FOCUS ASIA-PACIFICAPRIL 2010 VOLUME 59

Focus
Asia-PacificNewsletter of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center (HURIGHTS OSAKA)

September 2011 Vol. 65

Contents
Shifting Paradigms and Building National
Civil Society: Refugee Protection in Southand South East Asia
This is an overview of the situation of
refugees in South and Southeast Asia, thesignificant issues that have to be resolved,
and the measures to address the
problems. It also discusses the importantrole of the civil society organizations inaddressing the refugee problem.
- Anoop Sukumaran

Editorial

Fleeing for Safety
Imminent of loss of life or limb, political or religious
persecution, and torture experience are some of the reasonsthat force people to decide to leave their own country andface an uncertain future elsewhere.

Page 2
Women Urban Asylum Seekers
This is a report on the situation of women
asylum seekers living in Bangkok. It
presents the problems women (and also
their children in some cases) suffer while
waiting for recognition as asylum seekers,
and when their application for such
recognition has been rejected.
- Valeria Racemoli
Page 7
Being Gay (Lesbian or Transgender) in
Singapore
This article explains the current problems
facing those who would like to promote therights of lesbians and transgenders in
Singapore, including the laws that discriminate
against them and restrict their activities.
- Sylvia Tan
Page 10
HURIGHTS OSAKA Activities
Brief information on recent activities of
HURIGHTS OSAKA
Page 15The decision to cross the border to another country in order tolive in safety is an extreme decision millions of people theworld over have made for decades.
A significant number of them have to suffer prolonged wait forrecognition as asylum seekers, many more have to live in direstraits as refugees. Many also have to cross the border back tohomeland.
While transit countries and those being asked to grant asylum
have the right to protect themselves against abuse of theexercise of right to asylum, there must be a way to avoid
unjustified suffering for those who legitimately fled fromimminent loss of life and freedom or from persecution.
There must be protection of the human rights of refugees andasylum seekers, rather than excessive concern for such abuse.
Neither should the legitimate refugees and asylum seekers be
subjected to forced return to country of origin, and make suchpeople suffer the human rights violations they fled from.

1

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFICSEPTEMBER 2011 VOLUME 65

Shifting Paradigms and Building National Civil Society:Refugee Protection in South and South East Asia
Anoop SukumaranT

he Asia Pacific Region has
some of the largest and most
protracted refugee situations in
the world. In 2010, the United
Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees estimated the numberof refugees worldwide asreaching 10.5 million.1 Asia andthe Pacific hosted more thanhalf of these refugees, fifty-fourpercent and 0.3 percent
respectively. The number does
not include additional several
million asylum-seekers, statelesspersons and internally displaced
persons (IDPs) in the region.
As of 1 April 2011, nineteen
Asian and Pacific countries had
become party to the 1951
Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees (1951
Convention).2
Refugee Issues
While developing nations ofAsia have been the sites of large
refugee populations,increasingly countries of theg l o b a l n o r t h 3 h av e b e e nincreasingly adopting policies
of non-entre to refugees andasylum seekers.
Despite the unwillingness of
post-colonial Asian states tobecome hosts to refugees, they
continue to remain the largest
recipients of refugees. South andSoutheast Asia host more than
two million refugees and people
in refugee-like situations.

Table 1: Refugees, people in refugee-like situations andasylum seekers in Asia and the Pacific4
Refugees

People in refugeelike situations

Asylum-seekers(pending cases)

Asia

5,475,351

240,467

72,410

Pacific

28,815

5,000

3,986

Grand Total

5,504,166

245,467

76,396

Table 2: Refugees, people in refugee-like situations andasylum seekers in South Asia5
Country/territoryof asylum

Refugees

People in refugeelike situations

Asylum-seekers(pending cases)

Afghanistan

43

6,391

30

Bangladesh

29,253200,000-

Bhutan

-

-

-

India

184,821-3,746

Maldives

-

-

-

Nepal

87,514

2,294

938

Pakistan14

1,900,621

-

2,095

Sri Lanka

223

-

138

Grand Total

2,202,475

208,685

6,947

Protection for refugees has in theprocess become adhoc anddifferentiated resulting in somegroups having better conditions
than others.
For instance in India, Tibetans
who arrived in India before 19792

or who can prove that they wereborn in India prior to 1979 are
given residence permits issued
by the Indian Home Ministrywhich must be renewed yearly.
Residence permits are necessary
in order to obtain work, to rent
an apartment or to open a bank

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFICSEPTEMBER 2011 VOLUME 65

Table 3: Refugees, people in refugee-like situations andasylum seekers in Southeast Asia6
Country/territoryof asylum

Refugees

People in refugeelike situations

Asylum-seekers(pending cases)

Brunei---

Cambodia

129

-

51

Indonesia

811

-

2,071

Lao PDR---

Malaysia

80,651

865

11,339Myanmar---Philippines

243

-

73

Singapore

7--

Thailand

96,675-

10,250Viet Nam

1,928

-

-

Grand Total

180,444865

23,784account. These residence permits
also allow Tibetan refugees toobtain identity certificates thatare necessary for international
travel. 7 Unlike the Tibetan
refugees, the Government ofIndia does not permit Burmese
refugees and refugees from othercountries to acquire residential
and other legal documents, withsome exceptions.
Similarly, in Malaysia, thegovernment issued temporary
work permits to around 35,000
Muslim refugees from Aceh,
Indonesia in 2005 for several
years, and continues to extend
the temporary work permits ofan estimated 61,000 Filipino
Muslim refugees who fled to
Sabah in the 1970s. However, it
refuses the same privileges torefugees of other nationalities,
who live in constant poverty,

fear, insecurity and threat ofviolence.8
Without formal legal
recognition, many refugees aretreated as irregular migrants andsubject to arrest, detention,
punishment for immigration
offences, and deportation. In
some countries, such as
Bangladesh, Malaysia andThailand, refugees have been
held for years in indefinite
detention. In Malaysia,
immigration offences arepunishable by whipping;between 2002 and 2008, 34,923
men suffered this brutal
punishment, some of themasylum seekers and refugees. In
India, Bangladesh, Nepal, andThailand, hundreds of thousandsof refugees have been‘warehoused’ indefinitely inovercrowded refugee camps.

3

Living without legal status alsomeans that many refugees haveto eke a living in the shadow
economy. Many suffer violationsof their labor and human rights,
for which redress through formal
legal mechanisms is often
impossible. Desperate for
effective protection, some have
moved onwards to seek asylum
in other places, such as Japan,
South Korea, Australia and New
Zealand.
Reinventing the Non-entre
RegimeGlobal north countries haveestablished a "non-entre regime"
based on border policing, visa
requirements, carrier sanctions(forcing airlines to bear the costsof returning migrants refusedentry), "safe third country" rules,and deterrent measures likedetention and denial of the rightto work.9 This deterrent policy
has now been extended in theguise of combating people
smuggling and trafficking, and‘regularizing’ refugee flows. The
extension of this ‘new asylum
paradigm’10 finds expression in
the recently concluded AustraliaMalaysia refugee deal.11 The
deal provides for the repatriation
to Malaysia of eight hundred
asylum seekers who had arrived
in boats to Australian shores,
while assuring the resettlement
in Australia of four thousand
UNHCR-recognized refugees in
Malaysia over a four-year period.
The deal is supposed to send aclear message to the “queue
jumpers” that they would be sent
back. This constant reference toa queue, begs the question,
where is the queue?
On 31 August 2011, the High
Court of Australia ruled that thedeclaration by the Australian
government that Malaysia was

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
qualified to become a specified
c o u n t r y t o wh i ch a s y l u mseekers could be transferred
was in violation of Australianmigration law.12
Regional Mechanism for
Refugee Protection
Unlike Africa and Latin
American regions, the Asian
region has no regional
instrument that either identifies
or further elaborates on refugeeprotection within the region. It isargued that immense diversity ofAsia makes it difficult to attempt
to generalize refugee protection
frameworks.13
Scholars argue that Asian
governments are reluctant tosign the 1951 Convention due
to a mix of a) political realism,
wh e r e r e f u g e e r i g h t s a r esacrificed at the altar of national
security and nationalistic
foreign policy, b) suspicion ofinternational human rights
instruments as real or imagined
western influences and thus see
the international refugee regime
as being hostage from the very
beginning to “foreign policy
interests of dominant Northern
States..."14 c) most post-colonial
States endeavored to create anational identity which often
created tensions withestablishing a plural polity andrespect for minority rights. This
makes it particularly difficult for
post-colonial states to allow
groups from neighboring
countries to reside in its territory
even if they are fleeing danger
to their life or freedom, that is,unless 'there is an ethnic link
between the incoming refugees
and the receiving state.15 This
‘cartographic anxiety’16 has beenfurthered in Asia by porous
borders and the fact that post-

SEPTEMBER 2011 VOLUME 65
colonial States have been carved
out of peoples inhabiting a"common space" for long
periods in history.
Other scholars like Alice Nahargue that “the key priorities of
postcolonial states have beennation-building, politicals t a b i l i t y, a n d e c o n o m i cdevelopment.”17 The nationbuilding discourses have createdperspectives that emphasizes
preferential treatment of citizens
over non- citizens.
National Civil Society in Southand Southeast Asia
In view of these socio-politicallegacies, the role of national
civil society in advocating forrefugee protection in South andSoutheast Asia becomes evenmore crucial. National civilsociety actors are able torepresent their own citizens inlobbying their governments forrefugee protection. They cannot
be easily dismissed by theirgovernments as ‘outsiders’ who‘interfere’ in the domestic affairsof a state; the argument thatrefugee protection is a ‘Western
idea’ becomes harder to defend.
However, the civil society inSouth and Southeast Asia is still
relatively weak in advocating forrefugee protection. There are
more groups that focus on thehuman rights of their own
citizens (both at home and as
migrant workers abroad) thanthere are that focus on the rightsof refugees. I suggest a numberof possible reasons for this.
Firstly, violations of the rights ofcitizens seem to resonate moreeasily and quickly among fellow
citizens; the lives of noncitizens are relatively more
abstract and distant. Secondly,

4

refugee protection has become
very complex – technically,legally and politically. This has
not been complemented bybroad-based and in-depth
education and public debate onforced displacement in Southand Southeast Asia. There isalso little incentive to study theinternational refugee regime as
it stands, as most of it is notapplicable in these two regions.
Indeed, the international humanrights regime has greater utility.
Finally, UNHCR plays a strongrole in advocating for the rightsof refugees in South andSoutheast Asia, hoping to
influence policy discourses andpractices concerning refugees
according to its key priorities.
These factors contribute tonational civil society groups
becoming less engaged on
refugee protection.
Nevertheless, there are national
civil society groups across Southand Southeast Asia who are very
committed to the protection of
the rights of refugees. In 2008,
along with their counterparts inEast Asia and the Pacific, they
formed the Asia Pacific Refugee
Rights Network (APRRN) as aplatform for the advancement of
the rights of refugees in the Asia
Pacific region.
Since its
inception, APRRN has held anumber of consultations,dialogues and training
workshops aimed at building
civil society commitment,
capacity and collaboration
concerning refugee protection. It
has also released a number ofjoint statements, protesting, forexample, the mistreatment of
Rohingyas in Asia in 2008, andthe refoulement of Lao Hmongand Uighurs from Thailand andChina respectively in early 2009.

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFICIn December 2010, eighty-five
Ahmadis18 were rounded up
from their homes in Bangkok
and sent to the Bangkok
Immigration Detention Center tobe repatriated back to Pakistan.
Nearly half of those detained
were women and children. One
woman was seven months
pregnant, and there werechildren as young as two years
old. Later in January 2011 more
Ahmadis were arrested.
Refugees and asylum seekers in
Thailand are governed by thesame Immigration Act and assuch considered to be illegal
aliens. In Thailand, the lack of
distinction between refugees,
asylum seekers and otherimmigration offenders
contributes to the further
victimization of those seeking
protection from persecution. It is
often a situation of despair as the
only way out of it is resettlement
to a third country or return backto their country of origin.
Conditions in the Thai detention
center have been variously
described as overcrowded,
inhumane and unhygienic.19
Over one hundred twenty
people have to share cells
separated by gender that ismeant for thirty to forty people.
Cells are so crowded that there
is often no place for thedetainees to sleep and families
are separated from each other.
In the women’s cell, women
took turns to sleep as there was
not enough space and children
were sleeping near toilets thatare often overflowed withfaeces and urine.
In response to this detention andsimilar detentions in the recent
past, the APRRN issued astatement in January 2011
demanding the release of

SEPTEMBER 2011 VOLUME 65
refugees and asylum seekers in
detention. The statement wasendorsed by the APRRN
members and submitted to thePrime Minister, the National
Human Rights Commission ofThailand (NHRCT), the National
Security Council, theImmigration Department and theMinistry of Foreign Affairs.
S i m u l t a n e o u s l y, A P R R N
representatives also met with themembers of the NHRCT. The
NHRCT took immediatecognizance of the issue andalong with members of APRRN
and others conducted a factfinding mission to the
Immigration Detention Center.
Th e m i s s i o n w a s w i d e l ypublicized in Thai media.

and began to solicit ten
thousand signatures from Thai
citizens supporting the bill,which are needed in order to get
the bill tabled for considerationin the parliament.

As a response, to the opennessof the Thai authorities, the Thai
Committee for Refugees (TCR), a
member of APRRN, created the
Refugee Freedom Fund to bailthe most vulnerable refugees
who are indefinitely detained.

National civil society groups
have a vital role to play instrengthening refugee protectionin Asia. They have uniquecapacities to influence public
opinion and to shape domestic
laws and politics. However,strong, locally owned, popularm ove m e n t s o f c o m m i t t e d
refugee advocates are only justemerging in South andSoutheast Asia. Local
knowledge production still
plays a marginal role in shaping
global discourses concerning
refugees.
Only with vibrantnational civil society
movements will states in Southand Southeast Asia be
convinced that refugeeprotection is the desire of its
citizenry; only then will there
be local ownership of refugeeprotection in these regions.

On 6 June 2011, ninety-six
detainees were released, throughthe efforts of the Thai civilsociety. This release was historic,
because never before has suchlarge number of detainees beenreleased on bail in Thailand. In
the long-term, it is hoped thatleadership from the Thai civilsociety will continue changing
the dynamics and that the Thaig ove r n m e n t w i l l c o n s i d e r
establishing a legal frameworkand systematic mechanism todeal with all asylum seekers andrefugees seeking protection in
Thailand. In an effort to do so
TCR and APRRN launched acampaign on the Draft Bill ofDomestic Legislation for
Refugees in Thailand. The
campaign was launched on
World Refugee Day, June 20,

5

APRRN members across theregion are formulating advocacy
strategies to increase the spacefor protection of refugees andasylum seekers. In Nepal,
INHURED International haspresented the Nepaleseparliament a draft refugee bill for
its consideration. However,given the political turmoil in the
country the bill is yet to be
discussed.
Conclusion

Anoop Sukumaran is the
Coordinator of the Asia Pacific
Refugee Rights Network(APRRN) based in Bangkok,
Thailand.

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
For further information, pleasecontact: Anoop Sukumaran, Asia
Pacific Refugee Rights Network,
Times Square Building, 12th
F l o o r, S u i t e 1 2 - 0 3 , 2 4 6 ,Sukhumvit Road, Bangkok,
Thailand; ph: (662) 653 2940
ext 102; fax: (662) 653 2942; email:aprrn.coordinator@gmail.com;
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
refugeerightsasiapacific.org/.

Endnotes
1 UNHCR Global Trends 2010: 60

years and still counting, 20 June
2011, available atwww.unhcr.org/4dfa11499.pdf[accessed 27 September 2011]
2 States Parties to the 1951
Convention relating to the Status
of Refugees and the 1967
Protocol, documents available atw w w. u n h c r. o r g / p a g e s /49da0e466.html.
3 “Global north” refers toeconomically and industriallyadvanced countries, including
many members of theOrganisation for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD).
4 Op. cit., page 41.
5 Ibid., pages 38-40.
6 Ibid.
7 South Asia Human Rights
Documentation Centre. Tibetan
Refugees in India: Declining
Sympathies, Diminishing Rights(2008). Retrieved 2 August
2011, Human Rights Features,
available at www.hrdc.net/
sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF183.htm.
8 Nah, A. (n.d.), Strengthening
Refugee Protection in Asia: The
Significance of National Civil
Society.
9 This is not a new development,
but has been in place for many
years now. Restrictive entrance
policy has been adopted
particularly targeted at parts of

SEPTEMBER 2011 VOLUME 65
the world from where ‘migrants’or refugees might arrive.
10 An author terms this new
refugee policy as ‘new asylum
paradigm’ which is predicatedon the notion that refugee flows
particularly to the global north
could be ‘managed’ thereby
ensuring that such population
movements take place in ano r d e r l y, p r e d i c t a b l e a n dorganized manner. See Crisp, J.,“A new asylum paradigm?
Globalization, migration and theuncertain future of theinternational refugee regime.”
Wo r k i n g Pa p e r N o . 1 0 0(UNHCR, 2003).
11This agreement is formally titled“Arrangement Between The
Government of Australia and The
Government of Malaysia on
Transfer and Resettlement,” andsigned by the parties on 25 July
2011 in Kuala Lumpur.
12This court decision on the
petition of Afghan asylum
seekers rendered the AustraliaMalaysia refugee deal
i n e f f e c t i v e . A u s t r a l i a ’s
Department of Foreign Affairs
and Trade has itself noted to the
Minister for Immigration andCitizenship that “Malaysia is nota party to the Refugee
Convention and does not itself
grant refugee status or asylum or
have in place legal protections
for persons seeking asylum.”
The Court was not convincedthat the Australian government
has adequately considered theextent of adherence of Malaysia
to “international obligations,constitutional guarantees anddomestic statutes which are
relevant to the criteria” fordetermining a specified country
under the migration law. For thefull text of the court decision see“Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister
for Immigration and Citizenship;
Plaintiff M106 of 2011 v
Minister for Immigration andCitizenship [2011]” HCA 32 (31August 2011), available at6

www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/
HCA/2011/32.html.
13 Muntarbhorn, V., The Status of
Refugees in Asia. (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1992), page 3.
14 Chimni, B. S.. “Improving the
Human Conditions of Refugees
in Asia,” in SARWATCH , 2 (1),3.
15 Muntarbhorn, op. cit., page 16.
16 Chimni, op. cit., page 4.
17 Nah, op. cit.
18The persecution of Ahmadis has
been particularly severe andsystematic in Pakistan, which is
the only state to have officiallydeclared the Ahmadis to be nonMuslims. They are being
persecuted for professing theirr e l i g i o n . Th e s y s t e m a t i cpersecution of the community in
Pa k i s t a n i s a l s o w e l ldocumented by human rights
groups.
19 “Pakistani refugees freed on bailfrom Thai jail,” Dawn.com, June
6, 2011. http://www.dawn.com/
2011/06/06/pakistani-refugeesfreed-on-bail-from-thai-jail.html

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFICSEPTEMBER 2011 VOLUME 65

Women Urban Asylum Seekers
Valeria RacemoliH

alf of all of the world’s
refugees live in urban areas,such as Bangkok. But still, thevast majority of assistance torefugees remains in refugee
camps. The United Nations
High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) amended its
Urban Refugee Policy in 2009
to, among others, encourage“host governments to accede to
and respect the international
refugee and human rights
instruments and to adopt andimplement appropriate
domestic legislation,” and “towork closely with the national
authorities, the police andjudiciary, the private sector,
NGOs [non-governmentalorganizations], legal networks,
other civil society institutions
and development agencies” inserving the needs of refugees inurban areas.1
The UNCHR has also adopted
the Age, Gender and Diversity
M a i n s t r e a m i n g ( AG D M )approach that “recognizes thatthe different groups to be foundwithin any refugee population
have varying interests, needs,
capacities and vulnerabilities,
and seeks to ensure that these
are taken into full account in
the design of UNHCR
programmes.”2
Jesuit Refugee Service
The Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS),
founded in 1980 as aninternational Catholicorganization with a mission toaccompany, serve and advocate

on behalf of refugees and otherforcibly displaced persons,established the JRS Asia Pacificin 1981. From an emergency
response to crisis, the work of
JRS expanded towards a longerterm commitment. Withdiminished worldwide sympathy
for refugees, they are now
expected to wait in camps much
longer, and are more likely to be
rejected for resettlement. They
face more unwelcoming
reception in countries of firstasylum. Thus, the long-term
needs of refugees received
increasing attention—
education, culture support andthe ability to participate in thedecisions that shaped their lives
besides the needs of food,medicine and shelter.
JRS Asia Pacific has expanded its
assistance to forcibly displaced
persons in eight countries:
Thailand, Cambodia, Timor
Leste, Singapore, Papua New
Guinea, the Philippines,
Indonesia, and Australia. The
number of people who share in
the mission of JRS in Asia Pacifichas grown to include one
hundred thirty-seven employees
and eight volunteers of different
faith and cultural backgrounds.
Since the then Superior Generalof the Society of Jesus, Fr. Pedro
Arrupe, SJ envisioned to see JRS
working where no one else
works and assisting people who
are forgotten, JRS Asia Pacific is
dedicated to serving,accompanying and advocating
for refugees living in cities. The

7

JRS Asia-Pacific urban refugeeprogram (JRS-URP) began in1990 in response to the basic
survival needs, mainly of urban
asylum seekers by providing
services such as casework,social counseling, legal
assistance, and community
support to asylum seekers in theurban areas. The majority of theasylum seekers after registeringwith UNHCR are referred to
JRS-URP for assistance.
Women Asylum Seekers in theCity
Adhi has given up hope. When
she left Sri Lanka with her fourchildren in 2009 she did notknow what to expect. All that
she was looking for was a place
where she could finally feel safe
from the war that had been
devastating Sri Lanka for the
past twenty years. “The soldiers
were coming almost every day
so we were afraid for our safety.
Therefore my husband went to
get the tickets to come to
Bangkok, but he was kidnapped
so I came alone. I was not able
to look for my husband when hedisappeared. I was alone andthe military were coming every
day to my house. So at one
point I decided to take thetickets and leave anyway toprotect my children.”She has been living in Bangkok
and surviving alone with noaccess to work or the ability toprovide for her children. For two
years she has depended on theassistance of otherFOCUS ASIA-PACIFICSEPTEMBER 2011 VOLUME 65

organizations, and in March2011 Adhi’s claim for refugee
status was rejected by the
UNHCR.

their visas expire, they are at
risk of getting arrested andi n d e fi n i t e l y d e t a i n e d a t
Immigration Detention Centers.

f u t u r e i s d o u b l e d by t h e
insecurity of her life in Bangkok
and the total inability to provide
for herself.

“My mother is in Sri Lanka.
Sometimes she calls us. She alsoasks about the United Nations
and if I received a decision. I
didn’t tell her that the UNHCR
rejected me because I didn’t
want to upset her. I don’t explain
to her everything that is going on
here.”

Moreover, during their stay inThailand most of the children
are not able to continue theirstudies. While Thailand has
ratified the Convention on the
Rights of the Child andrecognizes the right toeducation for young asylum
seekers and refugees, very few
schools in Bangkok, mostly
private international schools,
are willing to accept them.
Language barriers, the lack ofunderstanding among Thai
society of the specific needs ofthe urban refugee population,and the parents’ inability to pay
the school’s fees without asteady income are some of thefactors that make this rightunattainable. The Bangkok
Refugee Center (BRC),UNHCR’s implementing partner
in Bangkok, provides informal
education for refugee children,
but asylum seekers can only
attend once a week.

“I would love to have a job, but
I can’t get one here. I spend all
my time at home because I am
afraid that the police will arrest
me,” she said.

Adhi is just one ofapproximately two thousand six
hundred asylum seekers andrefugees registered with the
Office of UNHCR in Bangkok.
Hundreds of them are womenand girls who came to Thailand
either with their family or alone.
Once in Bangkok they have tosurvive and to provide for theirchildren without any legal rightto work or to health care, anddepending only on theassistance and the benevolenceof organizations andindividuals.
Adhi is not alone in her wait forstarting a new life. Muznah
waited for one year for herinterview with the UNHCR.
According to the UNHCR
Bangkok’s own informational
pamphlet for asylum-seekers,
the interview should occur
within twelve weeks fromregistration. But after fleeing
from Pakistan with her husband
and children, Muznah has
waited more than a year for herinterview, and in that time hervisa expired, causing her theconstant fear of being arrested
and detained. Thai law does notmake any distinction between
irregular migrants on one side,
and asylum seekers andrefugees that over-stay theirvisa, on the other. Thus, once

Wanting to Work
Nikou abandoned everything
when she left Iran, at the age of
27. She left her family, herfriends, and her university study
in Graphic Design. She had toescape one year of arbitrary
detention and torture. She
arrived in Bangkok in February
2011 and attended herinterview with the UNHCR at
the beginning of May. Like
many other asylum seekers andrefugees in Bangkok, Nikou
spends most of her days doing
nothing except wait for the
UNHCR decision on her asylum
application. The frustration of
not knowing what will be of her

8

Being denied the right to gain
an income under Thai law,urban asylum seekers andrefugees in Bangkok are often
left with no other choice but tojoin the informal economy to beable to provide for themselves
and their dependents. Zarah
Alih, the JRS psychosocial
counsellor, knows very well thechallenges that female asylum
seekers and refugees have to
face in Bangkok. She notes thatmost women who come to
Bangkok get assistance from JRS
Asia-Pacific for six months ifthey meet the ‘extremely
vulnerable’ criteria. JRS AsiaPa c i fi c p r o v i d e s h o u s i n g
assistance, economic
assistance, referral for medical
support and psychosocial
counselling. However, once JRS
Asia-Pacific stops its aid, thefemale asylum seekers andrefugees are left without
i n c o m e . Th e y s e l l t h e i r
jewellery and when that money
runs out, they come back to JRS
Asia-Pacific. Once they realize
how long they have to stay inThailand and how long NGOs
are able to support them, theyknow they will have to figureout something else. Some haveresorted to “survival sex,”particularly for women with orwithout children, and girls.
While the UNHCR Urban
Refugee Policy places highpriority on establishing anenvironment that allows urban

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
refugees to be self-reliant “as away of retaining their dignity,” itcannot be fully realized in
Thailand because urban asylum
seekers are not fully recognizedby the Thai government. JRS
Asia-Pacific tries to find ways forthem to generate income as theystruggle with language barriers(most of these women and girls
do not speak English or Thai
language), suffer from lack ofprevious work experience, andface security risks.
“We realize that due to thelength of the Refugee Status
Determination process (RSD)
what we can do is actually
insufficient to cover the whole
stay in Thailand. That is why I try
to point out activities for thembut the challenges are many.
Because of the risk of arrest we
h av e e n c o u r a g e d i n c o m egeneration that happens at
home. However, because of thesame threat they often need tochange apartments, thus making
it difficult to keep the activity
alive. Another challenge isrepresented by their lack ofwork experience. In the firstsession of a support group
activity I ask them what theyneed. They need training. Even
if they enjoyed the right to work
legally, for many of themwithout any training theirsituation would not change,”
Zarah said.
Based on her experience, Zarah
finds that income-generating
activities – like beading hijabs
or sewing – are more than just a
way to make money. Activities
take their minds off of waiting
day after day for a UNHCR
decision on their cases. And
increasing their ability to survive
without assistance also
improves their sense of self-

SEPTEMBER 2011 VOLUME 65
esteem and confidence while
preparing them for their future.

and they can help each other. I
want them to be supportive,”
Zarah said.

Alone in their Communities

Urban refugees are often
forgotten. They live
anonymously. They do not live
in refugee camps, where muchfunding and media attention is
focused. They try to exist
invisibly until they are resettled.
But the needs of urban refugees
and asylum seekers, particularly
women, are not invisible toanyone who cares to lookclosely. In reality, they sufferfrom a lack of assistancecompared to refugees living incamps where most services arecoordinated and provided for bymany NGOs. Safety, support,
work skills, income and fast
resettlement—these needs are
just hopes to many of thehundreds of women seeking
asylum in Bangkok.

Most refugees living in the city
admit that it is an isolating
existence.
“We never go to BRC. All thepeople there sit around, waiting
and gossiping about eachother,” said one teenage Sri
Lankan refugee.
Isolation in the city is anotherfactor with which women andgirl asylum seekers and refugees
have to cope with during theirstay in Bangkok. Integration
within the Thai society is almost
impossible to reach because of
the many legal, social andlanguage barriers. But also
inside the refugee community
solidarity among the different
nationalities is still in manycases only a distant dream.
Whenever she goes to BRC,
Adhi knows that she has toignore the men because otherrefugees will make up stories
about her. She has to dress acertain way, or people will talkabout her. But, her friend
admitted, people talk and makeup stories about one anotherbecause they have nothing but
gossip to fill their time. After
two years in Bangkok she knows
how “difficult it is to makefriends and create acommunity.”
Zarah has begun the process ofdeveloping female support
groups in different refugeecommunities, but admits there
are difficulties.
“I want them to understand thatthey cannot always rely onother organizations and thatthey are in the same situation

9“No girl would come here andleave her country if she could
stay there and live a normal
life,” Nikou said. “It is very
difficult to be alone here.”
Valeria Racemoli is the legal
officer of the JRS Asia-Pacific.
For further information, pleasecontact: Oliver White, Jesuit
Refugee Service Asia-Pacific, 43
Soi Rachwithi 12, Victory
Monument, Bangkok 10400,
Thailand; ph (662) 2784182;
fax (662) 2713632; e-mail:a s i a p a c i fi c r a o @ j r s . o r. t h ;www.jrsap.org.

Endnotes
1

2

UNHCR policy on refugee protection and solutions in urban
areas, September 2009, pages 56.
Ibid., page 7.

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFICSEPTEMBER 2011 VOLUME 65

Being Gay (Lesbian or Transgender) in Singapore
Sylvia Tan

is one of nine
S ingapore
countries in Asia - alongside

Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Brunei,
Malaysia and Myanmar - thatcriminalizes male-to-malesexual relations. Female-tofemale sex is not criminalized.
A legacy of its British colonial
past, Section 337A of
S i n g a p o r e ' s Pe n a l C o d eprovides for up to two years
imprisonment if a male isconvicted of having sexual
relations with another maleperson, even if it is amongconsenting adult men in private.
Section 377A states:
Any male person who, in
public or private, commits, orabets the commission of, or
procures or attempts to procure
the commission by any maleperson of, any act of grossindecency with another maleperson, shall be punished withimprisonment for a term which
may extend to two years.

In 2007, at the end of a yearlong review of the Penal Code the most wide-ranging intwenty-two years, the Singapore
government announced its
decision to retain the law thatcriminalizes oral sex among
males while decriminalizing
oral and anal sex among
opposite-sex parties.
The old Section 377 states:
Whoever voluntarily has carnal
intercourse against the order ofnature with any man, woman

or animals, shall be punishedwith imprisonment for life, orwith imprisonment for a term
which may extend to 10 years,
and shall also be liable to fine.

As a result of gender-neutral
Section 377 being abolished,female-to-female sex is now
legal.1
Section 377A now sits between
Section 377 that proscribes
sexual penetration of a corpse
and Section 377B thatproscribes sexual penetration
with living animal.
Despite the retention of the law,
the government has madepublic assurances thatconsensual sex among adultmen in private will not be
prosecuted.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loongsaid during the parliamentary
debate in 2007 that his
government's current legal
position to not enforce the law
is a "practical arrangement thathas evolved out of our historicalcircumstances" that "reflects thesocial norms and attitudes." Hefurther said that2
we have decided to keep thestatus quo on section 377A. It
is better to accept the legal
untidiness and the ambiguity. It
works, do not disturb it.

Lobby for Repeal
In November 2006, the Ministryof Home Affairs announced its
decision to retain gay sex laws

10

although laws that criminalize
anal and oral sex between
consenting heterosexual adults
would be repealed.
In the lead up to theparliamentary debate on 22 and23 October 2007 about the
proposed Penal Codeamendments, a fiery debate
raged in the mainstream media
and on the Internet.
Pro-repeal advocates organized
two major campaigns: An Open
Letter to the Prime Minister, anda parliamentary petition.
Th e O p e n L e t t e r, w h i c hgathered 8,120 signatories using
the Internet, was hand-delivered
to the Prime Minister's office at
the Istana.3 The parliamentary
petition, with 2,341 physicalsignatures was presented by
Nominated Member ofParliament Siew Kum Hong in
Parliament on 22 October
2007.
The petition argues that if "anact performed by a heterosexual
couple is permitted, while thesame act performed by ahomosexual or bisexual male
couple is criminalized," the law
is discriminatory as it "infringes
the right of homosexual andbisexual men to equal treatment
by and protection before thelaw, as set out in Article 12(1) of
the Constitution of the Republicof Singapore."4
The campaigns however also
attracted an opposing group

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
that launched a website of its
own to campaign against therepeal of the penal law.5
Although it was unsuccessful,the petition marked the firstattempt in twenty years by acitizens' group to use formal
parliamentary procedures tochange the law.
Arguing for the law to beretained, Senior Minister ofState for Law and Home Affairs,
Ho Peng Kee, said Singapore
remains a largely conservative
society and that "the majority
find homosexual behaviour
offensive and unacceptable."
He reiterated his position thatthe police has not been proactively enforcing the provision
and will not enforce the law6 if
the parties involved wereconsenting and the encounter
was in private, a position
MARUAH, a local human rights
group finds unacceptable.
A MARUAH (Singapore
Working Group for ASEAN
Human Rights Mechanism)spokesperson commented on
this issue:7
The intentional maintenance oflaws that are deliberately notenforced will tend to bring thelaw into disregard, whichshould be avoided. As a humanrights group, we see the law asa critical mechanism for theprotection of rights and ofminorities, and accordingly any
provisions that would tend tobring the law into disreputeshould be repealed.

In 2007, the Law Society ofSingapore, the professionala s s o c i a t i o n o f l aw ye r s i n
Singapore, formed an ad hoc
committee of sixteen members

SEPTEMBER 2011 VOLUME 65
to study the matter and issued areport saying, "the retention of s.
377A in its present form cannot
be justified."8
Legislation
Transgenderism

RegardingIndividuals who haveundergone a sex re-assignment
procedure can legally change
their gender (as being of the sex
to which the person has been
re-assigned) on all documents
such as passport and identity
card (but not birth certificate).
The Women's Charter wasamended in 1996 to allow atransgender person (who has
legally changed his or her
gender) to legally marry any
person of the opposite sex.9 But
the Women's Charter maintains
the general rule: same-sex
marriage is void in Singapore.10
Consequences of Section 377A
The existence of Section 377Aof the Penal Code has various
adverse consequences such as
the following:a. Safer sex outreachSingapore's only HIV/AIDSrelated NGO Action for AIDS
(AfA) reports that the police had
stopped volunteers from
distributing materials containing
information on homosexuality
and safer sex practices eventhough these materials were
given out at gay venues andevents.
Professor Roy Chan, President of
Action for AIDS Singapore,wrote in a position paper about
this matter:11
The reasons repeatedly givenby the authorities was that

11

because homosexual sex isillegal, it cannot be mentioned;
therefore providing information
on safe sex relevant to MSM[men having sex with men] isalso illegal. At a party catering
to MSM, AfA was ordered toclose its information booth by
the police, the reason given forthe order was that informationmaterials contained references
to homosexual sex.

The group also points out
Section 377A to be an obstacle
in reaching out to young men
who have sex with men orcontemplating of having sex
with men.
b. Sex education in schools
The government announced in2010 that it had approved six
vendors - four of whom are
known to be part ofconservative Christian groups to conduct sex educationp r o g ra m s i n s ch o o l s . Th e
decision follows a high-profile
takeover attempt in 2009 by agroup of Christians who thoughtthat a women's rights group(Association of Women for
Action and Research or AWARE)
had gone overboard for notcondemning homosexuality inits sex education program forteenaged students. AWARE's sex
education program has since
been suspended.
According to the Ministry of
Education's policy, students will
only be taught that homosexualacts are illegal.12 The curriculum
will not discuss homosexuality
or safer sex techniques, and will
focus on abstinence in general.
c. Censorship in the media
Te l e v i s i o n p r o g r a m s t h a t"advocate" or "promote"FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
homosexuality are routinely
censored. During the 2009
Oscar awards broadcast,speeches by winners Dustin
Lance Black and Sean Penn
who spoke about discrimination
against gays and lesbians weresnipped.13
In 2008, Singapore's stateowned television was fined
S$15,000 (US$10,800) by theMedia Development Authority
for broadcasting an episode of ahome and decor reality
television show "Find and
Design," in which the hosthelped a same-sex couple
decorate a nursery for theiradopted child. A statement from
MDA read: "This is in breach of
the Free-to-Air TV Programme
Code which disallows
programmes that promote,justify or glamourise gay
lifestyles.”It further stated:14
M DA a l s o c o n s u l t e d t h e
Programme Advisory
Committee for English
Programmes (PACE) and theCommittee was also of theview that a gay relationshipshould not be presented as an
acceptable family unit.

O n t h e s a m e d ay o f t h eannouncement, a three-minutesegment of the Ellen DeGeneres
Show where the hostcondemned homophobia andspoke about a fatal shooting ofa fifteen-year-old gay student ins ch o o l , wa s c e n s o r e d o nMediaCorp's Channel 5.15
In the same year, a Singapore
cable television operator was
fined S$10,000 (US$7,200) fora i r i n g a c o m m e rc i a l t h a t
showed two women kissing.16

SEPTEMBER 2011 VOLUME 65
d. Freedom of Assembly

Gay Activism and Visibility

While there are over a dozen
L G B T- r e l a t e d c o m m u n i t ygroups active in Singapore,none are officially registered orrecognized. Pioneer gay
advocacy group People Like Us
had been unsuccessful in both
its attempts in 1997 17 and200418 to register formally as asociety. In 2007, the Registry ofSocieties [ROS] (under the
Ministry of Home Affairs)
refused to provide any reason
for rejection of application
despite repeated requests. In
2004, PLU was told by the ROS
that its application was rejectedon the ground that the society
would likely be prejudicial to
public peace, welfare or goodorder, and that it would becontrary to the national interest.

Singapore currently hosts two
Lesbian-Gay-BisexualTransgender (LGBT) or LGBTsupportive events: IndigNation
and Pink Dot.

Although the ROS in 2004
introduced a scheme wherecertain types of societies can be
automatically registered, groups
whose purpose is to represent,
promote or discuss gender orsexual orientation has
specifically been excluded fromthis scheme alongside groups
that deal with politics andreligion.19
When contacted to ask why it isso, the Societies Executive of
ROS responded in June 2010
via email saying: "Scrutiny ofsuch societies is required toensure that these groups which
aim to promote a particularcause, do not conduct theiractivities in a manner which
could be prejudicial to ournational interests when they
engage actively in pushing theiragenda, without due regard for
those who may not agree with
their cause."

12

Indignation is the closest thing
Singapore has to a gay pride
festival. First held in August
2005, the month-long festival
typically features talks, art
exhibitions, poetry readings,
film screenings and social
activities; and notably does not
f e a t u r e a ny p u b l i c s t r e e tparades which have become
synonymous with gay pride
festivals around the world.
While People Like Us
coordinates the events, different
groups or people who
contribute their events to thejoint calendar separatelyorganize each event.
The festival started the year after
the government banned a gay
Christmas party in 2004 and theannual Gay Nation party in
2 0 0 5 a f t e r a g ove r n m e n tminister hypothesized without
providing any proof or data thatgay parties in Singapore might
have led to sharp rise in new
AIDS cases.20
It should also be noted thatholding IndigNation was only
possible in 2005 after
government authorities
liberalized restrictions onindoor meetings in 2004. The
liberalized rules does not
require government permit forindoor events if the subject is
not about religion and does notharm racial harmony. Prior tothat, a permit was needed for all
public events regardless of thesubject matter.

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFCSEPTEMBER 2011 VOLUME 65

Held for the second year in
2010, Pink Dot is Singapore's
first and only mass LGBTsupportive event to support"freedom to love" regardless ofsexual orientation and to show
support for and acceptance ofLGBT people in mainstream
society. The event which washeld at a public park Singapore's only governmentdesignated venue for public
assembly and free speech
where a police permit is not
required - drew two thousand
five hundred people in 2009,21
four thousand people in 2010,22
and ten thousand people in2011.23
Google Singapore became thefirst multinational company topublicly support Pink Dot.
It is impossible to predict what
the government would do about
the current anti-gay law but I
think I can say that: Given thatevents like Pink Dot andbusinesses openly catering toLGBTs were largely
unimaginable in the 1980s and1990s, the gay movement withits desire for greater visibility
and equal treatment is likely tomove at a greater pace than
before as an ever increasing
number of LGBTs are better
informed of worldwide
developments and willing totake a more assertive standwhile working within thelimitations of the law.
Gay EntrepreneurshipSocial SpaceandSingapore has a thriving gay
scene with numerous publicly
known gay karaoke bars anddance clubs, gay bathhouses/
saunas, lesbian parties andother businesses targeting gay

PinkDot 2011 held in Hong Lim Park in Singapore last June 2011
(photo courtesy of PinkDot Singapore).

and lesbian patrons and detailsof which are easily found on theInternet.
Fridae.asia, Asia's largest gay
and lesbian portal, chiefly
operates out of its subsidiarycompany in Singapore although
the company is officially basedin Hong Kong. Dr Stuart Koe,
who founded Fridae in 1999,
said that they decided to use thesystem to circumvent
regulations by the MediaDevelopment Authority (under
the Ministry of Information,
Communications and the Arts)
that prohibited any material that"advocates homosexuality or
lesbianism" under the Internet
Code of Practice.24
While gay men and lesbians do
not appear to be gaining any
traction in terms of legal rights
or protections, more than before
they are able to access a rangeof publicly identified gayaffirmative community services
and organizations such as theLGBT-oriented Pelangi (rainbow
in Malay) Pride Center library,

13

Oogachaga Counselling andSupport, and Free Community
Church.
Sylvia Tan is the editor andSingapore correspondent of
Fridae.asia, Asia's largest gay
and lesbian portal.
For further information, pleasec o n t a c t : S y l v i a Ta n ,sylvia@fridae.asia>;
www.fridae.asia/.

Endnotes
1

Offences Affecting the Human
Body, text available at http://
statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/
cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?
a c t n o = 1 8 7 2 REVED-224&doctitle=PENAL
%
2
0
C
O
D
E
%0A&date=late&segid=888373
002-001939.
2 The Prime Minister and Ministerfor Finance (Mr Lee Hsien
Loong), Penal Code(Amendment)Bill,
www.parliament.gov.sg/reports/
public/hansard/title/
20071023/20071023_S0003_T0
002.html.

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFC
3

For more information on theOpen Letter that was submitted
to the prime minister in 2007
with 8,000 signatures, visit
www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/2007/10/23/1973.open-letter-tothe-prime-minister-submittedwith-8000-signatures.
4 Petition presented by Siew KumHong (Nominated Member),www.parliament.gov.sg/reports/
public/hansard//appendices/
20071022/SiewKumHongPetition(latest).pdf
5 Agence France Press,“Government does not endorse
gay lifestyle: Singapore
minister,” 22 October 2007. Text
available at http://
afp.google.com/article/
A L e q M 5 h 6 v m B ijv8maeiq5-9xNtQw3EUkw.
6 Sylvia Tan, “Allow space for gays
b u t g ay s e x b a n t o s t ay :Singapore PM,” Fridae, 24
October 2007, www.fridae.com/
n e w s f e a t u r e s /2007/10/24/1970.allow-spacefor-gays-but-gay-sex-ban-to-staysingapore-pm.
7 “ S i n g a p o r e : L aw M i n i s t e r
reiterates no repeal, nonenforcement stand on gay sex
l a w,” w w w. f r i d a e . c o m /n e w s f e a t u r e s /2009/07/06/8576.singapore-lawminister-reiterates-no-repealnon-enforcement-stand-on-gaysex-law.
8 See People Like Us, "Law
Society presses for
decriminalisation," 5 April 2007.
Text available at www.plu.sg/
society/?p=65.
9 Section 12 (2), Avoidance ofmarriages between persons ofsame sex, Part III, Solemnizationof Marriages, Act 353 , Women'sCharter, provides:
It is hereby declared that,
subject to sections 5, 9, 10, 11
and 22, a marriage solemnizedin Singapore or elsewhere
between a person who has
undergone a sex re-assignment
procedure and any person of the

SEPTEMBER 2011 VOLUME 65
opposite sex is and shall bedeemed always to have been avalidmarriage.
www.familycourtofsingapore.go
v. s g / p r i n c i p l e s / a c t 3 5 3 /acts_act353_frame.htm.
10 The Women’s Charter provides:
12. —(1) A marriage
solemnized in Singapore orelsewhere between persons
who, at the date of themarriage, are not respectively
male and female shall be
void.
11 Roy Chan, "Sections 377 and
377A of the Penal Code - Impact
on AIDS Prevention andControl," The Act, Issue 34,
2007, text available atw w w . a f a . o r g . s g /o t h e r p u b l i c a t i o n s / Pe n a l%20Code%20Sections%20377,%20377A%20and%20Effect%20on%20AIDS%20Prevention%20in%20%20Singapore.pdf.
12 M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n( S i n g a p o r e ) , Po l i c i e s o n
Sexuality Education,www.moe.gov.sg/education/
programmes/social-emotionallearning/sexuality-education/
policies/.
13 “Oscar winners Dustin Lance
Black, Sean Penn push gay
marriage rights,” atwww.fridae.com/newsfeatures/2009/02/23/2222.oscar-winnersdustin-lance-black-sean-pennpush-gay-marriage-rights.
14 See press release of MediaDevelopment Authority entitled"MediaCorp TV Channel 5 finedfor breaching Programme Code"i n w w w. m d a . g o v. s g /NewsAndEvents/PressRelease/2008/Pages/24042008.aspx.
15 Fridae, “Singapore TV station
fined S$15,000 for showing a''normal'' gay family,” 25 April
2008,
available
atwww.fridae.com/newsfeatures/2008/04/25/2047.singapore-tvs t a t i o n - fi n e d - s - 1 5 0 0 0 - f o rshowing-a-normal-gay-family.

14

16 Fridae,“Singapore censors finecable TV operator S$10,000 forad featuring lesbian kiss,” 10
April 2008, available atwww.fridae.com/newsfeatures/2008/04/10/2040.singaporecensors-fine-cable-tv-operators - 1 0 0 0 0 - f o r- a d - f e a t u r i n g lesbian-kiss.
17 “History of PLU: the firstregistration attempt 1996
-1997,” in www.plu.sg/society/?
p=24.
18 “History of PLU: the second
registration attempt, 2004,” in
www.plu.sg/society/?p=32.
19 Th e S c h e d u l e - S p e c i fi e dSocieties, available at http://
statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/
cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?
a c t n o = 1 9 6 7 REVED-311&doctitle=SOCIETIES+ACT&date=latest&method=part&segid=1094637071-000093.
20 “Gay parties may have led to
sharp rise in new Aids cases,”
w w w. y a w n i n g b r e a d . o r g /apdx_2005/imp-184.htm
21 “Singapore gays in first public
rally,”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asiapacific/8054402.stm
22 “Hong Lim Park becomes a seaof pink, with over 4,000 turning
up for Pink Dot 2010,” http://
theonlinecitizen.com/2010/05/
hong-lim-park-becomes-a-seaof-pink-with-over-4000-turningup-for-pink-dot-2010/.
23 Amelia Tan, "Pink Dot event
draws 10,000 this year," The
Straits Times, June 18, 2011,w w w. s t r a i t s t i m e s . c o m /BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/
STIStory_681339.html.
24 For the text of the Internet CodeofPractice,
visit
www.mda.gov.sg/Documents/
PDF/licences/mobj.
981.Internet_Code_of_Practice.p
df.

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFICSEPTEMBER 2011 VOLUME 65

HURIGHTS OSAKA Activities

H

URIGHTS OSAKA and the
Osaka Bar Association
jointly organized on 5 August
2011 in Osaka a symposium
entitled “Child’s Best Interestand the Rights of Parents in
Cross-border Child Abduction
Cases.” The symposium dealt
with issues that have been
debated in Japan regarding the
ra t i fi c a t i o n o f t h e H a g u eConvention on the Civil Aspectsof International Child
Abduction (Hague Convention).
The Japanese Cabinet
announced on 20 May 2011 its
decision to propose to the Diet(parliament) the enactment of alaw in preparation for the
ra t i fi c a t i o n o f t h e H a g u eConvention. Several resource
persons spoke at the
symposium. Ms. Mikiko Otani,a lawyer and Vice-Chair of theWorking Group of the Japan
Federation of Bar Associations
on the Hague Convention,
discussed the Hague
Convention and the best interestof the child principle thatshould govern it. Ms. Noriko
Odagiri, a clinical psychologist
i n To k y o I n t e r n a t i o n a l
University, discussed visitations
from the child’s perspective,
and problems that could arise(such as disruption by the returnof the child to the country of theother parent, sense of loss, andthe possibility of witnessing
domestic violence). Ms. Nancy
Zalusky Berg, President of theI n t e r n a t i o n a l A c a d e my o fMatrimonial Lawyers – USA
C h a p t e r, s h a r e d s o m eexperiences in applying theHague Convention in the U.S.
She stressed Article 13(b) of theHague Convention on thedenial of request for the returnof the child if “there is a grave
risk that his or her return would
expose the child to physical or
psychological harm orotherwise place the child in an
intolerable situation.” She alsomentioned that there were
exaggerated claims of harm andabuse to the children subject ofsuch requests. The U.S. courts,
therefore,
require“undertakings” to ensure thesafe return of the child. Morethan one hundred participants
including members of the bar
association, academics,
psychologists, human rights
workers, public officials, andofficials from several Consulates
in Osaka attended thesymposium.
HURIGHTS OSAKA coorganized the performance ofthe members of the Bornfree Art
School in Osaka on 13 August
2011. The Bornfree Art School is
a s p e c i a l s ch o o l c r e a t e d
exclusively for street children,
working children and freed
bonded labor children. It aims
to educate and develop thetalents of the children throughthe arts, and thus put them backinto the mainstream education.
The Bornfree Art School (basedin Bangalore, India) sees art as atherapeutic means for children
from such difficult backgrounds
to express themselves freely,

15

regain the confidence and selfrespect as well as to generateinterest in education. The
performance in Osaka (as wellas in other places in Japan)
focused on peace as maint h e m e . Th e p e r f o r m a n c ehighlighted the importance ofArticle 19 of the 1947 JapaneseConstitution that renounces war
as a “sovereign right” of Japan,
and linked this to the message
that Mahatma Gandhi wanted
to convey on the peace issue.
On 3-4 September 2011,
HURIGHTS OSAKA held ameeting of educators from
China, Hong Kong, South
Korea, Mongolia and Taiwan to
discuss the development of a
Northeast Asian Human Rights
Education Training Resource
Material. As a teacher training
resource material, it would bedesigned for use in teachertraining colleges or in any formof training teachers. It would
include existing human rights
education materials inNortheast Asia such as lessonplans, and materials on humanrights concepts, pedagogies,
school-rules and regulations,links with outside institutions
and the local community. The
project would seek the help ofteachers, law professors, teacher
educators, and those involvedin non-formal human rights
education in Northeast Asia ingathering materials and putting
them together as a resource
material.

HURIGHTS OSAKA Calendar

DE
AU
OSAKA

ST
PO

BUR
E

HURIGHTS OSAKA has published the second volume of Human Rights Education in Asia-Pacific. This
volume contains articles regarding a variety of programs of institutions at the national (nongovernmental organizations, universities, national human rights institutions, country offices ofinternational organizations) and regional levels. It covers programs for schools, universities,
communities, and also for professionals. The pdf file of the whole publication and those of theindividual articles are available at www.hurights.or.jp/archives/asia-pacific/.

JAPON

TAXE PERCUEPRINTED MATTERAIR MAIL

May be opened for inspection by the postal service.

HURIGHTS OSAKA, inspired by the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, formally opened in December 1994. lt has the following goals: 1) to promote human rights
in the Asia- Pacific region; 2) to convey Asia-Pacific perspectives on human rights to the international
community; 3) to ensure inclusion of human rights principles in Japanese international cooperative activities; and 4) to raise human rights awareness among the people in Japan in meeting its growing internationalization. In order to achieve these goals, HURIGHTS OSAKA has activities such as Information Handling, Research and Study, Education and Training, Publications, and Consultancy Services.
FOCUS Asia-Pacific is designed to highlight significant issues and activities relating to human rights in
the Asia-Pacific. Relevant information and articles can be sent to HURIGHTS OSAKA for inclusion in thenext editions of the newsletter.
FOCUS Asia-Pacific is edited by Osamu Shiraishi, Director of HURIGHTS OSAKA.
Sender:

HURIGHTS OSAKA(Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center)
3F, piaNPO, 2-8-24 Chikko Minato-ku Osaka 552-0021 Japan
Phone: (816)6577-3578
Fax: (816)6577-3583
E-mail: webmail@hurights.or.jp Web site: http://www.hurights.or.jp

HURIGHTS OSAKA