Introduction   In 2021, Asia Democracy Research Network (ADRN) selected pandemic crisis and democratic governance as the common challenge that continue to plague and hinder democracy in Asia.   Against this background, ADRN published this special report to evaluate the effect the COVID-19 pandemic had on democratic governance in the region by studying the phenomenon and its impact within different countries in Asia, as well as their responses. The report investigates pressing, contemporary questions such as: What are the challenges that each country faces amid the COVID-19 pandemic? What are common challenges that the world face? What are the responses of the public and private sector of each respective country? How did COVID-19 change the behavior and domestic and foreign policy of major countries?   Drawing on a rich array of resources and data, this report offers country-specific analyses, highlights areas of improvement, and suggests policy recommendations for ensuring democratic governance during times of crises and emergencies.   Quotes from the Paper   “Democracies with successful COVID-19 containment measures, such as Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Taiwan, handled COVID countermeasures based on science, as well as transparency which allows the public to analyze government policies scientifically. These countries held press conferences almost every day until the virus was under control to increase the public’s trust in the government and to guide the regulations.” – Japan Center for International Exchange.   “The tendency towards autocratic governance was spreading around the world prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis. However, the pandemic exacerbated this tendency. In many countries, the pandemic provided an opportunity for authoritarian leaders to expand their powers. As the pandemic raged, these elected chief executives demanded and received even more authority from the legislature to manage the health crisis… The revival of democratic institutions is crucial in fighting corruption in a judicious and systematic manner.” - Jesse M. Robredo Institute of Governance   “The pandemic period has seen not only a public health and economic crisis but an acceleration of the anti-democratic trends which exacerbated these crises. Sri Lanka’s COVID-19 response has been characterized by a lack of regard for minority rights, the suppression of protests, increased militarization, a move towards autocracy, and an accompanying lack of accountability. Each of these processes, in addition to being worrying in and of themselves, have contributed to the various inadequacies of the COVID-19 response.” - Centre for Policy Alternatives   Authors   Various researchers from Japan Center for International Exchange, Academy of Political Education, East Asia Institute, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jesse M. Robredo Institute of Governance, King Prajadhipok’s Institute, Manusher Jonno Foundation, Society for Participatory Research in Asia, Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development And Transparency, Samata Foundation, and Centre for Policy Alternatives contributed to the research and writing of each report.   EAI provided support in the form of typesetting and proofreading for the production of the reports     ■ Typeset by Ha Eun Yoon Research Associate     For inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 208) | [email protected]  

Introduction   In 2020, Asia Democracy Research Network (ADRN) selected an efficient system of checks and balances of the constitutional division of powers as the key element to assess the state of judicial freedoms in Asia.   Against this background, ADRN published this special report to evaluate the current state of the trends and trajectories of judicial powers in the region by studying the phenomenon and its impact within three different countries in Asia, as well as their key reforms in the near future.   The report investigates contemporary questions such as: What are the key constitutional and legal provisions ensuring judicial independence? What are key mechanisms to ensure judicial accountability? Have the courts or judicial processes tuned themselves to modernization and technological transformations such as e-courts or online arbitration? How can we evaluate the performance of judiciary on key parameters like upholding separation of powers? What are the major challenges to judicial independence in the country?   Drawing on a rich array of resources and data, this report offers country-specific analyses, highlights areas of improvement, and suggests policy recommendations to strengthen the autonomy and effectiveness of the judiciary in their own countries and the larger Asia region..   Quotes from the Paper   “The long established constitutional “separation of powers” is under great stress today notwithstanding several landmark judgments by some individual judges in recent times. In addition, there are equally critical concerns with regard to reforms in terms of the manner that judges are appointed and the growing backlog, accountability, corruption, pendency, issues of access and affordability of justice for average citizens, and so on. In short, India’s judiciary is in the spotlight today, albeit for many of the wrong reasons.” – Observer Research Foundation   “Judicial independence is an important concept in modern day democracy. It heralds the principle of separation of powers, and serves as a check on the possible abuse of executive and legislative action through judicial review. But if the judiciary is independent, are they free to do anything? To what standard should they also be held accountable in order to ensure proper behavior and fealty to the rule of law?” – International Center for Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Governance   “With the evolution of democratic values, the judiciary has taken on a wider role as a key institution that serves as a custodian of public power and a protector of the people’s sovereignty. Thus, the judiciary is expected to safeguard human rights and function as the sole arbiter of legal disputes (Swart 2019). Therefore, both positive and negative duties are cast on political and non-political actors to respect and promote judicial independence and integrity.” – Verité Research   Authors   Various researchers from Observer Research Foundation, International Center for Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Governance, and Verité Research.   EAI provided support in the form of typesetting and proofreading for the production of the reports.     ■ Typeset by Juhyun Jun Research Associate     For inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 204) | [email protected]  

Introduction   In 2020, Asia Democracy Research Network (ADRN) selected transparent political finance as the common requirement to prevent corruption and abuse in Asian democracy.   Against this background, ADRN published this special report to evaluate the current state of political finance systems in the region by studying the phenomenon and its impact within four different countries in Asia, as well as their key reforms in the near future.   The report investigates contemporary questions such as: What is the legal mechanism in place to assure transparent political finance? Does the legal framework on political finance place a bar on the use of money in politics? Is money in politics effectively designed with a built-in oversight mechanism of political finance laws? How much transparency is established in the legal framework? What are the key areas requiring reform in the political finance systems to achieve transparency?   Drawing on a rich array of resources and data, this report offers country-specific analyses, highlights areas of improvement, and suggests policy recommendations for ensuring transparent political finance systems with integrity.   Quotes from the Paper   “In order to have more transparent and accountable governance of the political party, financial control should be based on the use of a regulatory approach and financial subsidies from the state as the legal basis of political party governance. Without the provision of adequate funds to parties, party finance regulations will not be effective and cannot be enforced in the process of managing political party finance” – Indonesian Institute of Sciences   “Voter education equips citizens with healthy democratic habits instead of encouraging emotion and rhetoric-influenced decision making. Voters have a right to demand that political parties disclose the sources of their funding. Thus, enough pressure from the public can help to create a domino effect of eradicating corrupt practices in politics..” – Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs   “The role of money in financing politics is neither a new phenomenon nor relevant to a country or region. Money has always been an integral part and a key vehicle for financing politics, political participation, campaigning, and representation around the world. However, without effective regulation, the use of money in politics can undermine representation and representative democracy.” – Pakistan Institute for Legislative Development and Transparency   “While part of legislature and presidential elections subsidies are transferred to parties who are required to file accounting reports each year, those subsidies that are given to candidates themselves are not require to disclose their use. Since these funds are from taxpayers, the use of these funds should be disclosed regardless of the amount, just like political donations, and the items purchased should be truthfully disclosed.” - Academia Sinica/Asian Barometer   Authors   Various researchers from Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs, Pakistan Institute for Legislative Development and Transparency, Academia Sinica/Asian Barometer.   EAI provided support in the form of typesetting and proofreading for the production of the reports.     ■ Typeset by Juhyun Jun Research Associate     For inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 204) | [email protected]  

.a_wrap {font-size:16px; font-family:Nanum Gothic, Sans-serif, Arial; line-height:1.6em;} Introduction  In 2019, Asia Democracy Research Network (ADRN) selected social Media and disinformation as the common challenges across Asia that continue to plague and work against deepening the quality of democracy. Against this background, ADRN published this special report to evaluate the current state of social media and the spread of disinformation in the region by studying the phenomenon and its impact within the country, as well as the country's responses. The report investigates pressing, contemporary questions such as: Who are the major disinformation disseminators/which issue areas/who are targeted/effects of disinformation? What are the current legal and political efforts to combat against disinformation by government, lawmakers, media, and CSOs? What are the different methods of disinformation applied towards different linguistic communities in the same country? What are the public figures’ use of personal social media accounts to engage with the public/and its impact in society? Drawing on a rich array of resources and data, this report offers country-specific analyses, highlights areas of improvement, and suggests policy recommendations for ensuring the protection of social media and online platform from the spread of disinformation in Asia.   Quotes from the Paper  “People know that social media platforms are not a neutral utility but rather a commercial tool that exploits their unpaid digital labor and monetizes the content and data they generate. Nevertheless, using social media has become a way of life for people living a digitally connected world. Expressing and sharing political information and opinions is one key aspect of this digital way of life. Accordingly, researchers have begun to pay attention to the role of social media in democracy.” – East Asia Institute   “In the Philippines, there is no specific policy measure that addresses the production and proliferation of fake news. Instead, there is an umbrella law called the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 or the Republic Act 10175 which prohibits violations of the existing Revised Penal Code using computers and other information and communications technologies. (…) While other democracies have placed libel and defamation under the ambit of civil law, these infractions remain under the Revised Penal Code in the Philippines. However, there are also advocacy efforts to decriminalize libel.” –Jesse M. Robredo Institute of Governance & International Center for Innovation, Transformation, and Excellence in Governance   “The democratic discourse encompassing pluralistic views on social media platforms remains a concern in a country like India, characterized by the slow growth of internet penetration and a lower relative degree of digital literacy. Nevertheless, it is vital to remember that electoral processes online are a subset within the larger democratic discourse of the real world. (…) Addressing such a problem in the longer run may result in curbing social media usage.” – Participatory Research in Asia   Authors Various researchers from Japan Center for International Exchange, Academy of Political Education, East Asia Institute, Asian Barometer, Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, Center for Political Studies, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs, Yangon School of Political Science, Jesse M. Robredo Institute of Governance, International Center for Innovation, Transformation, and Excellence in Governance, King Prajadhipok’s Institute, Manusher Jonno Foundation, Participatory Research in Asia, Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development And Transparency, Samata Foundation and Verité Research contributed to the research and writing of each report. EAI provided support in the form of typesetting and proofreading for the production of the reports.     ■ Typeset by Jinkyung Baek, Research Associate/Director, Research Department             For inquiries: 82 2 2277 1683 (ext. 209)  |  [email protected]