Statement of Concern On Lao PDR and the ACSC/APF 2016


To the Regional Steering Committee

ACSC/APF 2015 Malaysia

We, the undersigned, are national, regional and international civil society organisations, networks and alliances working in South East Asian countries, and key movers of the ASEAN Civil Society Conference/ ASEAN People’s Forum (ACSC/APF) processes through the last ten years, from 2005 to 2015. With you, we have been committed to promoting the ACSC/APF process as a civil society-driven, free and open space for building community and solidarity amongst the peoples of Southeast Asia.

While we have had a demonstrable commitment to the ACSC/APF process, we wish to raise our collective concern on the state of democracy and human rights in Lao PDR, and the difficulties we anticipate in having an ACSC/APF in Lao PDR in 2016.

During the consultations leading to and during the APF 2015, particularly during the 3rd Regional Organizing Meeting in March 2015, a group of unnamed Lao CSOs expressed their objection to the ACSC/APF’s positions on issues, namely on 1) LGBTIQ/ lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer; 2) indigenous peoples, and dams; 3) multi-party systems and democracy; and, 4) the disappearance of Sombath Somphone. Dr Maydom, Lao representative to the SC, confirmed during the Regional Organizing meeting, that discussions on these issues would not be possible in Laos.

Based on this, we foresee and have reason to believe that any free discussions and dialogue on very crucial regional issues–on equality and diversity; on development projects and their impacts on peoples and environments; on freedoms and human rights–will not and cannot take place in Lao.

Based on the prior experience of the Asia Europe People’s Forum (AEPF9), we do not see any credible assurances from Lao CSOs based within the country that a prospective ACSC/APF 2016 in Lao will not be plagued by troubles similar to those experienced in AEPF9.

We are certain that an ACSC/APF 2016 will not be organized by Lao civil society. Instead, the government of Laos will certainly have its hand in controlling an ACSC/APF 2016, contrary to the spirit of a civil society organized event. Even if the current CSO representatives from Laos, or the government of Laos, are genuinely sincere in using this opportunity to recover its credibility to hold future events like the ACSC/APF, they have yet to address specific measures to prevent a repeat of any of the inexcusable examples of harassment and impunity by various state actors during and immediately after the AEPF9.

The issue of Sombath Somphone’s enforced disappearance, and the developments around the AEPF9, particularly the inability of the Laos government to make good their promise of allowing the event to be held independently, without interference, is a warning on the current state of Lao society, and the Lao government’s attitude towards civil society and the legitimate issues they work on. The reluctance of Lao civil society to participate, as well as the inability to do so independently in this post-AEPF9 period, clearly highlight the repercussions of the tragedy of the AEPF9. There should be no illusions about the reality of the prevailing fear within Lao society in mentioning issues that are deemed sensitive, such as, Sombath and enforced disappearances, Indigenous peoples, LGBTIQ, multi-party political systems and democracy.

The statement from the IOC of the AEPF and other sources of narration of the foreign civil society actors being dispelled from the country should serve as further reminders of the state’s involvement in the current alarming situation of human rights abuses and danger to civil society within Laos.

Considering all of the above, there seems to be no possibility of a freely organized ACSC/APF in Laos. It would be impossible to uphold the agreed engagement modalities and guiding principles as determined during the ACSC/APF 2015.

We, CSOs in Southeast Asia, hope that the ACSC/APF 2015 Regional Steering Committee will provide the courageous leadership in answering the following questions among the ACSC/APF community, which are central to the current crisis in Laos, and are relevant to the ACSC/APF going forward.

-Are we prepared to accept an ACSC/APF that is not freely organized by regional civil society? Are we prepared to accept the controlling hand, whether seen or unseen, of the Lao government on the process?

-Are we fully cognizant of the risks and dangers toward participants, particularly Lao participants, by holding an ACSC/APF in Laos?

-Are we willing to disenfranchise participants and communities of the LGBTIQ, of indigenous peoples, of environmental groups, of anti-dam campaigners, of democracy activists and human rights defenders, of families of prisoners and the disappeared, by holding an ACSC/APF in Laos?

-Even if we wish to act upon the idea of benefitting Lao peoples in Laos, and of supporting Lao civil society, are we prepared to compromise the integrity of the ACSC/APF process in Lao, while keeping faithful to the ACSC/APF guiding principles and engagement modalities?

We foresee that the painful answers to the questions we raise will be in the negative; and therefore,

We implore the ACSC/APF 2015 Steering Committee, to seriously consider the option of not endorsing an ACSC/APF 2016 process in Lao.

We implore the ACSC/APF 2015 Steering Committee to bring this discussion back to the country and regional caucuses, to jointly imagine an alternative ACSC/APF process in 2016 outside of Lao PDR, while ensuring that Lao peoples and civil society can still participate freely in such a process.

10 September 2015


-Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (AMAN)

-ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR)


-Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE)

-Asia Pacific Indigenous Youth Network (APIYN)

-BAI National Alliance of Indigenous Women, Philippines

-Borok Peoples Human Rights Organisation/Borok Indigenous /Tribal Peoples Development Center (BPHRO/BITPDC), India

-Burma Partnership (BP)

-Cambodia Indigenous Peoples Organization (CIPO)

-Cambodia Indigenous Youth Association (CIYA)

-Center for Sustainable Development in Mountainous Areas, Vietnam

-Coalition of Cambodian Farmers Community (CCFC)

-Finnish Asiatic Society

-Focus on the Global South

-Highlander Association (HA)

-Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Defenders (IPHRD)

-Indigenous Peoples Movement for Self Determination and Liberation (APMSDL)

-Indigenous Peoples Task Force on ASEAN

-Innabuyog Federation of Indigenous Women in Cordillera, Philippines

-Institut Titian Perdamaian (ITP / Peacebuilding Institute)

-International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC)

-Land Core Group, Myanmar

-Lawyers for the Human Rights of

-Nepalese Indigenous Peoples (LAHURNIP), Nepal

-Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA)

-Organisation for the Promotion of Kui Culture (OKC), Cambodia

-Papora Indigenous Development Association, Taiwan/China (PIDA)

-People’s Empowerment Foundation, Thailand (PEF)

-Solidarity for Asian Peoples’ Advocacies (SAPA)

-Working Group on ASEAN

-South East Asian Committee for Advocacy (SEACA)

-The Sombath Initiative

-Thirst Aid, Myanmar

-Youth Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (YFIN), Nepal

-Vietnamese Women for Human Rights (VNWHR), Vietnam


-Tipakson Manpati, Researcher, Thailand

-William Nicholas Gomes, Human Rights Defender and Freelance Journalist, UK

(Visited 8 times, 1 visits today)

You might be interested in