key: cord-0056868-wyu0xdt7
authors: Manley, Stewart
title: Critical Speech in Southeast Asian Grey Literature During the COVID-19 Pandemic
date: 2021-01-08
journal: nan
DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngaa052
sha: 67e17ff1ee2f987360de8fa5c0d068c206ccf32e
doc_id: 56868
cord_uid: wyu0xdt7

nan

Little academic research has been conducted on critical speech in Southeast Asia during the COVID-19 pandemic. 1 This article aims to partially address this gap through an empirical case study of op-eds published on the website of the civil society program Strengthening Human Rights and Peace Research and Education in ASEAN/Southeast Asia (SHAPE-SEA). Intended for 'those who find it challenging to access more mainstream media' , the op-eds provide a snapshot of how civil society groups, scholars and students who otherwise might be marginalised from conventional academic discourse are exercising their freedom of expression in grey literature during a time of global crisis. The study asks, who authors these commentaries? What are they writing about? Which countries are their focus? How far are they willing to go in criticising government policies?

Each op-ed was assigned a 'criticalness score' based on the frequency of criticising the government and the severity of the language used. The scores were then used to test whether, for instance, the level of criticalness correlates with a country's Global Freedom Scores or a government's handling of the epidemic. Although little to no correlation was found, among other things, the criticalness scores nonetheless revealed that male and female authors were equally critical, students were more critical on average than lecturers or non-governmental organization (NGO) workers, and certain themes-law and order, human rights and freedom of expression-elicited the most critical speech. The average overall criticalness of the 115 op-eds evaluated was 1.15 on a scale up to 3, reflecting 'slight criticism' . The study sheds light on the nature of freedom of expression in a region well known for its restrictive laws, policies and practices on speech, indicating that criticalness of government remains mild, even during the pandemic.

academics and activists. 7 In total, 99.9 per cent of the op-eds submitted were published. 8 The website sets a critical tone by mentioning concern for 'the suspension of rights and freedoms brought about by lockdowns and quarantines' , the 'dismal progress on mass testing' and the possible aggravation of 'inequalities, conflicts and human rights violations' . 9

The SHAPE-SEA op-eds are grey literature-'the diverse and heterogeneous body of material available outside, and not subject to, traditional academic peer review processes' . 10 Characterised in part by the challenge in locating it due to a lack of bibliographic control, grey literature includes materials from conference proceedings, dissertations, government reports, blogs, tweets and Facebook posts. 11 Although grey literature is 'difficult to define, awkward to deal with and difficult to find' , the increase of material on the Internet and improved access to electronic information is making it more easily accessible. 12 Obvious concerns with grey literature include its sometimes questionable quality (considering it has usually not undergone peer review), its heterogeneity and its increased risk of irrelevance, mistakes and fraudulent claims. 13 Yet, grey literature (particularly in the medical field) has the advantage of timeliness, it reflects information in its earlier forms (sometimes prepublication) and it can reveal data that never make it to commercial publication. 14 The major disadvantages of grey literature do not adversely impact this op-ed study because the study examines the characteristics of the grey literature itself, rather than relying on the accuracy of its content. To illustrate, the lack of peer review is an advantage here-not a disadvantage-because the study seeks to observe and assess the unfiltered (yet still professional) manifestation of critical speech. As another example, the risk of an op-ed author making an erroneous criticism is irrelevant because the fact that the complaint is made (as a manifestation of critical speech), rather than its correctness, is the point measured here. 7 Barredo,supran2. 8 Ibid. 9 shapesea.com/op-ed-southeast-asia-in-crisis-opinions-on-the-state-of-human-rights-and-peace-in-the- 

Within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the state of human rights and freedom of expression in Southeast Asia, the SHAPE-SEA op-eds can be viewed as courageous statements prompted by a global emergency. Over the past two decades or so until a recent shift towards authoritarianism (in certain countries), 15 Southeast Asia had been transitioning to more democratic forms of governance with increased respect for human rights. 16 The passage of the 2007 Charter of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations embodied this shift as states appeared to be deprioritising the previously central guiding principle of non-interference. 17 Diverse views across Southeast Asia of the substantive content of human rights and even the reasons for adopting the Charter, however, have more recently led to discord, disagreement and 'the continuing adherence to non-interference in internal affairs' . 18 This diversity of voices is reflected in Southeast Asian political systems, with 8 of 11 governments (as of 2014) characterised as ranging from 'soft dictatorships to electoral authoritarian regimes and illiberal democracies' . 19 On human rights, Indonesia and the Philippines are considered 'progressive' but Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand are (to put it mildly) 'cautious' , whereas Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam and Brunei are 'recalcitrant' . 20 The tension between the so-called ' Asian value' of non-interference and human rights protections inevitably extends to freedom of expression. 21 The strengthening of freedom of the press that took place in the 1980s and 1990s, for instance, has eroded in the name of stability. 22 In its 2020 Report, Freedom House observed that in the Asia-Pacific region, '[p]olitical rights and civil liberties declined overall' . 23 In Reporters Without Borders' World Press Freedom Index, all ASEAN countries fell into the bottom half of the world, with most in the bottom third and three-Singapore, Laos and Vietnam-in the bottom quarter. 24 In Malaysia, as one example, any political speech that seriously challenges the government is restricted, ostensibly because it threatens national stability and racial harmony. 25 Freedom of expression is not only curtailed by laws 26 but also commonly, in Southeast Asia, by defamation lawsuits against media, political opponents and even everyday citizen bloggers. 27 The Internet is increasingly becoming the battleground for testing the limits of freedom of expression. In Malaysia, Indonesia, Laos, Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam and Cambodia, governments have employed increasingly aggressive tactics to police the Internet. 28 In 2017, the Thai government issued a directive prohibiting anyone from 'following, communicating with, or disseminating information online both directly and indirectly' from three outspoken critics of the government. The penalty includes up to 15 years of imprisonment. 29 In 2018, Vietnamese authorities detained a well-known pop star whose songs advocate free speech, democracy, women's rights and LGBTQ rights at the airport for eight hours and seized copies of her album. 30 Even in Indonesia, where the laws and structure of the judiciary reflect a gradual strengthening of freedom of expression, key political actors continue to lean towards a tendency to censor. 31 The development of civil society has been shown to pressure government restrictions and promote democratic values. 32 Activist media, less influenced by commercial concerns, may be more likely to criticise governments. 33 In Southeast Asia, however, civil societies have been largely marginalised from policymaking. 34 Suppression of these organizations that began in the colonial era and continued in the Cold War continues to influence their relationship with governments. 35 As a result, their impact in Southeast Asia remains a mixed bag. While high profile activism has been particularly noticeable in the Philippines and Thailand, 36 civil society organizations have been more muted in Singapore and Malaysia. 37 Civil society in Indonesia was weaker in the 1990s than in the 1950s and 1960s. 38 In Cambodia, the 2015 Law on Associations and Non-Governmental Organizations' increase of reporting, financial and registration requirements has arguably been used to control political opponents and government critics. 39 Social media campaigns and online efforts like the SHAPE-SEA op-eds are a relatively new and particularly potent threat to authoritarian regimes in that they can mobilise opposition politics and increase electoral competition. 40 The Internet has in many instances created a novel and accessible platform such that those '[f]aced with political repression but with recourse to web-based information and technical channels of communication increasingly available [...] seek to address their grievances rather than staying silent.' 41 Yet the same technologies have been used by repressive governments to identify dissidents, sow misinformation and stifle opposition. 42 In Southeast Asia, increased censorship in the region has been predicted to likely continue to hamper the impact of online activism. 43 The COVID-19 pandemic appears to have provided some governments an opportunity to crack down even further on critical speech and human rights more generally. 44 Indeed, even when governments promise to apply-or actually do apply-emergency laws without undermining human rights, the resulting chilling effect may nonetheless impact the exercise of freedom of expression. 45 Thailand, Cambodia and Singapore have all promulgated new emergency laws affecting freedom of expression, with Thai authorities seemingly 'intent on shutting down critical opinions from the media and general public about their response to the COVID-19 crisis' . 46 To be fair though, given the unprecedented nature of the pandemic, at least in recent history, it is unclear whether those accusing governments in regions like Southeast Asia are unfairly rushing 34 to judgement on restrictions that liberal democracies are also taking albeit with less international scrutiny. 47 Nevertheless, the consensus appears to be that freedom of expression and civic space for civil society, at least in some Southeast Asian nations, is diminishing during the pandemic. 48 5. HYPOTHESES COVID-19 has heightened the need for civil society voices by creating an environment in which at least some governments have responded erratically to the virus (with deadly consequences), some enforcement agencies see an opportunity to crack down on the disenfranchised and some legislatures quickly push through laws that aim, perhaps, to enhance public safety but have the effect of sidelining human rights. 49 Within this everdarkening space for critical speech in Southeast Asia, the SHAPE-SEA op-eds provide a window onto the ongoing struggle for activists, students and academics to express themselves in a professional yet highly accessible venue.

This study hypothesises that:

1. More men than women publish SHAPE-SEA op-eds (there is evidence that women have been submitting less academic work for publishing than men during the pandemic). 50 2. The most critical authors are NGO workers, then students, then academics (NGO workers tend to write more subjective, advocacy pieces, whereas academics and, to a lesser extent, students take a more objective, academic approach). 51 3. More op-eds are published from countries with higher Global Freedom Scores (people from freer countries should be less afraid to speak out about human rights than people from less free countries). 52 4. Op-eds from countries with lower Global Freedom Scores are less critical of their governments (people from less free countries should be more afraid to criticise their governments, leading to self-censorship). 53 5. Authors from countries with lower satisfaction with their government's handling of COVID-19 are more critical of their governments (authors from countries that have not managed the pandemic well should be more critical of their governments).

The op-eds of the SHAPE-SEA website were selected as the subject of this study for four reasons. First, the author was a volunteer editor for the op-eds and therefore was aware of their existence (editing was for English language only, not content). Second, the op-eds balance two qualities that make them particularly suitable for a study on critical speech: they are subjective opinion (instead of objective academic research) and they are evidence-based (in that they cite their sources). The first quality encourages criticism, whereas the second encourages the criticism to be based on reliable authorities. Third, as grey literature without conventional peer review, the op-eds allow more and different voices to be heard than in traditional commercial media or academic publishing. Students and human rights activists, for instance, who would often either be ineligible, uninterested or at least less likely to publish in a peer-reviewed journal, were able to contribute. Fourth, there were enough op-eds published to form the basis of a study that could, at least in some instances, detect meaningful patterns about the nature of the authors and op-eds.

Blogs 54 and online op-eds 55 have increasingly become the subject of academic research. Research on freedom of expression may consider these newer types of communications 56 as it evaluates the right to any form of communication, from 'talking to 52 tweeting to tree-sitting' . 57 The case study is one method of studying this right and its inhibition. 58 The 115 op-eds assessed in this study were posted on the SHAPE-SEA website during the four-month period between 26 March 2020 (when the first four were made available online) and 26 July 2020 (when data collection ended). The following data were extracted: (1) title of op-ed; (2) date of op-ed; (3) author name; (4) target country of op-ed (the country (or countries) that is the subject of the op-ed); (5) origin of author; (6) profession/position of author; 59 (7) author institution type (university, NGO, etc.); (8) author gender; (9) primary and (if applicable) secondary theme of op-ed; and (10) level of criticism against government.

The origin of author was initially collected but eventually abandoned because it was often too difficult to discern. Author affiliations were not always listed and even when they were, some authors-especially students-listed their university affiliation, but their name (which does not necessarily reflect their country of origin) and the target country of their op-ed seemed to indicate that they were from a different country than their university. 60 Indeed, in all cases, the information provided in the op-eds never definitively indicated author origin. Due to this uncertainty, this article uses target country as the equivalent of author origin. For instance, if an op-ed is about Indonesia, the author is for the purposes of this article treated as either from Indonesia or employed in Indonesia (in either instance, the relationship of the author to the government-in the sense of having to abide by the country's laws and norms on freedom of speech-are approximately the same). Using a proxy to approximate origin is not uncommon. 61 In any event, target country appears to be a reasonably accurate reflection of author origin.

Author gender was usually collected from either the author name (when a name is clearly male or female, such as 'Stefano' or ' Anna') or from the author biography in the op-ed when it uses the pronoun 'he' or 'she' . Like author origin, however, gender from a name is not always easy to discern. With names that were not self-evident, the author profile was checked on www.google.com.

The coding for the most subjective data category-level of criticism against government-was divided into five categories: −1-slightly supportive of government, 0-neutral, 1-slightly critical of government, 2-critical of government and 3-extremely critical of government. 62 . 62 There were no op-eds that were more than slightly supportive of the government. government of the target country of the op-ed. The coding was based on the language used in the op-ed. When the op-ed complimented the government (unusual, but there were four instances), it was coded '−1' . For example, an op-ed about Timor-Leste praised the government's efforts to provide information for the hearing impaired. 63 A 'neutral' code '0' was given to 33 op-eds that either did not discuss government policies or actions, or discussed them in a purely neutral tone, without criticism or praise. When the author criticised the government but just a few times and quite mildly, it was coded '1' (29 were coded '1'). For example, one Malaysian author writing about education mentioned that 'the related ministries have not been taking these matters seriously, leading to poor planning and implementation' . 64 If this type of criticism had been repeated more often, it would have been raised to a '2' . There were 37 op-eds that received a '2' , reflecting a more sustained criticism yet avoiding extremely emotional or passionate language. An author from Timor-Leste, for instance, noted how an Army general ordered police to 'beat and slap' people who violated the COVID-19 restrictions and how the government's actions were inconsistent with human rights laws and the country's constitution. 65 The final category, '3' , reflects a heightened level of criticism condemning the government in the strongest of terms. Eleven op-eds received this grade. For instance, in an op-ed about the Philippine government's response to the pandemic, the author writes, ' Atop the heap callously stands the government, devoid of any compassion in its policy implementations.' 66 One op-ed that compared the COVID-19 responses of Thailand and Indonesia received both a '−1' (for Thailand) and a '2' (for Indonesia).

The 'criticalness score' was not measured mechanically, such as by counting a certain number of critical words or by an algorithm that could detect particular phrases. Instead, the author of this article read each op-ed and comparatively gauged the overall criticalness in a holistic manner, taking into consideration all of the op-ed author's words. The line between each op-ed's score was naturally, in a few instances, not easily discernible.

In addition to the difficulties in identifying author origin and the subjective nature of the criticalness score, the number of op-eds (115) and their distinct nature limit the data's usefulness. To explain, patterns or characteristics identified among these op-eds cannot be generalised to the larger population of human rights-centred COVID-19 op-eds on the Internet because the population of these other op-eds is difficult to identify and they necessarily have different requirements and characteristics. Moreover, narrowing the data to subsets of the op-eds-for instance, the number of op-eds about Cambodiareduces the quantity of op-eds even further, making any conclusions speculative at best (at the same time though, the fact that there were so few op-eds about Cambodia in itself may be insightful). Another limitation of the study is that the amount and criticalness of op-eds may be impacted by a seemingly infinite number of factors (to name just a few: the irregular effectiveness of advertising the call for op-eds across Southeast Asia, the different busyness of authors across countries, genders, etc. who might consider writing op-eds, the different impact of COVID-19 on each country and each author and the different personal life experiences of authors that may cause them to be more or less critical).

Limitations to research, however, should be expected given the unprecedented 'global nature, rapidity, diversity and severity' of COVID-19's impact. 67 The SHAPE-SEA op-eds are necessarily limited in number, scope and generalizability because the pandemic is ongoing and continues to impact how we communicate. Additionally, identifying correlations among data during this pandemic is particularly fraught because of the entanglement with data that may have existed without the pandemic. 68 Recognising the increased importance of addressing the stability of research findings at this time, Fell et al. suggest reporting contextual data that may not otherwise have been relevant (such as new pandemic restrictions), taking particular care of pandemic-related variables when looking for correlations among data, recognising the increased difficulty in crosscountry comparisons due to different regional impacts and restrictions, incorporating longitudinal elements into research design that allow for replication, using multiple methods to address research questions, recording potential limitations on data collection, paying particular attention to ethical considerations and maximising transparency in explanations and justifications. 69 As many as possible of the Fell et al. suggestions have been incorporated into this study. Contextual data on the impact of COVID-19 among Southeast Asian countries during the four-month period of the study has been taken into consideration; pandemic-related variables, such as data on how people view their government's performance during the pandemic, have been assessed; the difficulty in comparing the op-eds across countries is not only acknowledged but is highlighted as a potential factor that impacts the nature of the op-eds; and limitations to the study and the data collection have been explained in detail and with full transparency. The largest groups of authors were academics (28), NGO workers (27) and students (20) (other professions included journalists and unaffiliated activists).

In sum, the data collected about authors indicates that SHAPE-SEA's aim to attract submissions from activists and academics was satisfied in about equal portions. Students appear to be keenly interested in writing evidence-based op-eds about human rights and may find grey literature a particularly welcoming venue, with many of them motivated enough to write multiple pieces. The hypothesis that males would outnumber female authors was correct to a ratio of slightly above 5:4.

The SHAPE-SEA op-eds addressed Southeast Asian countries individually and Southeast Asia, ASEAN, Asia and the global situation more generally. The amounts in descending order were: Indonesia (27); Philippines (21); Malaysia (12); Timor-Leste (9); Southeast Asia (9); Myanmar (6); Asia (1); ASEAN (4); Singapore (4); Thailand (4); Vietnam (4); Cambodia (3); the world (2); Brunei (1); Laos (1); India (1) and the South China Sea (1). Five op-eds addressed multiple countries simultaneously: Bangladesh and Thailand (1); Indonesia and India (1); Indonesia and Thailand (1); Myanmar and Bangladesh (1) and the Philippines, Cambodia and Vietnam (1).

When placed within the context of their populations, Indonesia and the Philippines were first and second in both population and in the number of op-eds published. There are some slight surprises. Only five op-eds were produced about Vietnam, the country with the third-largest population. Also, the fourth-highest country in number of op-eds, Timor-Leste, is the second least populated. Malaysia, with a little less than five per cent of the region's population, was the subject of 12 per cent of the countryspecific op-eds. Figure 2 illustrates, in declining order, the population of Southeast Asian countries denoted by the blue line and the y-axis on the left, whereas the number of op-eds is depicted by the orange line and the y-axis on the right.

The population of a country does not, of course, determine (or would even necessarily be expected to correlate with) the number of op-eds about that country. Nonetheless, the close association between the two-with, for instance, Indonesia and the Philippines at the top and Laos, Singapore, Timor-Leste and Brunei at the low end-indicates that size of a country's population may be a factor that impacts the number of op-eds.

The most common themes of the op-eds were migrants and migrant workers (8), education (7), human rights (7), conditions of the marginalised (6), access to information (6), freedom of expression (5), law and order (5) and refugees (5). Other issues that attracted several op-eds were women, girls and gender-related issues (4), healthcare workers (4) and communications (4). The op-ed themes were generally diverse across the different types of authors and target countries, with some interesting points to note. NGO workers authored the only op-eds about LGBTIQ (2), women and girls (2) and discrimination (2). 72 The op-eds about freedom of expression (5) were all written by men (one was co-authored by a man and woman). The themes that attracted the most writing indicate that those in the Southeast Asian human rightscentred community during the pandemic are to a large extent concerned about the vulnerable: migrants, students, the marginalised, refugees, women, girls and healthcare workers. While there were op-eds about the military, economic policy, elections, the environment, geopolitics, social policies and others, these topics did not receive as 72 A closely-related op-ed about stigma was authored by a student. much attention as those that dealt with the marginalization, suffering and health risks of the people who would be most seriously impacted by the pandemic.

A primary aim of this article is to explore any correlations between, on one hand, the level of criticalness of the op-eds and, on the other hand, the nature of the authors (profession, gender), the op-eds (themes) and countries (ranked by freedom scores and the governments' handling of the pandemic).

Each op-ed was assigned a 'criticalness score' that attempts to measure how critical an author is of the government of the country that the op-ed addresses. Criticalness scores were assigned to every op-ed, including those that addressed regions like ASEAN or Southeast Asia generally, in which case the criticism of the governments of the region was measured. As mentioned previously, of the 115 op-eds, four received a '−1' (slightly supportive of government), 33 received a '0' (neutral), 29 received a '1' (slightly critical), 37 received a '2' (critical) and 11 received a '3' (extremely critical). One received both a '−1' and a '2' because it was complimentary of Thailand and critical of the Philippines. The overall criticalness of all the op-eds (counting the final one as two separate scores) was 1.15, indicating that on average the op-eds were slightly critical of their governments. Figure 3 depicts the distribution of criticalness scores.

Viewing criticalness scores by popular theme, illustrated in Figure 4 below, demonstrates that, at least for these 115 op-eds, conceptual themes like law and order, human rights and freedom of expression garnered higher criticism scores than the op-eds highlighting vulnerable populations. It is unclear why these broader, more abstract themes would attract greater criticism. Perhaps authors believed governments are more directly responsible for the state of law and order, human rights and freedom of expres- sion than for the conditions of the marginalised and vulnerable during the pandemic. The conditions of law and order, for example, are a direct product of government action or inaction. Figure 4 shows the criticalness scores of the most popular themes in descending order.

The average criticalness by gender of author was for males 1.15 and for females 1.12-virtually indistinguishable. The average criticalness among the three major professions was for academics 1.11, for students 1.17 and for NGO workers 1.07. The hypothesis that NGO workers would be the most critical was unsupported. In fact, students were the boldest of these three professions, with academics only slightly behind and with NGO workers in third. Maybe the young really are more courageous-or rash? 73 Freedom House's 'Freedom of the World' index is one of the most established and well-known freedom indices. 74 Its Global Freedom Scores measure political rights (electoral process, political pluralism and participation, and functioning of government) and civil liberties (freedom of expression and belief, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, and personal autonomy and individual rights). 75 Figure 5 (a) depicts Southeast Asian countries ranked in descending order by 2019 Global Freedom Score and notes, in the right-most column, the freedom status assigned by Freedom House. The highest scores in the world were given to Sweden, Finland and Norway (100) and the lowest to South Sudan (−2).

The hypothesis advanced is that a lower Global Freedom Score corresponds to lower criticalness of government due to self-censorship, fear and being unaccustomed to expressing strong criticism on a public Internet forum. According to this hypothesis, op-ed authors writing about countries like Timor-Leste, Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia should be more critical of their governments than countries like Cambodia, Brunei, Vietnam and Laos. In the same vein, one might expect fewer op-eds from these lower-ranked countries (the data in this chart include op-eds that addressed multiple countries). Figure 5 (b) to a large extent undermines the hypothesis that a higher Global Freedom Score correlates with higher criticalness. The most critical op-eds (on average) were about Vietnam, which has the second-lowest Global Freedom Score. Similarly contradicting the hypothesis, Timor-Leste, with the highest Global Freedom Score, has the fourth-lowest criticalness score.

The low number of op-eds published about most individual Southeast Asian countries-particularly countries like Cambodia, Vietnam and Brunei-undermines the reliability of any correlations with criticalness scores. This same lack of op-eds, however, seems to indicate perhaps a reluctance from people of these countries to author opeds for venues like SHAPE-SEA. Indeed, the number of op-eds, indicated by the rightmost column in Figure 5(b) , traces the Global Freedom Scores more closely than the Criticalness Scores. Timor-Leste, with an unusually high number of op-eds for its population, also has the highest Global Freedom Score. Countries with the lowest Global Freedom Scores also have markedly low numbers of op-eds. Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia, near the top of Global Freedom Ranking, attracted the highest amount of op-eds. At least to a limited extent, these figures (given all the limitations previously noted) may indicate that freedom impacts people's willingness to express themselves but may not impact the level of their criticalness of government. Another hypothesis advances that a lower level of criticalness will be observed in op-eds about countries that have managed the coronavirus better. This hypothesis is motivated by the idea that countries that are handling the pandemic better will have less dissatisfied citizens who will thus be less critical of their governments. To test this hypothesis, data were used from a survey published by the organization YouGov, an international research data and analytics group founded in 2000 and headquartered in London. 77 The survey asked people whether they thought their government was 'handling the issue of coronavirus "very" or "somewhat" well' . 78 Only five Southeast Asian countries-Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia-were included in the survey; data were collected nine times between May 8 and July 20. Figure 7 compares the average percentage of people who thought their governments were handling the coronavirus situation very or somewhat well with the Criticalness Scores. Figure 7 indicates that the hypothesis is not supported. The highest criticalness should accompany the lowest average satisfaction of respondents. In fact, Vietnam's good performance in handling COVID-19 prompted highly critical pieces. Indonesia's lower approval of government handling received just a mild Criticalness Score. More promisingly (for the hypothesis), Malaysia's, Singapore's and the Philippines' Criticalness Scores were in reverse order of their YouGov rankings.

The SHAPE-SEA op-eds present a unique opportunity to gauge critical speech in Southeast Asia. As freely accessible online grey literature with an acceptance rate of 99.9 per cent and open for submissions by anyone, by their very nature they impose few barriers to access and participation. More importantly, they revolve around an issue that has profoundly affected all of us-the impact of COVID-19. Yet despite wide appraisal of the Internet and social media as a space for increased critical speech, the analysis in this article supports the view that criticism of government in Southeast Asia-even at a time of widespread government failure and increased suppression of human rights-remains somewhat muted.

At the time of this writing in mid-August 2020, the pandemic is ongoing and, in several countries, appears to be entering a second wave. Critical speech is never static. Conditions on the ground can change quickly with corresponding reactions from activists. The SHAPE-SEA op-eds reflect these unstable times and publishing venues 77 like them will remain a rich resource for future study. Further research, particularly qualitative research, may help reveal why critical speech in Southeast Asia remains relatively subdued. Do the criticalness scores reflect decades of government pressure and chilling of speech? Or are Southeast Asians showing patience for overwhelmed and dazed governments? Or is the impact of something more mundane, such as the hybrid nature of the op-eds that fuses critical opinion with objective academic commentary, at work? In the end, appropriately, the diversity of the op-eds appears to reflect the heterogeneity of Southeast Asia.

The author thanks Joel Mark Baysa-Barredo, Programme Director at Strengthening Human Rights and Peace Research and Education in Southeast Asia, for providing information about the SHAPE-SEA op-eds that was not available on the SHAPE-SEA website.

The Rise of Sophisticated Authoritarianism in Southeast Asia

Democracy and Human Rights in Southeast Asia

Southeast Asia in the New World Order: The Political Economy of a Dynamic Region

Towards a Human Rights Regime in Southeast Asia: Charting the Course of State Commitment

Regime Security and Human Rights in Southeast Asia

A Nation in Distress: Human Rights, Authoritarianism, and Asian Values in Malaysia' (1999) 14 Sojourn 359; Mauzy, 'The Human Rights and "Asian Values" Debate in Southeast Asia: Trying to Clarify the Key Issues

The Limits and Potential of Liberal Democratisation in Southeast Asia

An Agreement to Disagree: The ASEAN Human Rights Declaration and the Absence of Regional Identity in Southeast Asia

The Challenge of Free Speech: Asian Values v. Unfettered Free Speech, an Analysis of Singapore and Malaysia in the New Global Order' (1998) 9 Indiana International & Comparative Law Review 259

Press Freedom Is Under Attack Across Southeast Asia. Meet the Journalists Fighting Back

Freedom in the World 2020: A Leaderless Struggle for Democracy, Freedom House (2020) at 22, available at: freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/FIW_2020_REPORT_BOOKLET_Final.pdf [last accessed 2

COVID-19 Shrinks Civic Space in Southeast Asia

UN Slams Malaysia over Censorship during Covid-19 Crisis

Covid Crisis Stifles Political Criticism in SE Asia

Pandemic Tempts Leaders to Seize Sweeping Powers

Are Women Publishing Less During the Pandemic? Here's What the Data Say

Gender Gap in Research Output Widens During Pandemic

Women's Research Plummets During Lockdown-but Articles from Men Increase' , The Guardian

Collaboration Between Community Advocates and Academic Researchers: Scientific Advocacy or Political Research

Is Everyone On-Board? Achieving Inclusive Communication in Timor-Leste amid COVID-19' , SHAPE-SEA

Challenges to Learning and Teaching in Malaysia in the Time of Covid-19' , SHAPE-SEA

available at: shapesea.com/op-ed/covid-19/challenges-to-learning-and-teaching-in-malaysia-i n-the-time-of-covid-19

Emergency Declaration for COVID-19 in Timor-Leste: Inefficiency, Reasons and Resolution

available at shapesea.com/op-ed/covid-19/top-down-violence-in-the-faceof-a-pandemic-an-argument-for-a-social-protection-floor

Neural Processing of Reward in Adolescent Rodents

Age Differences in Risk: Perceptions, Intentions and Domains

Evaluating the Evaluators: Media Freedom Indexes and What They Measure

Freedom in the World Research Methodology' (2020), available at: freedomhouse.org/re ports/freedom-world/freedom-world-research-methodology

Ninety-three authors published op-eds on the SHAPE-SEA COVID-19 website during the four-month period. Seventy-four authored only one piece, whereas 19 authored multiple op-eds (students were the most likely to submit multiple pieces-three students even authored four pieces each). Forty authors were female; 53 were male.