions-on-media-with-foreign-funding-imposed.
Liu, John (2021) ‘CSOs after the coup: Operations squeezed, funding crunched’, Frontier Myanmar, at:https://www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/csos-after-the-coup-operations-squeezed-funding-crunched.
Mabasa, Roy C. (2021) ‘Foreign diplomatic missions now required to clear all NGO donations with DFA’,
Politics, Manila Bulletin, Press Reader, at: https://www.pressreader.com/philippines/manilabulletin/20210223/281505048935844.
Meyn, Colin (2017) ‘Cambodia's controversial NGO law snares its first victim’, Devex, at:https://www.devex.com/news/cambodia-s-controversial-ngo-law-snares-its-first-victim-90947.
Ministry of Home Affairs, Singapore (2021a) ‘Summary factsheet on the Foreign Interference(Countermeasures) Act’, Ministry of Home Affairs, Singapore, at: https://www.mha.gov.sg/docs/defaultsource/default-document-library/summary-factsheet-on-fica.pdf.
Ministry of Home Affairs, Singapore (2021a) ‘Summary factsheet on the Foreign Interference(Countermeasures) Act’, Ministry of Home Affairs, Singapore, at: https://www.mha.gov.sg/docs/defaultsource/default-document-library/summary-factsheet-on-fica.pdf.
Muthiariny, Dewi Elvia and Petir Garda Bhwana (2021) ‘Luhut Pandjaitan's spokesman talks of NGO audit
plan’, tempo.co, at: https://en.tempo.co/read/1528635/luhut-pandjaitans-spokesman-talks-of-ngo-auditplan.
National Democratic Institute (2020) ‘NDI announces plans to open a new office in Taiwan’, National
Democratic Institute, at: https://ndi.org/publications/ndi-announces-plans-open-new-office-taiwan.
OHCHR (2015) ‘ Law On Associations And Non-Governmental Organizations’, OHCHR Cambodia, at:https://cambodia.ohchr.org/~cambodiaohchr/sites/default/files/Unofficial_Translation_of_5th_LANGO_EN
G.pdf.

22

OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (2017) ‘Annex to OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the
Draft Act of Poland on the National Freedom Institute – Centre for the Development of Civil Society’,
Legislationline, at:https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/7375/file/303_NGO_POL_22Aug2017_Annex_en.pdf.
Palatino, Mong (2021) ‘Singapore’s The Online Citizen news website stops operating after government
suspends its license’ Global Voices, at: https://globalvoices.org/2021/09/18/singapores-the-online-citizennews-website-stops-operating-after-government-suspends-its-license.
Parliament of India (2010) ‘The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010’, India Code, at:https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2098?
view_type=search&sam_handle=123456789/1362.
Parliament of Singapore (2021) ‘Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill’, Attorney General’sChambers, Singapore, at: https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Bills-Supp/24-2021/Published/20210913.
PRS India (2020) ‘The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2020’, PRS India, at:https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-foreign-contribution-regulation-amendment-bill-2020.
Reuters (2020) ‘Polish government considers law forcing NGOs to declare foreign funding’, Reuters, at:https://www.reuters.com/article/poland-ngos-idUSL8N2CT53C.
Reuters (2021a) ‘Philippine foreign minister defends move to monitor foreign funding for NGOs’ Reuters, at:https://www.reuters.com/article/philippines-ngos-idINKBN2AO16A.
Reuters (2021b) ‘Cambodia passes law barring dual citizenship for holders of top posts’, Reuters, at:https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/cambodia-passes-law-barring-dual-citizenship-holders-topposts-2021-10-25.
RFA (2017), ‘Cambodia Expels US NGO, Suspends Radio Stations Allowing Government Criticism’, RadioFree Asia, https://www.rfa.org/english/news/cambodia/expulsion-08232017155453.html.
RFA (2018) ‘Civil society groups in laos delayed funding, forced to disband under new law’, Radio Free
Asia, at: https://www.rfa.org/english/news/laos/csos-01242018122715.html.
Rocamora, Joyce Ann L. (2021) ‘Directive on foreign funding won’t affect ‘legit NGOs’: Locsin’, Philippines
News Agency, at: https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1131774.
Russian Federal Assembly (2012) ‘О внесении изменений в отдельные законодательные актыРоссийской Федерации в части регулирования деятельности некоммерческих организаций,выполняющих функции иностранного агента [On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of theRussian Federation Regarding the Regulation of the Activities of Non-Commercial Organizations
Performing the Functions of a Foreign Agent]’, Official Internet Portal of Legal Information.
Russian Federal Assembly (2015) ‘О внесении изменений в отдельные законодательные актыРоссийской Федерации [On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation]’, Official
Internet Portal of Legal Information.

23

Sattaburuth, Aekarach (2021) ‘MFP takes aim at military info ops’, Bangkok Post, at:https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/politics/2071327/mfp-takes-aim-at-military-info-ops.
Searight, Amy (2020) ‘Countering China’s influence operations: Lessons from Australia’, Center for
Strategic & International Studies, at: https://www.csis.org/analysis/countering-chinas-influence-operationslessons-australia.
Simbolon & Partners Lawfirm (n.d.) ‘How to Establish International Non-Government Organization’,
Simbolon & Partners, at: https://www.simbolon-lawfirm.com/how-to-establish-international-nongovernment-organizationTann, Boravin (2020) ‘Regulating the Right to Freedom of Association: Implications of LANGO in Cambodia’
Journal of Southeast Asian Human Rights 14 (1): 200-225, DOI:10.19184/JSEAHR.V4I1.13397.
ThaiPBS (2020) ‘Charter-change sponsor iLaw accused of targeting Thai monarchy with foreign money’,
ThaiPBS, at: https://www.thaipbsworld.com/charter-change-sponsor-ilaw-accused-of-targeting-thaimonarchy-with-foreign-money.
UNJobs (2022), ‘Southeast Asia’, UNJobs, at: https://unjobs.org/themes/southeast-asia
Yahya, Yasmine (2018) ‘Staying aware of foreign influence best form of defence for Singapore: Bilahari’,The Straits Times, at: https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/bilahari-staying-aware-of-foreign-influence-bestform-of-defence.

24

Asia Centre (asiacentre.org) is a not-for-profit research
institute which seeks to create human rights impact in theregion. Asia Centre’s work focuses on issues related to civilsociety, democracy, elections, freedom of expression,
freedom of religion or belief and human rights. The Centre
believes that knowledge toolkits built from evidence-based
research on critical human rights issues are important for
designing activities for stakeholder capacity strengthening
and making informed policy interventions. With this aim,
Asia Centre was established in Bangkok, Thailand in 2015
and a second branch was registered in 2018 in Johor Bahru,
Malaysia. On 21 May 2021, the Centre was recommended by
the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations of the
UN ECOSOC for a Special Consultative Status at the UN.
To date, the Centre has been undertaking evidence-based
research on key human rights issues to assemble knowledge
tools such as books, reports. baseline studies, policy briefs,
commentaries,
infographics,
videosandtraining
programmes. These knowledge tools are often developed at
the request of civil society, INGOs and parliamentarians forevidence-based research on critical rights challenges.
These knowledge tools are then used to design capacity
building programmes for stakeholders so that they canaffect positive policy changes.

Asia Centre
Asia Centre
Asia Centre@asiacentre_org
asiacentre_org

website: asiacentre.org
email: contact@asiacentre.org