Regional Programming on Human Rights Education
Jefferson R. PlantillaM

ore than six months after formal opening in December 1994,
the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center had not yet
launched a regional program. It had a formal mandate to promote human rights in the Asia-Pacific region. And it was envisioned to contribute to the preparation of the region for the establishment of a regional
human rights mechanism.
People behind the establishment of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights
Information Center, also known as hurights osaka, wanted to establish
a regional program on human rights education. They saw the opportunity
offered by the results of the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights, andthe subsequent adoption of a Decade for Human Rights Education by theUnited Nations General Assembly in December 1994.
Finally, in mid-1995, hurights osaka started the groundwork of linking with Asian institutions that eventually led to the development of a regional program on human rights education.
The Context

In the early 1980s, there were discussions in the United Nations about theneed to have a regional human rights mechanism in the vast Asia-Pacificregion. Since there were already regional human rights mechanisms in theAmericas, Africa and Europe, why could not there be such mechanism in
the Asia-Pacific? The first United Nations-sponsored Asian regional workshop on human rights held in Colombo, Sri Lanka in 1982 discussed thisissue. There was no consensus for or against the proposal to establish a regional human rights mechanism in the Asia-Pacific. The government representatives could only agree to further discuss the issue.1 But they all agreed
that human rights should be promoted in Asia.
A year after this major human rights event in the region, in 1983, thethen United Nations officer Yo Kubota raised the idea of Japan helping in
the process of establishing a regional human rights mechanism in the Asia195

196

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Pacific. He exhorted his fellow Japanese to help realize the idea by setting up
a center that would do the task on the strength of the local people and local
governments in Japan.
The local social movement in Osaka2 started to lobby the Osaka prefectural and city governments to support the establishment of such a center.
A decade-long work succeeded in the establishment of a local-governmentand civil-society-supported Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Centerin 1994.
In early 1990s, with the successful lobbying for the adoption of a United
Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (UN Decade), those who wereinvolved in the lobby work at the regional and national levels continued
their tasks by pursuing human rights education activities under the bannerof the UN Decade.
The UN Decade played the role of a rallying point for all educational
activities related in one way or another to human rights. Various types of organizations saw the need to use the UN Decade in promoting human rights
education, or their version of it. There was relatively positive support forhuman rights education at the national level, particularly the governments
in several Asian countries.
The Bangkok-based Asian Regional Resource Center for Human Rights
Education (arrc)3 promoted the UN Decade at the regional level. It tried tolink the various activities related to human rights education in the different
countries in Asia to the UN Decade. It came out with directory of institutions related to human rights education (two editions), a research reporton human rights education situation, training materials on human rights
education, and list of materials on human rights education (two editions).
It had a quarterly newsletter (ARRC Post) that reported on human rights
education initiatives in the region, as well as occasional journal on humanrights education. It held numerous training and other workshops from early
1990s involving educators from many Asian countries.
Arrc focused mainly on the non-formal education system. It networked with non-governmental organizations (ngos) that provided various
types of non-formal education activities ranging from paralegal training toworkshops on using theater to promote human rights.
There was also hardly any other regional program or project that focused solely on human rights education in the early 1990s. Other regional
initiatives in the mid-1990s had human rights education component in theirRegional Programming on Human Rights Education

197

programs as shown in a meeting of regional ngos hosted by hurights osaka in 1995 in Bangkok.4 They undertook human rights education in relation
to specific issues or fields of education.
Considering this context, hurights osaka saw the need to fill a gap
at the regional level and decided to focus on the formal education system.
First Stage
Hurights osaka launched its regional human rights education programin early 1996. As the first stage of the regional program, hurights osaka
initiated a research on cultural values and human rights. The research dealt
with the generally unexplored area of the dynamic links between humanrights and the varied cultures existing in several countries in Asia, and defined the human rights education implications of this issue at the national
level.
The research results were presented in a regional meeting of representatives of non-governmental and governmental institutions in ten Asian
countries in 1997. The participants in this meeting endorsed the use of thecultural values-human rights framework in human rights education in theschool systems.5

Regional Conference (Bangkok, 1997)

198

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Contemplating the second stage of the regional human rights education program, and considering the results of the 1997 regional meeting in
Bangkok, hurights osaka decided that its activities should:
a. Focus on the formal education sectorb. Involve ngos that work on human rights education in the school
systemc. Continue the collaboration with the national human rights
institutions
d. Find ways and means of promoting human rights education in theschool systems in Asia.
The initial activities under the regional human rights education program of hurights osaka provided an opportunity for people and institutions in several countries in the region to link up and share information on
the development of human rights curriculum or in the teaching of subjects
with human rights content.
The subsequent activities of hurights osaka consisted of several
tasks. The first major task was to understand these unrelated human rights
education initiatives in the region. The 1997 regional meeting in Bangkok
showed both the existing experiences in several countries in the region onhuman rights education in the formal education system, and the potential
for more extensive development of the field. The second major task was tofind a common thread among these initiatives that might help make humanrights education more acceptable among the many uninvolved schools andgovernment agencies in the region. This involved clarifying the meaningof human rights, the effects of learning human rights, and the methods inteaching human rights. The Bangkok regional meeting discussed the various reasons behind the resistance to human rights education in the school
system that generally arose from a misunderstanding of the very concept ofhuman rights education.
There was also the significant element of mainstreaming human rights
education in the formal education system by relating it, among other roots,
to positive local cultures. Thus the third task referred to the use of a framework (cultural values-human rights framework) on which human rights
education might have a better chance of getting attention and support.

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

199

Second Stage (1998-1999)
The second stage of the regional human rights education program ofhurights osaka built on the work of the first stage. The second stage wasmainly devoted to understanding the existing experiences on human rights
education in the school systems in the region, the best practices, and theareas for further development.
To be able to achieve this goal, several workshops were held at both subregional and regional levels.
The sub-regional workshops were held during the May-September
1998 period covering Southeast, South and Northeast Asia. The subregional
workshops had by and large the following objectives:
1. To review the basic linkages between culture and human rights,
and trends in human rights education in general;
2. To share experiences and materials on human rights education in
the school system;
3. To discuss areas that require further improvement and propose
concrete measures in addressing them;
4. To draft suggested teaching modules or program on the issue of
cultural values and human rights that would form a manual for human rights education in the school system; and5. To draw up possible plans for regional-level implementation of thesuggested teaching modules or program.

Southeast Asian Consultation Workshop (Surabaya, 1998)

200

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Northeast Asian Consultation Workshop (Seoul, 1998)

South Asian Consultation Workshop (New Delhi, 1998)

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

201

The series of workshops ended with a regional workshop, held in
November 1998, that had the following objectives:
1. To review the results of the sub-regional workshops including thedraft manual on human rights education in schools;
2. To discuss and propose measures to resolve problems encounteredor to be encountered in promoting human rights education inschools; and3. To explore further areas of work (such as training program) among
the participating groups.
The participants in both sub-regional and regional workshops were representatives of ngos involved in human rights education in the school system, private and public schools, government agencies (such as the Ministryof Education), and national human rights institutions. Two to three representatives from each country in each sub-region were invited to participate
in the sub-regional workshops, while at least one representative from eachof these countries participated in the regional workshop.
Since the whole regional program was presented as a concrete effort
in implementing the UN Decade for Human Rights Education in the region, the promotion of the concept of human rights culture was given muchemphasis.
As reported in the Schools, Human Rights and Society - Report of the1998 Workshops on Human Rights Education in Schools (1999), the second
stage of the regional human rights education program identified commonalities among the varied country experiences such as issues and problems
they encountered.6
Some of the commonalities refer to the following issues:a. Starting point of the teaching of human rights – values or moral
education subjects as starting points for human rights educationb. Integration and Separate Subject approaches – two approaches arebeing employed: teaching human rights in whatever subjects in the school
curriculum and having a specific human rights subject (or activity).
c. Materials developed – several types of teaching and learning materials on human rights have been developed but their wide dissemination depended on institutions involved (ngos have generally much limited capacity
to produce and disseminate such materials).

202

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i cd. Cooperation between government education agencies and ngos –this cooperation existed in many of the programs discussed in the workshope. Governmental mandate on human rights education – some governments have adopted either human rights or other policies that support
human rights education
f. Teacher training program – there are existing teacher training programs in several countries on the teaching of human rights in the school
systemg. Human rights issues – many programs on human rights education
focus on the rights of the child.
The problems encountered refer to three major areas - government,
schools, society:a. In relation to the government
1. There is bias against human rights education as shown in the national ideology, and the influence of the political party in power. In
cases where legal sanction for human rights education in school
system exists, absence of political will hinders the full implementation of programs;
2. There is lack of knowledge on human rights by government personnel; and3. There is also lack of recognition of problems in schools by thegovernment.
b. In relation to the schools
1. There is tension between the pedagogical process being employedin schools and the human rights education program;
2. There is weak motivation among teachers on teaching humanrights . They also exhibit bias against human rights/human rights
education;
3. There is a large number of students per class, and short class hours;
4. School teachers receive low pay;
5. Knowledge-centered education negates the importance of understanding relations with other people and with society;6. Teachers and students have communication gap since students are
restricted in expressing their own opinions;Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

203

7.

The paternalistic education system fosters one-way teaching methodology where the teachers demand that the students simply listen
to their lectures;
8. Students develop conformist behavior that affects their individuality;
9. There is contradiction between the ideas learned in school and theexperiences at home;
10. The use of the positivist paradigm of teaching in schools weakens
the teaching of human rights since critical thinking becomes lessimportant in the learning process. Human rights education occupies a very low position in the priorities of the schools because it
is not included in the examinations for higher level studies. Manyview competitive, examination-oriented education system as oppressive to the students;
11. There is a shortage of materials (e.g., teaching modules, teachingaids, reference materials, funding, among others) for human rights
education, and of teachers who have appropriate training to teachhuman rights;
12. There is an overloading of teaching tasks that prevents the introduction of new subjects or other activities in the school. The teaching of human rights is seen therefore as an additional burden, andcannot be accommodated within the existing school curriculum;
13. There are school regulations violating human rights principles (suchas on punishment of students) that continue to be implemented.
c. In relation to the society in general
1. The parents have weak motivation in supporting human rights
education;
2. The general populace may be passive, cynical, or have a negative
view of human rights. There is a mistaken notion about the purpose of human rights education especially in relation to the role ofcitizens in the society;3. Although human rights education is officially recognized by governments, it still suffers from restrictive political situations thatprevent full development of the programs as far as content andmethodology are concerned.

204

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

These problems more or less reflect the situation of the teaching andlearning of human rights within the school system in South, Southeast andNortheast Asia during much of the decade of the 1990s. And yet, many ofthese problems were still raised in the following decade of the 2000s.
Hurights osaka’s response to the situation, no matter how limited,
had to relate to these problems as well as opportunities existing at the endof the 1990s decade.
Third Stage (2000 – present)
The third stage of the regional human rights education program started withanother round of meetings with educators from the different countries in
the region. The meetings focused on three areas: research, material development, and teacher training.
hurights osaka regarded 2001 as the year for the review of the past
activities and the identification of its future regional activities to support thefurther development of human rights education in the school system. In thislight, hurights osaka held consultation meetings on three key areas witheducators from Japan and other Asian countries.
Prior to the meetings, hurights osaka undertook a mini-survey ofpeople related to human rights education on the three areas. The compiled
responses were discussed in the consultation meetings.The consultation
meeting on research, held on 16-18 September 2001, discussed the current perceived needs for research related to human rights education in theschool system; research activities in support of human rights education in
the school system such as those regarding curriculum development, culture and human rights, etc.; the possible research partners for specific research activities; and the resources and timetable for the research activities.
The meeting participants agreed on the feasibility of a comparative study
or multi-country survey that would provide an independent and critical review of the existing state of human rights education in the school system
in several Asian countries. The study would review the policy framework(relating to human rights issues and human rights education), the humanrights curriculum, the degree of human rights awareness of students andteachers, the problems (teacher skills and materials) being encountered, andthe follow-up measures (role of parents and society). There was also discussion on the methodology, partners, financial support, and steps to take, etc.
in undertaking the suggested research project.

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

205

Consultation Meeting on Research (Osaka, 2001)

The second meeting focusing on training, held on 18-20 October 2001,
discussed a possible training program, and identified training objectives,course content, criteria for participants, resource persons, course materials, duration of the course, etc. The meeting participants suggested thatthe training program should have the following general goals: to sharpen/
deepen consciousness of teachers on human rights; to facilitate teacher empowerment by helping develop knowledge, skills and attitude on humanrights education; to enable teachers to develop more democratic learning
environment; and to enable teachers to develop a networking system withother institutions and groups. They suggested the use of interactive and participatory methodology in the training such as lecture-discussion sessions,role-play, case study, games, etc. They also discussed and identified the basic
contents, participants, partners and implementation mechanism for training. They agreed that the materials that would be developed and used in the
training program should be based on the experiences of different countries.
Finally, the third meeting focusing on material development, held on
15-17 December 2001, discussed the current state of, and needs for, materials for human rights education in the school system; the development of materials based on the existing materials in the region; and the process of selecting type, content, users, and writers of the materials.The suggestions forthe types of materials that could be produced included: supplementary text-

206

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Consultation Meeting on Training (Osaka, 2001)

book (to help students’ understanding on both domestic and foreign humanrights issues), exercise materials (ready-to-use materials that include stories
and illustrations as well as information on human rights), information sheet(containing materials for human rights education including new learning/teaching methods, and different approaches to human rights education),sample curricular framework on human rights (for teachers to integrate human rights into curricular subjects), and materials for basic understandingof human rights (questions and answers on human rights concept, and illustrative ways of understanding the concepts). The meeting participants also
discussed the possible partners for material development.

Consultation Meeting on Material Development (Osaka, 2001)

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

207

Hurights osaka adopted the results of the consultation meetings as
guide in developing projects under the regional human rights education
program. During the 2003-2012 period, hurights osaka implemented
projects at both subregional and regional levels that corresponded by andlarge to the results of the consultation meetings, while also implementing
agreements made in the 1998 subregional consultation workshops.
Research Projects
The experience of the first regional research project (focusing on culturalvalues and human rights) provided an important guide to the subsequent
research projects that were implemented after the 2001 consultation meeting on research.
These subsequent research projects focused more exclusively on human rights education in the school system. They probed on specific issues
affecting human rights education, and provided information on areas that
require further development as well as opportunities for future activities.
The first research project implemented in 2003 followed to a large extent the recommendations of the 2001 consultation meeting on research.
The project was conceptualized in a meeting with invited research partners
in Bangkok in 2003. The research partners agreed on a research on the twoends of the educational spectrum: educational policy and human rights
awareness, and one middle component – the school curriculum.
The research project coincided with the ending of the UN Decade in
2004. It thus responded to the need to find out how governments supported
the UN Decade, and what impact did the government support make on thehuman rights awareness of the students (and also teachers).
The original idea was to cover many countries in South, Southeast andNortheast Asia. But both financial limitation and difficulty of finding research partners restricted the coverage of the research project to four countries: two from South (India and Sri Lanka), one from Southeast (Philippines)
and another one in Northeast Asia (Japan) subregions.
The research project was meant to be an indicative survey using sampling method and involving respondents who represented the characteristics (gender, ethnic, economic status, rural-urban divide, etc.) of the countries involved (India, Japan, Philippines and Sri Lanka).

208

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

The general objective of the research project was to provide an independent and critical review of the existing state of human rights educationin the school system in several Asian countries. Specifically, this research
project was meant• To clarify governments’ support for human rights education in theschool system• To clarify problem areas in implementing human rights educationin the school system• To identify measures for effective human rights education in theschool system (such as support for teachers - empowerment)
The research project examined three major components: educationalframework, school curriculum, and human rights awareness of students andteachers. Each component considered the following subjects:a. Educational framework
1. Laws, policies, and guidelines (memorandums, executive orders,memorandums of understanding, etc.)
2. Items covered by laws, policies, and guidelines–– schools – public and private–– institutions/agencies – Ministry of Education–– contents–– vision, mission, objectives–– human rights
3. Implementation measures provided for in the laws, policies, andguidelines
4. Support provided for the implementation of the laws, policies, andguidelines–– funds–– development of curriculum–– development of teaching/learning materials–– teacher training program–– partnership with other institutions (local, national, regional,
international)–– human rights expertise
5. Co/extra-curricular activities provided for in the laws, policies, andguidelines.

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

209

b.
1.
2.
3.

Human rights curriculum
Curricular objectives
Contents: human rights concepts and practicePresentation of human rights–– issues covered (women, children, culture and religion, etc.)–– emphasis (international human rights standards, or domesticlaws)
4. “Exercise of rights” (respecting the rights of others, conflict resolution skills)
5. Teaching/learning methodologies (teacher–centered versus student-centered, classroom versus field/out of class work)
6. Evaluation system on–– School ethos – systems, rules, hierarchy–– Teaching/learning materials–– Extra/co-curricular activitiesc. Field survey
1. Respondents–– students – two thousand respondents per country, with an average age of fourteen years (two classes per school – eighty students/
average number of respondents) at the secondary school level–– teachers – fifty respondents per country from twenty public/
private schools – two teacher-respondents per school
2. Methods–– questionnaire survey–– focused group discussions (fgd)• five schools chosen for the fgd• participants – from schools with most articulate students• fifty students (ten students per group per school)• ten teachers (two teachers per group per school)
3. Survey contents:–– sources of knowledge of human rights – school, media, family,community, neighborhood–– clusters of questions• subject areas – knowledge, attitude, behavior• process of learning/teaching• materials

210

4.
5.

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c• school ethos• practiceData analysis - use of common computer program
Survey administrators – national core groups.

Research Partners Meeting (Bangkok, 2003)

The field survey was undertaken during the 2004-2005 period in eachof the countries involved. Prior to this, the research partners prepared acommon survey questionnaire that was later on translated into different languages (five Indian languages and in Japanese language). Due to differencesin the situations of the countries involved, the survey questions were adapted to the specific country context in terms of words and examples used. The
Indian and Philippine surveys covered different parts of the two countries,
which contributed to the longer period of administering the survey questionnaires. The Japanese survey, however, covered only one city (Osaka city)in view of the difficulty of administering such survey in Japanese schools in
different parts of the country.7
The summary of the results of the research project has two parts: essay
for the analyses of the educational policies and school curriculums, and explanation of the statistical results of the human rights awareness survey.8 The

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

211

Research Partners Meeting (Delhi, 2005)

full report, entitled The Educational Policies and Human Rights Awareness- Japan, India, the Philippines and Sri Lanka was published in New Delhi,
India in 2008. Two country reports were published separately in New Delhi(Human Rights Education in Indian Schools, 2007)9 and in Manila (Human
Rights Education in Philippine Schools, 2006).10
The educational policy research was continued with a research projectfor Southeast Asia that started in 2006 under the “Regional mapping, collection of best practices and coordination of initiatives to promote humanrights education in South-East Asian school systems” project of the UN
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (ohchr) and unesco Asia-Pacific Education Bureau. This was meant to help implement thefirst phase plan of action of the UN World Programme for Human Rights
Education (wphre). An Advisory Panel composed of representatives ofohchr and unesco decided on the Southeast Asian countries covered by
the research project, namely, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao pdr, and Thailand.
A fifth country (Vietnam) could have been included but the government
concerned failed to give a response to the invitation of the Advisory Panelto join the research project. The decision on countries to be covered by the
research project was based on the following considerations:a. Existence of UN projects in the country, which can provide support
for, or somehow get linked to, the project. unesco projects on humanrights education can be promoted through the projectb. Existence of national institutions that can host the implementationof the project. These institutions can be the Ministries of Education, the212

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i cnational human rights institutions, or government-sponsored humanrights centersc. Existence of various of types of schools - public or private, secularor faith-based schoolsd. Existence of program regarding the school curriculum - such as thecurriculum reform projects
e. Existence of projects involving teacher education institutions.
The National Teams for Human Rights Education (nthres) formed in thefour countries covered by the project undertook the national-level research.
hurights osaka coordinated the research project implementation.11
The representatives of the nthres, the Advisory Panel, and hurights
osaka met to review the research work done. hurights osaka monitored
the research work through direct communication with the nthres and visit
to the countries involved. A Southeast Asian conference was held in August
2008 in Bangkok to present the research reports.

Conference on WPHRE Research in Southeast Asia (Bangkok, 2008)

The Lao (Both Lay Ngan - Sitthi Manout Nay Kansiuksa, in Lao language)
and Indonesian (Pendidikan Hak Asasi Manusia Pada Sekolah-Sekolah Di
Indonesia: Sebuah Tinjauan Awal, in Bahasa Indonesia language) research

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

213

reports were published in 2008 in Vientiane and Jakarta respectively, while
the publication of the full research report entitled Human Rights Educationin the School Systems in Southeast Asia - Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao pdr
and Thailand, was published in 2009. The preparation of the final research
report benefited from the prior research project of hurights osaka on
educational policy and human rights education. The full research report was
published in Bangkok, Thailand in cooperation with the Office of Human
Rights Studies and Social Development in Mahidol University.12
The latest research project under the regional human rights education
program was a research on educational policies and school curriculum in
the Northeast Asia subregion. The planning for this research project washeld in a meeting of Northeast Asian educators on 11-13 March 2008 that
discussed the following:
1. Review of the current situation of human rights education in
Northeast Asian schools
2. Identification of feasible suggestions for a Northeast Asian program or project in response to the current (and projected) situationin the subregion
3. Agreement on steps toward a Northeast Asian human rights education network (as part of proposed Asian network).

Meeting on Northeast Asian Research Project (Osaka, 2008)

214

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Hurights osaka subsequently adopted the research project plan withthe long-term objective of helping institutionalize human rights education
within the school systems in Northeast Asia. In the short term, the research
project aimed to have a concrete presentation of the current challenges
and opportunities relating to human rights education within the school
systems in Northeast Asia by a) providing detailed discussion on the challenges and opportunities common as well as unique among the countries inthe subregion; b) providing detailed presentation on concrete experiencesthat address the challenges and make use of the opportunities; c) creating a
network among Northeast Asian educators that continues the exchange of
information on the development of human rights education in the different
school systems.
Individual researchers from Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Mongolia andTaiwan implemented the research project during the 2009-2010 period.
A final research report entitled The State of Human Rights Education in
Northeast Asian School Systems: Obstacles, Challenges, Opportunities was
published in 2010.
The Northeast Asian research project completed the series of researchon educational policies and school curriculums of hurights osaka. The
research projects covered India and Sri Lanka in South Asia; Cambodia,
Indonesia, Lao pdr, the Philippines, and Thailand in Southeast Asia; andHong Kong, Japan, Korea, Mongolia and Taiwan in Northeast Asia. But
since many countries in Asia have not been covered by the research on educational policies and school curriculum, there is a possibility of continuing
the research in the future.
In the meantime, the research results should be used in promoting
human rights education in the school systems in Asia and the Pacific. The
opportunities for the use of the research results arise from the two othercomponents of the regional human rights education program: material development and training.
Material Development Projects
Hurights osaka adopted a subregional approach in developing teaching
and learning materials on human rights. It started with the Southeast Asia
project on developing lesson plans in 2003, followed by a South Asian re-Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

215

source material project in 2009, and another resource material project for
Northeast Asia in 2011.
The development of such materials was mainly collaborative in character with the participation of educators from the subregions ensured fromthe start till the end of the production process.
Hurights osaka, the Philippine Department of Education and
the Philippine Commission on Human Rights jointly organized the asean Writing Workshop on 19-27 June 2001.13 This Writing Workshop or
Writeshop was a follow-up activity to the Southeast Asia Pilot Teacher
Training Workshop held in Bali, Indonesia in 1999. The Writeshop produced
forty-eight lesson plans from twenty-six participants composed of teachers, education researchers, curriculum developers and ngo workers from
Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. The
nine-day Writeshop had the following objectives:a. General Objectives:
It aimed at developing human rights teaching guides for Southeast
Asian schools. Participants were expected to draft sample teaching guides
for primary and secondary school levels focusing on basic concepts andprinciples of human rights and contextualized in each country’s cultures,
beliefs and practices. In this regard, the principle of universality of humanrights was emphasized. The Writeshop also aimed to serve as a venue forSoutheast Asian human rights educators to share and exchange experiencesin teaching human rights in the formal education system.
b. Specific Objectives:
1. To formulate asean Human Rights Education Vision and Mission;
2. To review human rights standards and principles in order to identify core human rights concepts for basic education;
3. To reexamine linkages between human rights and Southeast Asian
cultures in order to help translate human rights concepts into educational materials;
4. To train on how to relate human rights lesson plans to the existing
school curriculum;
5. To identify various strategies for infusion of human rights in theformal education curriculum;

216

6.
7.
8.

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

To identify programs for extra and co-curricular activities and/or
community-based human rights activities;
To prepare an action plan regarding strategy in regional lobby forhuman rights education; andTo strengthen linkages among educators in Southeast Asia involvedin human rights education in the school system.

The nine-day Writeshop program comprised of the following major
components:
1. Review of human rights education programs, human rights principles, human rights education approaches, strategies and methods; and formulation of asean Human Rights Education Vision
and Mission;
2. Writing of human rights teaching guides;
3. Teaching demonstration using the teaching guides developed; and4. Planning for follow-up activities.
In writing the lesson plans, the Writeshop participants considered thefollowing factors:
1. School curriculums were already established and could not be easily amended to accommodate human rights education as a separate
subject;
2. A review of the curriculums and teaching materials was needed tofind out how human rights concepts could be discussed within theexisting subject areas;
3. Using a common framework in developing materials was preferred
for a better understanding by the participants of the materials
developed;
4. Testing of the drafted materials could be done in the respective countries to determine how they suited the existing school
curriculums.
The Writeshop also produced a common human rights curricular
framework that included the relevant human rights issues affecting people
at various levels - personal, community, country, regional and international
levels; the core values to be taught per subject and year level; and the human rights concepts that relate to the core values. The development of a

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

217

human rights curricular framework helped the Writeshop participants organize their thoughts on the content (relevant core values based on existing
curriculums and appropriate human rights), subjects and year levels of thedrafted lesson plans.

Southeast Asian Writing Workshop (Tagaytay, 2001)

A common format for lesson plans was also adopted. This format, while
following standard lesson plan format, had elements that discussed humanrights concepts.14
All participants reviewed the draft lesson plans, while a panel of educators commented on the objectives, materials for use by the teachers andstudents, the procedure for teaching, and the core values and human rights
concepts involved. Each member of the panel was later on assigned to assista country delegation in improving the drafted lesson plans.
In order to test the lesson plans, the participants demonstrated theteaching of the lesson plans in primary and secondary schools in Manila.
All participants appreciated the teaching demonstration experience. They
were happy in finding the students enthusiastic in discussing human rights.
They also realized that human rights, as a subject matter, were not new tothe students.

218

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Teaching Demonstration (Manila, 2001)

The schools involved (Aurora Quezon Elementary School and Manila
Science High School) were “effective” or highly rated public schools. The
participants found the students smart and able to easily interact with them.
Subsequent to the Writeshop, hurights osaka formed a Review
Team in 2002 composed of representatives from each of the countries represented in the Writeshop. The Review Team decided on the lesson plansfor primary and secondary levels to be included in a final set of lesson plansthat would be published. It also edited the lesson plans based on the following agreed guidelines:15
1. The specific problems or issues as identified in the table of lessonplans adopted by the Review Team should be those within the experience of the students;
2. The lesson plans should have general applicability to the Southeast
Asian context and flexibility for adaptation to national curriculums,
and other national educational conditions. Statements should be
written in a general sense to make the lesson plans easily adaptable
to any of the countries in Southeast Asia;
3. Notes for the teachers in each lesson plan should be added to explain the topics and the related human rights concepts;
4. Each lesson plan should be appropriate for forty to fifty-minutesession, but could be adjusted to longer session period;
5. The lesson plans should use simple language;

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

6.
7.

219

A single specific human right should be the content for each lesson
plan;
There should be consistency among the different parts of the lessonplan (from objectives to application).

The edited lesson plans were subsequently published in one book,
Human Rights Lesson Plans for Southeast Asian Schools, in 2003 in Bangkok,
Thailand. The pdf file of the book was uploaded on a number of websites
including those of hurights osaka and the supporting institutions(Friedrich Naumann Foundation and the unesco Asia-Pacific Bureau).16
The Human Rights Lesson Plans for Southeast Asian Schools was alsotranslated into Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Malaysia, Khmer, and Vietnamese
languages.17
The holding of the Writeshop and the formation of a Review Team reflected the collaborative nature of hurights osaka’s project implementation system. They were based on the experiences in Southeast Asia (theWriteshop idea came from the Philippine experience of developing lessonplans with the participation of representatives of various stakeholders [government offices, ngos, and schools] as lesson plan writers; the teachingdemonstration component repeated the experience in the 1999 Southeast
Asia Pilot Teacher Training Workshop in Bali where participants actively interacted with students despite apprehension about language; and the Review
Team consisted of the leading participants18 in the Writeshop) that strengthened ownership of the lesson plans by the Southeast Asian educators.
The material for South Asia developed after the second South Asian
training workshop organized by hurights osaka in December 2005 in
New Delhi, India.19 From among the key participants and resource persons
in the training workshop, a training material drafting team was formed toplan and prepare a South Asian training material.
While the Southeast Asian lesson plans publication was explicitly supportive of the UN Decade, the South Asian lesson plans publication supported the first phase plan of action20 of the wphre.
The project partners met in Osaka in 2006 and in Bangkok in 2007 to
discuss the contents and mechanism for developing the South Asian material. Unlike the Southeast Asian lesson plans publication, the South Asian lesson plans publication did not involve the writing and editing of lesson plans.
Instead, the South Asian publication used existing materials on discussions

220

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i cof human rights principles and standards, the human rights situation in the
sub-region, and human rights lesson plans. These contents differentiatedthe Southeast Asian publication from its South Asian counterpart.
The publication, entitled South Asian Teachers and Human Rights
Education – Resource Training Material was printed in New Delhi in 2009.
It was described in the following manner:
This teacher training resource material uses the wphre’s
first phase plan of action as its main framework. It presents in
a contextualised way human rights and the practice of humanrights education. It provides teachers with basic information on
the content of human rights education and the means by whichhuman rights education is put into practice. It draws much fromthe experiences in South Asia on the different aspects of humanrights education in the school system. It is meant to be a complementary material to any training programme on human rights/
human rights education for teachers as well as other officials in
the formal education system.
The South Asian lesson plans publication, similar to the Southeast
Asian lesson plans publication, was meant to be used by teachers inside theclassroom as well as by trainers in teacher training programs. The lessonplans included in the South Asian publication had different formats andwere taken from existing South Asian human rights education publications.
The publication showed the diversity of human rights education materials
in South Asia.
The Northeast Asian material was the latest material developed under the regional human rights education program. The publication of theresearch report on the review of the state of human rights education in
Northeast Asia in 2010, prepared the ground for the development of a human rights education material for Northeast Asia.
In September 2011, hurights osaka held a meeting with educatorsfrom China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Mongolia and Taiwan to discussa project for the development of a human rights education material for
Northeast Asia. The plan for the project was agreed upon in this meeting.
The invited educators agreed to contribute lesson plans based on existing materials in the subregion. They also agreed to use the lesson planformat of the Human Rights Lesson Plans for Southeast Asian Schools, whichmeant adapting existing lesson plans to that format. As a guide on the col-

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

221

Meeting on Northeast Asian Material Development Project (Osaka, 2011)lection of lesson plans, a human rights curricular framework based on theSoutheast Asian publication was also adopted.
A meeting of the contributors as well as other educators reviewed thedraft lesson plans submitted. They gave comments and suggestions on how
to improve the draft lesson plans. The second meeting was held in September
2012. Hurights osaka did the final edit of the lesson plans.
The output, a publication, consisted of four main parts: human rights
standards and mechanisms, human rights education situation in Northeast
Asia, human rights curricular framework, and the lesson plans. The publication was printed with the title Human Rights Education in Northeast Asian
School Systems – Resource Material in 2013.
As a resource material, it has sets of information that are considered
important for the teachers and education officials to know to be able to support human rights education within the school system. Thus the discussion
on human rights standards and mechanisms is complemented by the discussion on actual programs and opportunities that exist in Northeast Asia
through which the human rights standards are being put into use.
The resource material is designed as a practical material, not a “heavy”
discussion of concepts that might not appeal to teachers. It is meant to raiseinterest among the teachers who have not taught human rights before andthus encourage them to further study the human rights standards and explore the existing programs/structures/mechanisms/resources on human222

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i crights at national and local levels in teaching human rights. In this sense,human rights are understood not in academic sense but more as practicalmeasures that already exist in different countries in one way or another.
The resource material for Northeast Asia followed the paths of the previous materials for Southeast and South Asia, and improved on them tosome extent. Paraphrasing the explanation in the introduction of the Human
Rights Education in Northeast Asian School Systems – Resource Material,
there are common characteristics among the three materials:a) They are contextualized in each subregionb) They are composed as much as possible of some of the best teaching and learning materials for human rights education that are available inthe subregions (particularly for South and Northeast Asian materials; theSoutheast Asian material mainly used lesson plans that were developed ina workshop)c) They embody the perspectives and experiences of the human rights
educators in the subregions (particularly those that relate to the challengesof teaching/learning human rights within the school systems in Northeast
Asia)d) They promote the international human rights standards throughtheir concrete application as lesson plans content, teaching/learning process, school rules and regulations, teachers’ guides, and school-community
relationse) They are appropriate materials for teaching and learning as well asteacher-training, andf ) They are supportive of networking among Asian educators that facilitates exchange of information on the development of human rights education in the different school systems.
Training Activities
Hurights osaka’s training activities were planned through a mixture of
its own internal planning and in response to the results of other activities.
Thus there were workshops that were planned straight from the discussions
during the 1998 consultation workshops stage, and workshops that wereplanned due to the program approach taken by hurights osaka (namely,
the 2001 consultation meetings).

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

223

The first training workshop organized by hurights osaka was theSoutheast Pilot Teacher Training Workshop held in 1999 in Bali, Indonesia.21
It had the the following elements:
a. An asean focus• dealing with experiences of various institutions in thesubregion;• situating human rights education programs within the realities of the subregion;• discussing the issue of culture and human rights in the context
of the subregion; and• developing a vision for human rights education in thesubregion.
b. Networking among human rights educators as well as relevant institutions in the subregion.
c. Using participant-centered methodology, which requires participants’ involvement in activities such as small group discussion sessions thathave no resource persons and whose facilitators provide minimal input.

Pilot Southeast Asian Training Workshop (Bali, 1999)

These elements were translated into the following training objectives:• To explicitly identify and integrate human rights in the school curriculum and teacher training programs

224

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c•

To demonstrate knowledge, attitudes, and skills in promoting human rights in schools in various capacities (as teacher trainers andcurriculum developers, for example)
To use participant-centered methodology
To develop skills in designing teacher-training programs and action plans for dissemination, evaluation, and monitoring of humanrights education
To develop a support system for national activities throughnetworking
To develop an understanding of the various human rights education experiences in Southeast Asia.

•
•
•
•

Educators from Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, andVietnam who attended the workshop came under the following categories:• teacher trainers• teaching-material developers• curriculum developers• officers of teachers’ colleges and education faculties of universities,and• school heads.

Pilot Southeast Asian Training Workshop (Bali, 1999)

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

225

The participants discussed the human rights and human rights education situation in their respective countries, including the culture-humanrights relationship. These discussions became the framework of the training.
The participants also discussed the following matters:• Inhibiting Factors, Supporting Factors, and Feasible Measures in
Human Rights Education – analysis of the current situation in the
countries represented• Profile of Human Rights Advocates (as Teachers and as Students) –discussion of desirable characteristics of teachers and students who
engage in the human rights education process• Curriculum Development – analysis of existing school curriculum
to determine areas/topics/subjects where human rights can betaught• Lesson Planning – development of teaching guides appropriate forcurrent school curriculums• Teaching Demonstration – testing of the lesson plans developed
inside the classrooms of a secondary school in Bali (with English as
the medium of instruction)• Evaluating Human Rights Education Programs – discussion of various ways of assessing the teaching and learning of human rights• Country Visions – an exercise in defining a desirable situation of thecountry in the future as far as human rights education is concerned• Proposals for Follow-up Activities – discussion on suggested activities as next steps after the pilot training workshop• Workshop Evaluation.
The main suggestions as next steps were the following:
1. Hold a writing workshop (writeshop) for facilitators
2. Develop human rights education modules for facilitators andteachers
3. Undertake country-level research on local cultures and traditions(on rice culture, for example, and including the negative aspects)
for teaching-material development
4. Strengthen the partnership between schools.

226

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

The first and second suggestions led to the holding of “a workshop on
developing human rights lesson plans for Southeast Asian educators (seaWriteshop)” in 2001 in the Philippines.22
The second training workshop of hurights osaka was organized in
Bangkok in 200023 as a follow-up to the consultation workshop for South
Asia in 1998 in New Delhi. In consideration of the then existing resource
persons for the training, some of the activities in the Bali pilot training
workshop were not held in the South Asian workshop such as developing
lesson plans, teaching demonstration, evaluation of human rights education
program, and visioning of the future exercise.

First South Asian Training Workshop (Bangkok, 2000)

This was followed by another training workshop for South Asia held in2005 in New Delhi in cooperation with the Centre for Peace and Conflict
Resolution of the Jamia Millia Islamia.24 This workshop was different fromthe previous training workshops due to the focus on curriculum developers and other educators from the Ministries of Education and government
education institutes in India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Most participants and resource persons, therefore, were from government agencies. The
main reason for this arrangement was the need to concentrate the impactof the training on the school curriculum, through the educators within thegovernment system.

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

227

Second South Asian Training Workshop (New Delhi, 2005)

The objectives of the training workshop were limited to the following:• To review international human rights standards, focusing on basic
human rights documents including the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child• To review experiences in India, Japan and the Philippines on integrating human rights education into the school curriculum• To undertake practical exercises on integrating human rights education into the school curriculum.
Much of the activities in the training workshop were mainly divided
into discussion on human rights standards, school curriculum and exercise
on integration of human rights education into the curriculums. It must be
noted, however, that there was a sharing of experience between South andSoutheast Asians with the presentation of the Philippine experience in human rights education in the school system as well as the results of the survey on human rights awareness of students. The results of the survey of thehuman rights awareness of Indian students were likewise presented in the
training workshop.
One concrete result of the training workshop was the planning for thedevelopment of a resource material on human rights education for SouthAsia.
The final training workshop in the series of subregional training workshops held by hurights osaka was a Southeast Asian training workshop that focused on the Human Rights Lesson Plans for Southeast Asian228

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Schools and its version in Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Malaysia, Khmer, andVietnamese languages. This workshop was held in 2005 in Manila withthe participation of educators from Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao pdr, thePhilippines, Timor Leste and Vietnam.

Second Southeast Asian Training Workshop (Manila, 2005)

The Southeast Asian workshop was held with the following objectives:
1. To orient the participants on the Human Rights Lesson Plans forSoutheast Asian Schools; and2. To train them on the use of the ideas in the publication for teacher
training.
To achieve these purposes, the workshop program consisted of the following major components:
1. Discussion on basic human rights principles
2. Discussion on components of the publication, namely, humanrights curricular framework and the human rights lesson plans
3. Discussion on the use of the publication as a teacher training material in the different countries represented.
This training workshop was specifically devoted to training other educators in the subregion on the use of the Southeast Asian lesson planspublication. The publication (in original English version and versions inlanguages in Southeast Asia) was launched during the training workshop.
The members of the Regional Review Team from Cambodia, Indonesia,

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

229

Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam acted as resource persons in the
training workshop.
It is notable that of the many training workshops held by hurights
osaka, none was done in Northeast Asia. This is partly explained by thelength of time it took to finish projects in Southeast and South Asian subregions. Educators and partner-institutions in these two subregions also provided much needed support for the holding of activities that in turn encouraged hurights osaka to continue focusing its projects in these subregions.
Publications
Simultaneous with the implementation of projects on research, material development and training are the publications that came out either as regular,
annual publications or as results of the activities (particularly the research
and material development activities).
In preparing the publications, hurights osaka adhered to several
intertwining approaches in gathering materials. These approaches are discussed below.
a. Lazaric approach
There is a story of a man named Lazarus who died, was entombed
and then brought back to life. This story mirrors the approach taken by
hurights osaka in gathering materials for its regular English publications,
including those devoted to human rights education.
In the human rights field, people take much effort in writing petitions,
reports, and many other types of documents on a wide range of humanrights-related issues. However, many of these documents do not survive beyond the networks of the institutions involved, or the activities where thedocuments were presented, or the special institutions they were submitted
to for consideration.
Whenever good documents come to the notice of hurights osaka,
it engages in Lazarus-like effort of getting them revived and giving themthe chance to be disseminated beyond their circles. This is the Lazaric approach that hurights osaka takes in collecting materials for the publications on human rights education. Several types of documents are taken
into consideration in this regard. In the case of United Nations-sponsoredactivities (seminars, workshops), some papers written for circulation to the230

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i cparticipants provide good discussion on human rights education programsor activities as well as critical review of human rights education experiences.
These papers do not form part of the United Nations official report on theactivities. Only the official documentations of the activities are included in
the United Nations reports. They can take the form of the declarations of
the member-states represented in the activities that were adopted after a
discussion within an official drafting group and voted upon at the plenary
sessions. Proceedings report can appear as annex of the report on the activities involved by the United Nations Secretary General to the General
Assembly. All other documents that are being circulated in the activities aremainly meant for participants’ use. They likely end up in the shelves of theparticipants and the United Nations staff involved. Such papers are wasted
if they did not get disseminated beyond the people who attended the activities. Whenever hurights osaka has the opportunity to get these papers,
they are considered for publication. They may be edited to fit the purpose of
the publication.
There are also papers prepared for United Nations human rights treaty
monitoring bodies that are circulated online by the authors, normally byinstitutions or networks of institutions. In some cases, the United Nations
website includes them as documents submitted to the specific sessions of
the human rights treaty monitoring bodies. They may provide comprehensive discussion of particular issues or programs. And in cases of reports prepared by networks of institutions, they can be very long documents. Froma practical viewpoint, long reports might not be the most appropriate formof expressing concerns to members of the human rights treaty monitoring
bodies. Their detailed discussion of issues, complete with facts and figures,
may not be given as much attention by the members of the treaty bodies who
have the enormous task of sifting through piles of documents. For their own
purposes, they would need short documents that clearly state the core issues
and concerns. But for hurights osaka, these comprehensively written reports are important documents that deserved to be published. Sections ofthese reports or detailed summaries can be prepared for publication.
In the same way, papers that have been written about human rights
education that have no prospect of getting further dissemination other thanto few people who received them are possible candidates for hurights
osaka’s publications. They may be papers written as a result of research onparticular issues or activities. They can be the initial research papers of stu-

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

231

dents in graduate studies, masteral or doctorate courses. As students, theirpapers may not have the avenue for publication within the rigid and also
limited academic community. And precisely because these papers are notfor academic journals that they qualify best for hurights osaka’s English
publications. Theoretical discussions are important, but they have limited
audience among field workers, or people who are looking for ideas on how
to implement or even support programs.
In using the Lazaric approach, hurights osaka saves many good papers from being hidden within the limited confines of the shelves of United
Nations staff or the archives of the networks of institutions. Instead, they are
given another chance of being made available in print as well as online to awider audience.
b. Research approach
In line with hurights osaka’s mandate as a human rights center, gathering of information for eventual dissemination took the form of research.
The first regional activity on human rights education of hurights osaka
was a research project, and the research output became its first book publication in the English language.
Several publications of hurights osaka arose from a number of research projects on human rights education.25
Hurights osaka started its English publications on human rights
education with the publication of a research on culture and human rights
in 1997. The research project was initially conceived in 1995 as a survey ofthe existing initiatives on human rights education in the formal education
system in Asia. But funding was a problem, and thus hurights osaka had
to seek funding support elsewhere. It sought funding for the project froma Japanese foundation, which was not known for supporting human rights
or human rights education projects. However, it was very much supportiveof culture-related projects involving Asian countries. Hurights osaka revised its project plan and incorporated the culture component in order toreceive funding support. Thus the publication turned out to be a research
report on Asian cultural values and human rights, with a specific section onhuman rights education initiatives in the formal education system. This is
the publication entitled Human Rights in Asian Cultures – Continuity andChange26 that was published in New Delhi in 1997.

232

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

While the decision to include culture in the research project was necessary to get funding support, the relationship between culture and humanrights was a very important issue for human rights in general and humanrights education in particular. Then, and even at present, human rights educators faced the problem of linking human rights to local cultures. In manycases, educators found a contradiction between human rights and local cultures. Thus the publication pointed to aspects of cultures (cultural values inparticular) that support human rights. This is significant from the humanrights education perspective.27
Two years later, in 1999, hurights osaka published the proceedings
report of its series of subregional consultation workshops held in Surabaya,
Indonesia for Southeast Asia, New Delhi, India for South Asia and Seoul,
Korea for Northeast Asia in 1998, and the regional workshop held nNovember 1998 in Osaka, Japan. The report, entitled Schools, Human Rights
and Society - Report of the 1998 Workshops on Human Rights Education in
Schools, provided an overview of the situation of the human rights teaching
and learning existing during the late 1990s in the three Asian subregions.
It discussed the initiatives of government and non-governmental institutions, the commonalities and differences among these initiatives, and thechallenges faced. The significance of the report lies in the integration of perspectives of educators who either belong to the formal education system(as officials of the Ministry of Education or schools) and the non-formal
education field who implemented non-governmental programs in schools.
To a large extent, their views were similar with regard to the many facets ofhuman rights education in the school system.
Several other research projects on human rights education resulted in
the publication of research reports.
c. Documentation approach
As a human rights center, hurights osaka has limited capacity togather and disseminate human rights information. Similar to any regional
institution or initiative, it had to choose a particular area of work to enable
it to create a sufficient database that could be shared with the Asia-Pacificregion.
Hurights osaka’s main regional intervention is in the form of human rights education program. In implementing this regional program, it
undertakes several types of activities ranging from organizing workshops,

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

233

meetings and conferences, to developing teaching/learning materials, topreparing publications. And one type of publication that has been started
since mid-1990s is the one based on the documentation approach. This approach can be defined as a continued gathering of information on a specificarea of interest over a long period of time in order to build a comprehensive and substantial information base. Thus, the information base on human rights education of hurights osaka is a collection of various types ofedited reports from different institutions in different countries in Asia andthe Pacific. Taken as a whole, the reports and other materials (such as teaching/learning materials that have been separately collected) provide a broad
picture of the state of the art of human rights education in the region. And
since the field continuously evolves, the gathering work likewise continues.
Hurights osaka has adopted the documentation approach in its publications on human rights education. This is the approach taken in its annual
human rights education publications.
The regional human rights education meeting organized by hurights
osaka in 1997 in Bangkok, Thailand yielded a number of papers that could
form a single publication.28 Thus a conference proceedings report wasplanned that would include these papers. In view, however, of the existence of several materials on human rights education, the publication plan
expanded to cover other papers related to human rights education in theschool system. The publication that came out in 1998 was entitled Human
Rights Education in Asian Schools to reflect the focus of hurights osaka’s
regional program.
Having seen the value of the publication of a collection of papers devoted to a specific area of human rights education, a new set of papers wascollected in the following year and published as volume two of the Human
Rights Education in Asian Schools. Thus an annual publication on humanrights education in the school system in Asia was born.
Institutions involved in human rights education in the school systemwere sought and requested to submit documentations of their activities.
Majority of the documents received discussed institutional programs - howthey started (i.e., the story behind the development of the programs), how
the educational program fitted the main institutional program (which did
not necessarily have an educational character), what activities were undertaken, what materials were used, who implemented the activities, how they
worked with schools (or even with teachers and their organizations), what234

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

problems were encountered, what results were obtained, and what impact
if any came about in relation to the students, teachers, the school, and eventhe surrounding local community.
Many ngos, doing programs in the non-formal education field andworking with poor and dis-advantaged communities, have also been requested to send documentations. Some ngos provided direct services (suchas legal assistance to poor and dis-advantaged communities) that were complemented by educational intervention as part of their empowerment objective. A significant number of these ngos worked with schools, bridging a
gap among programs that were largely divided into non-formal and formal
education systems.
A few university-based institutions such as the human rights centersthat have human rights education programs have also been invited to provide reports of their activities that hurights osaka eventually publishedin the different volumes of Human Rights Education in Asian Schools.
There were also educational research institutions and individual researchers, who probed on the different aspects of human rights educationin the formal education system, contributing to the publication. Some research activities focused on evaluation of human rights education programs(such as the development of teaching/learning materials, teacher training,
programs on particular areas such as anti-discrimination program), others looked into educational policies (such as laws and national action plansthat support human rights education, education reform in general andcurriculum reform in particular), some analyzed attitudes toward humanrights among students, teachers, school and education officials. There werealso research activities that looked into the teaching of particular humanrights instrument such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, andthe Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women. There were also research projects on policy changes that led to
the restriction of human rights education, sometimes in favor of other internationally-sanctioned programs such as values education or education
for sustainable development, or on policy changes that give more emphasis on good behavior and discipline by strengthening moral education (andweakening human rights education as a result). Reports on research on theimpact of human rights education on students have also been submitted andpublished by hurights osaka.

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

235

The variety of reports published in the Human Rights Education in
Asian Schools shows the complex system within which human rights education operates. And this can be seen both as a problem and an opportunity.
On one hand, this means that human rights education is at the mercy of thehuge formal education system that is largely beyond the control of humanrights educators. On the other hand, the complexity of the system provides
human rights education with various opportunities to exist despite the tendency of official educational policies to be unconcerned with human rights
education.
Human Rights Education in Asian Schools also indicated the sad realityof cessation of programs and even closure of institutions that support human rights education. In such cases, what mattered were the experiences
expressed that could guide other educators in developing and implementing
human rights education programs.
Under the documentation approach, all types of developments in thefield of human rights education in the school system are published year afteryear. Each report is seen as an essential building block in the broad humanrights education structure in Asia.
Hurights osaka published twelve volumes of Human Rights
Education in Asian Schools covering a period of twelve years (1998 to 2009).
While the publication has been discontinued, the documentation of humanrights education in the school system experiences continues. This time, therelevant reports are published under a more general human rights education publication – Human Rights Education in Asia-Pacific. Human Rights
Education in Asian Schools has performed well in its documentation role,it29
yielded more than two hundred articles from almost two hundred contributors in more than twenty countries in Asia and beyond. Individuals and various types of institutions contributed
articles on mainly ground-level experiences on the teaching andlearning of human rights.
d. Appeal-for-documentation approach
Related to the documentation approach is an approach that essentiallyappeals to institutions to document their experiences. This is true of institutions that do not properly document their activities. By presenting the op-

236

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

portunity to disseminate their experiences to a wider audience, hurights
osaka requests these institutions to make the appropriate reports.
In many cases, preparing appropriate reports on activities is not an institutional habit. Though reports exist, they are not necessarily fit for publication. They can consist of reports to institutions that provide support totheir programs (financially or otherwise), or ad hoc activity reports thathave narrow focus and likely incomplete information.
Hurights osaka promotes the importance of documentation for anumber of reasons, namely, such reports provide the institutions the opportunity to gather all necessary information on activities held or programs
implemented and take stock of their experiences; to initiate a system of documenting activities that support regular in-house evaluation and program
development exercises; to have appropriate materials for the promotion of
their programs to other institutions (not only to funding agencies but also
to other institutions that are searching for human rights education ideas
based on actual experiences); and to network with other institutions doing
the same programs.
The request for reports therefore is also an appeal for an initial step towards institutionalized documentation of program implementation among
institutions.
Networking and Crossing Borders
At the start of the regional program on human rights education of hurights
osaka, a question arose on the kind of institutions that should be involvedin the program. It was easy to choose the ngos as the main participants inthe program. But it was not right to confine the program to ngos because
there were other institutions that were involved in human rights education.
There were governmental as well as institutions established by law that had
mandates on human rights education. Their participation in the program
should be appropriate. Thus they were included in the program being developed in mid-1990s.
But one question was intriguing: Was hurights osaka capable of inviting government institutions to take part in its activities?
From a bureaucratic mindset, probably the answer should be in the negative. Indeed that proved to be true when, years later, an invitation regarding
participation in an international activity extended to a local government of-Regional Programming on Human Rights Education237

fice in Osaka was rejected. The basic argument was that such an invitation
for an international activity must be coursed through Japan’s Ministry ofForeign Affairs. This was probably technically right, but it was also an overly
narrow and uninformed perspective of a bureaucrat. Local governments
in Japan have their respective international activities that likely never gothrough the vetting of the national agencies concerned.
But considering the reality that many government agencies in Asia werewilling to get support for their programs through international activities,
inviting them to join regional activities such as those of hurights osaka
should be welcomed. This was proven true in many countries covered by theregional program of hurights osaka when it started implementing a seriesof consultation workshops on human rights education in South, Southeast
and Northeast Asia. Education officials from a number of countries joined
the regional activities of hurights osaka. Some government institutions
even went further by becoming hurights osaka’s project partners.
A basic argument supporting the invitation to relevant government
agencies to join the regional activities was the fact that hurights osaka
had support from the Osaka city and prefectural governments. It used thisfacet of its institutional character, during the 1990s and 2000s at least, toshow that hurights osaka was an institution that worked with government institutions in Japan. To a large extent, this character of hurights
osaka provided an assurance to the government agencies in other countries that the program being implemented was not meant to be anti-government exercise. Despite the changes in perception about human rights fromlate 1990s, government agencies tended to be wary about human rights
programs and institutions. They probably feared being involved in criticizing governments’ failure to take appropriate measures in addressing humanrights violations. Thus it was necessary for hurights osaka to assuage
such concerns by emphasizing its local government link, and the promotionof human rights being the sole objective of the activities.
The same line of thinking was used in relation to the national humanrights institutions. During the late 1990s, several national human rights institutions already existed in South and Southeast Asia. Hurights osaka
saw a great opportunity in getting their support in the implementation of
the regional program on human rights education. Since these institutions
had human rights education mandate, the invitation for them to join theactivities of hurights osaka was received very well. In both South and238

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Southeast Asian workshops in late 1990s, the national human rights institutions were hurights osaka partners, providing substantial support to theactivities.
Government agencies are important players in mainstreaming humanrights education, in terms of capacity to sustain programs and the existenceof infrastructures (such as schools and training centers) and personnel to
implement programs.
National human rights institutions, on the other hand, have the proper
access to the governments as much as the legal status to influence them.
They also have resources (though limited) to implement programs.
In some countries, the national human rights institutions have engaged
government agencies in human rights education projects ranging fromtraining personnel to developing materials to undertaking joint public human rights awareness activities. Hurights osaka benefited from these existing relationships.
The work with government agencies extended to the engagement with
the UN through the ohchr and unesco. The projects undertaken with theohchr and unesco strengthened even more the work of hurights osaka
with governments in a number of countries in Asia.
Hurights osaka worked with the ohchr and unesco in implementing in Asia the two major human rights education programs of the UN: theUN Decade and the first phase plan of action of the World Programme for
Human Rights Education (wphre). In 1999, hurights osaka assisted theohchr in organizing the Subregional Training Workshop on Human Rights
Education in Northeast Asia in Seoul, Korea.30 The training workshop was
actually originally planned by hurights osaka, the Korean National
Commission for unesco, and Korean educators as a follow-up to the 1998
Northeast Asian consultation workshop held in Seoul, Korea. These institutions worked together in lobbying the Korean Ministry of Education andthe ohchr to support the Northeast Asian workshop plan. It was also thefirst training workshop in Northeast Asia on human rights education thatinvolved China, Korea, Japan31 and Mongolia.
This project started the series of activities of the ohchr on humanrights education in Asia that involved hurights osaka.
In 2003, unesco Asia-Pacific Bureau of Education supported the translation and printing of several human rights education materials (including
the Human Rights Lesson Plan for Southeast Asian Schools).

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

239

In 2005, ohchr provided support for the holding of the training workshops in Southeast and South Asia. hurights osaka also received support from unesco Asia-Pacific Bureau of Education for the Southeast Asian
training workshop.32
In 2006, ohchr, unesco Asia-Pacific Bureau of Education andhurights osaka jointly implemented a project surveying the state ofhuman rights education in the school systems of several Southeast Asian
countries.33
Hurights osaka also worked with the ohchr on the translation human rights education materials into Chinese language, a study tour to thePhilippines of a delegation from China, and the human rights education
seminar in China and workshop in Iran.
The funding for the projects and activities of hurights osaka ispartly sourced from foundations and UN agencies. Hurights osaka received fund grants from the Japan Foundation for its initial research project on culture and human rights in 1996, Ford Foundation for the South
Asian consultation workshop in New Delhi in 1998, and Friedrich Naumann
Foundation for the development and printing of the Southeast Asian lessonplans. The 1998 Southeast Asian consultation workshop in Surabaya, the1999 pilot training workshop in Bali, and the 2001 writeshop in Manila received support from seafild/cida34 but the fund was given to the partners(Center for Human Rights Studies of Surabaya University and the Philippine
Commission on Human Rights) of hurights osaka in the projects.
Below is a summary of the type of institutions that hurights osakahas networked with from the start of its regional human rights education
program:Institution
Ministries of Education (including their special
institutes)

National Human Rights Institutions

University-based human rights centers

Project
Southeast, South and Northeast Asian
workshops; Southeast Asian researchon human rights education; Southeast
Asian material development
Southeast and South Asian workshops;
Southeast and Northeast Asian material
development
Southeast and South Asian workshops
and research; Northeast Asian material
development

Country/Subregion
Cambodia, Philippines,
Indonesia, Thailand,
Vietnam, Nepal, Sri
Lanka, Korea
Philippines, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Thailand,
India, Mongolia
Indonesia, Thailand,
India, China

240
Non-governmental organizations

Regional institutions
Intergovernmental organizations

Foundations

Schools
Other institutions

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Aside from ARRC, other NGOs werealways invited to join the workshops
and other activities held by HURIGHTSOSAKA. Publication of books (IndianSocial Institute – Delhi), Northeast
Asian material development (HongKong Human Rights Monitor)
Workshops and conferences (ARRC
and APCEIU)
Material development in Southeast Asia
(UNESCO); research on human rights
education in Southeast Asia (UNESCO,OHCHR), study tour (OHCHR)
Southeast Asian material development(Friedrich Naumann Foundation);
research on culture and humanrights (Japan Foundation); South
Asian consultation workshop (FordFoundation)
School teachers and administrators
have been invited to join the activities
Regional training workshop on humanrights and Northeast Asian workshop(Korean National Commission for
UNESCO)Southeast, South andNortheast Asia

Thailand, Korea
Southeast and Northeast
Asia

Southeast, South andNortheast Asia

Southeast, South andNortheast Asia
Asia, and Northeast Asia

Hurights osaka has networked with many human rights centers,
ngos, national human rights institutions, and other institutions (suchas schools) in relation to human rights education activities. In doing so,hurights osaka crossed the undefined borders that separated these
institutions.
Challenges
Given that hurights osaka did not have sufficient resources to support
regional activities, it relied to a significant extent on partnership with otherinstitutions in implementing many activities.
The other institutions that worked with hurights osaka, however,faced a number of challenges of their own:a. Human rights education policy and/or program change – government agencies, national human rights institutions, UN agencies, and otherinstitutions have their respective policies and programs on human rights

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

241

education to follow. Once change in their policies and programs occur, support for activities to follow-up on past activities is likely affected.
b. Staff change – change of staff in the institutions involved alsomeans possible change in the plans of such institutions that may affect thecontinuation of projects that have been started.
c. Funding policies – there is also a general policy in funding programs that limit financial support to a particular institution and/or project.
The need to provide financial support to other institutions or projects is ajustified basis for this funding policy. The funding mechanisms themselves
have limited funds to disburse to qualified institutions and projects, andthus the necessity of spreading the limited resources to as many institutions
and projects as possible.
The educational policy environment in several countries has also poseda challenge to hurights osaka. The policy change can be caused by thechange of leadership in government, which in turn change priorities in relation to education matters. In the case of Japan, while a national action plan
and a law on human rights education have existed since 1990s and early
2000s, the Japanese Ministry of Education, Technology and Science has recently pursued the strengthening of the basic subjects (language, science,
mathematics) in terms of content and time allotment, and the weakening ofother subjects (such as the Synthetic Learning subject) that have been identified as places for human rights education. There has also been more stresson moral education, and hardly a mention on human rights education. The
message being sent out is that there is a need for more discipline among
students as well as harmonious relationship among people, and the school
curriculum must respond to that need.
At the regional level, human rights education has lost its “popularity”
with the ending of the UN Decade. Many initiatives on human rights education lost a “global banner” that the UN Decade provided earlier. In this light,
there seemed to be a weakening of national programs on human rights education in the school system. And while the UN Decade was ending, otherUN education initiatives came about particularly the education for sustainable development (esd) that had more government support than the UN
Decade. And while human rights are included in the concept of sustainable
development, many esd initiatives fail to cover human rights, and focus
more on environmental issues.

242

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

While the first phase plan of the wphre focused on human rights education in the school system, it did not make as much impact as the UN
Decade. The process leading to the adoption of the wphre by the UN was
not as widely supported as that of the UN Decade, which was recognized bymany ngos as a major step in the international recognition of the significance of human rights education. In this context, hurights osaka has topursue its program in the school system with less supportive national andregional environment.
Hurights osaka also faces the challenge of building up the subsequent or follow-up program that maximizes the activities that have been
completed. Is it appropriate to have more training as the next step? Or, considering the weakened momentum for human rights education in the school
system, is it better to rebuild the support structure by revisiting previous
partners and planning new projects to promote human rights education in
the school system? Or, considering the wphre, would it be wise to shift support to the focus(es) of its next phase(s)?
Concluding Notes
A little over five years after its formal opening, hurights osaka received
an honorable mention award in the unesco Prize for Human Rights
Education 2000. The award recognized the human rights education workthat hurights osaka had been doing in the first five years of its existence.
This encouraged hurights osaka to continue to improve what it had
started.
Hurights osaka has adhered to a consultative and collaborative process as a major component in developing and implementing its regional human rights education program.
In the process of implementing the regional program, it established relations with many institutions (non-governmental and governmental) in theregion that were related to human rights work. It was able to tap the participation of institutions that had not been actively involved in many regional
initiatives on human rights. It was able to find a niche in the regional humanrights education field that complemented the existing national programs onhuman rights education.
By following the policy of encouraging meaningful work relationships
with non-governmental institutions, private and public schools, education

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education243

agencies of governments, and national human rights institutions, the regional program of hurights osaka facilitated greater exchange of ideas
on human rights education in the formal education system. It helped drawout the rich experiences from these institutions. More significantly, such
experiences being rooted in the realities of the countries in the region provided the necessary guide in promoting relevant and practical human rights
education.
But hurights osaka has to face its own reality that affected its regional program in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.
Hurights osaka is a local institution despite its name and its previous
objectives.35 Being a local institution, it devotes much of its resources (materials, facilities, staff and funds) to local activities. The regional program(human rights education, publications, networking, etc.) receives a small
percentage of hurights osaka resources.
The lobbying done by the local civil society on the Osaka local governments to support the establishment of a human rights center that would
serve Asia-Pacific was unique in the history of human rights movement in
the region. It was unprecedented during that period of the 1980s. At theconception of hurights osaka, the stress was obviously on the service to
the Asia-Pacific region in terms of human rights promotion. But this was
not maintained to a large extent when the operations of hurights osaka
started.
In 2014, hurights osaka will celebrate its 20th anniversary. It shouldbe able to take stock of its experience in the past two decades, and define
what it should do in the future. While the regional human rights education
program yielded many activities and outputs, there still lies the challenge of
doing more to continue pursuing the objective of promoting human rights
in the Asia-Pacific.

244

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Annex A
HURIGHTS OSAKA publications (1997-2013)
related to human rights education
Human Rights
Education in AsiaPacific(2010-present)

Human Rights
Education in Asian
Schools(1998-2009 - 12
volumes)

Human Rights Lesson
Plans for Southeast
Asian Schools (2003)1

South Asian Teachersand Human Rights
Education - A Training
Resource Material(2010)

Human Rights
Education in
Northeast Asian
School Systems –Resource Material(2013)

Human Rights
Education in Indian
Schools (2007)

Educational Policies
and Human Rights
Awareness - Japan,
India, the Philippines
and Sri Lanka (2008)

Human Rights
Education in the
School Systems inSoutheast Asia Cambodia, Indonesia,
Lao PDR and Thailand(2009)

Human Rights
Education in
Philippine Schools(2006)The State of Human
Rights Educationin Northeast Asian
School Systems:
Obstacles, Challenges,
Opportunities (2010)

Schools, Human
Rights and Society(1998)

Human Rights in
Asian Cultures- Continuity andChange (1997)

1
This publication has Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Melayu, Khmer, and Vietnamese versions. Visit www.hurights.or.jp/english/publication.html for more information

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education

245

Endnotes
See “Seminar on National, Local and Regional Arrangements for the Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights in the Asian Region”, United Nations, New York,
1982.
2
This social movement was led by the anti-Buraku discrimination movement
and included groups working on other issues.
3
The name of arrc was slightly changed in 2001 by adding “Pacific,” AsiaPacific Regional Resource Center for Human Rights Education.
4
See Jefferson R. Plantilla, “Regional Human Rights Education Initiatives, “ focus Asia-Pacific, vol. 2, November 1995, available at www.hurights.or.jp/archives/
focus/section2/1995/11/regional-human-rights-education-initiatives.html. See also
Jefferson R. Plantilla, “Human Rights Education in Asia-Pacific: A Brief Review,”
Human Rights Education in Asia-Pacific, vol. 1, 262-283, available at www.hurights.
or.jp/archives/asia-pacific/section1/2010/10/volume-one-1.html; and www.academia.edu/536593/Human_Rights_Education_in_Asia-Pacific_A_Brief_Review.
5
See summary of the meeting discussions in “Human Rights, Culture and the
Schools,” focus Asia-Pacific, vol. 10, December 1997, available at www.hurights.
or.jp/archives/focus/section2/1997/12/human-rights-culture-and-the-schools.
html.
6“Human Rights Education in Asian Schools: Achievements, Problems andProspects,” chapter one of the Schools, Human Rights and Society - Report of the 1998
Workshops on Human Rights Education in Schools, available at www.hurights.or.jp/
archives/other_publications/human-rights-education-in-asian-schools-achievements-problems-and-prospects.html.
7
The survey questionnaire for the Osaka schools was also shortened due to thecomments of the Osaka Board of Education officials before granting permission toundertake the survey.
8
Due to technical problems, the results of the survey of human rights awarenessin Sri Lanka were not included in the final research report.
9
A commercial printing company (Academic Excellence in New Delhi) published the book.
10
The Philippine Normal University, whose official headed the Philippine research, published the book.
11
A Regional Project Team, which officially monitored the national-level research work and also undertook research on relevant human rights education
practices in the school system in Asia, was formed composed of the author and
Ms. Bencharat Sae Chua of the then Office of Human Rights Studies and Social
Development of Mahidol University.
12
The name of the center was changed in 2011 to Institute of Human Rights
and Peace Studies (ihrp). See profile of ihrp in the second edition of Directory of
Asia-Pacific Human Rights Centers (Osaka: hurights osaka, 2013), pages 138-139.
13
See “asean Writeshop,” focus Asia-Pacific, vol. 25, 2001, available at www.
hurights.or.jp/archives/focus/section2/2001/09/asean-writeshop.html, and also“sea Writeshop: Developing Human Rights Lesson Plans,” Human Rights Educationin Asian Schools, vol. 5, pages 79-90, available at www.hurights.or.jp/archives/hu1

246

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

man_rights_education_in_asian_schools/section2/2002/03/sea-writeshop-developing-human-rights-lesson-plans.html.
14
See pages 6-11 of the Human Rights Lesson Plans for Southeast Asian Schools(Bangkok: hurights osaka, 2003) for the explanation on the lesson plan format
and contents.
15
See “Southeast Asian Human Rights Lesson Plans,” focus Asia-Pacific, vol 29,
2002, available at www.hurights.or.jp/archives/focus/section2/2002/09/southeastasian-human-rights-lesson-plans.html.
16
The whole file of the Human Rights Lesson Plans for Southeast Asian Schools
can be downloaded from the following websites:
1. unesco Asia-Pacific Bureau of Educationwww.unescobkk.org/index.php?id=3125
2. Friedrich Naumann Foundation Manila Officewww.fnf.org.ph/news/human-rights-lesson-plans.htm
3. University of Minnesota
www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/
www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/SoutheastAsianHRE.pdf
www.wfrt.org/humanrts/edumat/
4. Human Rights Education Associates (HREA)
w w w. h r e a . o rg / e r c / L i b r a r y / d i s p l ay. p hp ? d o c _ i d = 2 9 7 1 & c at e g o r y _id=18&category_type=3
5. Amnesty International Australia
http://action.amnesty.org.au/hre/comments/lesson_plans/6.
6. hurights osaka
www.hurights.or.jp/education_e.html#5
Additional listings:
1. unesco-Pakistan
http://islamic.saintanthonysft.com/Unesco/manuals.html
http://unesco.org.pk/education/teachereducation/manuals.html
2. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (ohchr)
www.unhchr.ch/hredu.nsf/LookupAllMATen/EA0C4AC93BEF53E6C1256DE
300542987?OpenDocument
3. Applied Learning Teaching Resources (Australia)
http://appliedlearning.pbworks.com/w/page/13470699/Human-rightsLesson-plans (disabled as of 23 May 2013 visit)
4. Broadcast Pdf Documents
http://beepdf.com/doc/2731/human_rights_lesson_plans.html
5. Marksweb of Books and Manuals
www.imarksweb.net/book/lesson+plan+in+technology+livelihood+education/(disabled as of 23 May 2013 visit)
6. Commons - Open Educational Resources
www.oercommons.org/courses/human-rights-lesson-plans-for-southeastasian-schoolswww.oerrecommender.org/resources/66855?details=true
7. PDFMoo.com

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education247

www.pdfmoo.com/politics-files/8933/human-rights-lesson-plans.html (linked
to umn)
8. twbn Groups
http://groups.teacherswithoutborders.org/en/education-h-rights/node/10849
9. Joey Davila
www.joeydavila.com/lu/free+philippine+format+lesson+plans/(linked to umn) (disabled as of 23 May 2013 visit)
10. SEAPYrAMID Mega Searchwww.seapyramid.net/rt/lesson-plan-for-grade-2-makabayan/11 (disabled as of
23 May 2013 visit)
11. SavedPDF.org
www.savepdf.org/more-human-rights-lesson-plans-169013.html (disabled asof 23 May 2013 visit)
12. human rights resource center malaysia
http://wordpress.com/?ref=footer
http://hrforall.wordpress.com/page/18/
17
The lesson plans were also translated into Japanese, Chinese and Farsi languages under separate projects. With the exception of the Farsi version, the translated versions are available at the hurights osaka website, www.hurights.or.jp/
english/publication.html.
18
One member of the Review Team representing Malaysia was not in the
Writeshop. She was the Commissioner in charge of human rights education at the
National Human Rights Commission of Malaysia.
19
See hurights osaka, “South Asia Workshop on Human Rights Education in
Schools,” Human Rights Education in Asian Schools, vol. 9, available at www.hurights.
or.jp/archives/human_rights_education_in_asian_schools/section2/2006/03/southasia-workshop-on-human-rights-education-in-schools.html.
20
Initially set for a three-year period, the first phase plan of action of the WPHRE
was extended to five years (2005-2009). See United Nations Human Rights Council
resolution (A/HRC/6/L.16).
21
See hurights osaka, “Southeast Asia Pilot Teacher Training Workshop on
Human Rights Education in Schools,” Human Rights Education in Asian Schools,
vol. 3, available at www.hurights.or.jp/archives/human_rights_education_in_asian_schools/section2/2000/03/southeast-asia-pilot-teacher-training-workshop-on-human-rights-education-in-schools.html.
22“sea Writeshop: Developing Human Rights Lesson Plans,” Human Rights
Education in Asian Schools, vol. 5, 79-90, available at www.hurights.or.jp/archives/
human_rights_education_in_asian_schools/section2/2002/03/sea-writeshop-developing-human-rights-lesson-plans.html.
23
See “South Asia Training Workshop on Human Rights Education in Schools,”
Human Rights Education in Asian Schools, vol. 4, available at www.hurights.or.jp/
archives/human_rights_education_in_asian_schools/section2/2001/03/south-asiatraining-workshop-on-human-rights-education-in-schools.html.
24hurights osaka, “South Asia Workshop on Human Rights Education in
Schools,” focus Asia-Pacific, vol. 42, 2005, available at www.hurights.or.jp/archives/
focus/section2/2005/12/south-asia-workshop-on-human-rights-education-in-

248

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i cschools.html. For more detailed discussion of the proceedings of the training workshop see hurights osaka, “South Asia Workshop on Human Rights Education in
Schools,” Human Rights Education in Asian Schools, vol. 9, available at www.hurights.
or.jp/archives/human_rights_education_in_asian_schools/section2/2006/03/southasia-workshop-on-human-rights-education-in-schools.html.
25
hurights osaka has other research projects with publications as output
such as the research on social development and human rights with two monographs(Development and Democracy: Philippines’ Quest for the Next Century and Social
Development and Human Rights in Indonesia, both published in 1998), researchon human rights centers in Asia-Pacific that resulted in the publication of two editions of the Directory of Asia-Pacific Human Rights Centers (2008 and 2013), andresearch on law, jurisprudence and human rights that led to the publication of Law,
Jurisprudence and Human Rights in Asia (2011).
26
This book was co-edited by the author and one of the research partners,
Sebasti L. Raj, S.J., whose institution, the Indian Social Institute – Delhi, publishedthe whole research report.
27
This is also significant in light of the persistent assertion that human rights
contradict “Asian values,” despite the fact that the existence of “Asian values” in thevast Asian region has largely been disputed. Values upheld in many countries in Asia
are similar to those values upheld in other regions.
28
This was the Regional Meeting on Human Rights Education held on 23-25
September 1997 in Bangkok and organized in cooperation with the Asian Regional
Resource Center for Human Rights Education (arrc) and Child Rights Asianet. The
documents circulated at the meeting were the following:
I. Experiences in hre in Schools
1. The United Nations and Human Rights Education in School, Ms. Valai na
Pombejr
2. Notes on Human Rights Education in Schools, Commissioner Saparinah
Sadli (National Commission on Human Rights, Indonesia)
3. Human Rights Education in Kunijima High School, Toru Sasaki (Osaka,
Japan)
4. What motivated the Movement for the Defence of Democratic Rights(M.D.D.R.) to workout a Human Rights Education Program in schools?, H.M.
Chitral Perera (Colombo, Sri Lanka)
5. Human Rights Education in Schools - Some Aspects of Sri Lanka Experience,
Laksiri Fernando (Sri Lanka Foundation)
6. The National Initiative In Human Rights Education In Schools and The Roleof National Human Rights Commission, Lakshmi Singh (National Human
Rights Commission, India)
7. Inroads to the Philippine Formal Education System - The Jose W. Diokno
Foundation Experience, Janet Atutubo (J.W. Diokno Foundation, Manila,
Philippines)
8. Teaching of Mathematics and Human Rights, Mavic Villena (Manila,
Philippines)
9. Human Rights Education in Cambodian Schools - the Experience of the Last
Three Years, Ms. Mengho Leang (Phnom Penh, Cambodia)

Regional Programming on Human Rights Education249

10. Human Rights Modules for Year IV (Prototype Materials), Commission on
Human Rights and the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (Manila,
Philippines)
II. Papers on Cultural Values and Human Rights
1. Indian Cultural Values and The Promotion of Human Rights, Sebasti L. Raj
and Bansidhar Pradhan (Indian Social Institute, New Delhi, India)
2. Asia’s Cultural Values and Human Rights, The Philippine Perspective : Diego
G. Quejada II and Romelino Obinario (Quezon City, Philippines)
3. Human Rights and Javanese Ethics, Johan Ferdinand (Jakarta, Indonesia)
4. Japan and Cultural Development in East Asia - Possibilities of a New Human
Rights Culture, Kinhide Mushakoji (Meiji Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan)
5. Articulating Modern Notions of Human Rights in Sri Lanka in the Context of
the Paradigmatic Positions of Buddhist Ethics: A Brief Comment on Problems
and Concerns, Sasanka Perera (University of Colombo, Colombo)
6. Cultural Values and Human Rights in the light of Korean Perspective: ByungSun Oh, (Sogang University, Seoul)
7. Cultural Values and Human Rights: Siddhartha (Bangalore, India)
III. Other Papers
1. Opening Speech of Prof. Borwornsak Uwanno, Dean of Faculty of Law,
Chulalongkorn University
2. Welcome Remarks of Prof. Dong-hoon Kim, Director, hurights osaka
3. Annual Report 1996, Cambodian Institute of Human Rights
4. Regional Newsletter in Asia and the Pacific (unesco Associated Schools
Project)
5. Asia-Pacific Network for International Education and Values Education(unesco apnieve: unesco Principal Regional Office) brochure
6. Report of the Asian Regional Study Session on Human Rights, Forum-Asia
7. Some Writings on the Wall, hurights osaka
8. batingaw, official publication of the Commission on Human Rights (Manila,
Philippines)
9. dowa education: Educational Challenge Toward A Discrimination-Free
Japan, Buraku Liberation Research Institute
10. Shattering the Myth of the Homogenous Society: Minority Issues andMovements in Japan - jprn monograph series
11. Asia Pacific ngo Human Rights Congress (New Delhi, December 1996)
report
12. Preliminary Report on the go-ngo-academe National Consultation
Workshop on Human Rights Education, February 3-5, 1997 (Commission on
Human Rights, Philippines)
12. Dignity, Democracy and Diversity: An Educational Model for Co-existence
Between Minority and Majority, Wichai Srirat (Child Rights Asianet, Bangkok,,Thailand)13. focus Asia-Pacific (June and September 1997 vols. 8 & 9), hurights
osaka.

250

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Taken from the Foreword by Osamu Shiraishi, Director of hurights osaka,in the first volume of Human Rights Education in Asia-Pacific, available at www.
hurights.or.jp/archives/asia-pacific/.
30
This is based on the agreement between ohchr and hurights osaka nominated as ras/99/AH/15 - Enhancing national capacities for human rights education in Northeast Asian schools. The subregional training workshop was held on 1-4
December 1999 in Seoul, Korea.
31
There was no official delegation from Japan for this training workshop. A junior staff of the Japanese consulate in Seoul briefly attended the training workshop
to deliver a report on the state of human rights education in Japan.
32This is Project ras/04/AH/10 - Implementation of the Two-Year Programmeof Action for the Framework on Regional Cooperation for the Promotion andProtection of Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region Capacity Building for Human
Rights Education in Schools: Southeast and South Asia -2005-2006.
33
This is glo/06/HC/01-rrdb - Activity code 1U11, World Programme for
Human Rights Education 2006-2008 - Regional mapping, collection of best practices
and coordination of initiatives to promote human rights education in South-East
Asian school systems.
34
Southeast Asia Fund for Institutional and Legal Development (seafild) andthe Canadian International Development Agency (cida)35
The first three original objectives of hurights osaka have regional character: 1) To promote human rights in the Asia-Pacific region; 2) To convey AsiaPacific perspectives on human rights to the international community; 3) To ensure
inclusion of human rights principles in Japanese international cooperation activities.
When hurights osaka was registered as a foundation in 2012, the first objective
was “1) To engender popular understanding in Osaka of the international humanrights standards.” The two other objectives are the following: “2) To support international exchange between Osaka and countries in Asia-Pacific through collection anddissemination of information and materials on human rights; 3) To promote humanrights in Asia-Pacific in cooperation with national and regional institutions as wellas the United Nations.” Considering the first two objectives, emphasis seemed to be
more on the domestic needs.
29