FOCUS ASIA!PACIFIC"APRIL 2010 VOLUME 59

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

September 2012 Vol. 69

Contents
Lost in Transition: Transgender People, Rights
and HIV Vulnerability in the Asia-Pacific Region
This discusses the lack of understanding ofdiversity within the transgender community
in Asia-Pacific, which results in failure todeliver appropriate services for the different
needs of people. The article argues for more
inclusive research on the transgendercommunity, and for its diverse members tobe equally recognized and supported.
- Sam WinterPage 2
Beyond Invisibility: Great East Japan Disasterand LGBT in Northeast Japan
This is a presentation on the difficulty ofproviding services to transgender people in
the northern region of Japan that sufferedfrom earthquake, tsunami and nuclear
meltdown. The invisibility of thetransgender people causes their
marginalization.
- Azusa Yamashita
Page 6
Resolving the Muslim Rohingya Issue
A discussion of the mid-2012 riots in
Rakhine state in Burma/Myanmar involving
the Muslim Rohingyas and the Buddhist
Rakhine, which rekindled the issue of
800,000 stateless people in the country. Theinternational community has beenpressuring the Burmese/Myanmarese
government to resolve the issue,
maintaining that the Rohingyas should not
be treated as foreign immigrants.
- HURIGHTS OSAKA
Page 10
Northeast Asia Training Resource Material for
Human Rights Education
This is a report on the second meeting of
educators from China, Hong Kong, Japan,
South Korea, Mongolia and Taiwan who are
involved in developing a training resource
material on human rights education in theschool systems of Northeast Asia.
- HURIGHTS OSAKA
Page 13

Editorial

People with Different Situations and Needs
Fear of rejection by family members and community plays asignificant part in deciding to hide one’s sexuality. Expressing
one’s sexual orientation or identity does not provide comfort
either. Though family support might exist, societal systems andfacilities may not serve the needs of the “visible” transgenderpeople.
Research shows that transgender people suffer from different
forms of discrimination. While there is a growing consciousness
about their right to be treated equally and without
discrimination, transgender people remain largely marginalized
in society.
The impact of this marginalization strikes transgender people atthe time they need support the most. Health services in ordinary
situations might be effectively kept away from them, while
support for basic needs may not be forthcoming during times ofcrisis such as when disaster strikes.
Limited recognition of the diverse types of transgender people
likewise presents a challenge. The diversity of situations andcategories of transgender people demands diverse services andmaterials. Public ignorance of such diversity among transgenderpeople is caused partly by research that tends to focus ontransgender people who are young, female, and living in urban
areas.
Such failure to recognize diverse situations and categories oftransgender people amounts to another form of discrimination.

1

FOCUS ASIA!PACIFIC"SEPTEMBER 2012 VOLUME 69

Lost in Transition: Transgender People, Rights and HIV
Vulnerability in the Asia-Pacific Region
Sam WinterT

he Asia-Pacific region ishome to a large number oftransgender (trans*) people;
i n d iv i d u a l s wh o s e g e n d e r
identity, and/or expression of
their gender, differs from social
norms related to their gender ofbirth.1 Across the region it canbe speculated that there arepossibly 9-9.5 million trans*
people, though existing researchis scattered and small-scale, andis largely limited to trans*
women.2 Asia-Pacific research,again scattered and small-scale,indicates alarming numbers oftrans* women who are Human
Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV)positive, with prevalence rates
as high as 49 percent. Thereappear to be no data at all on
HIV rates among trans* men, an
emerging identity group. The
number of trans* people ofeither gender who have died ofAcquired Immuno-Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS), or what
proportion they represent ofoverall AIDS-related deaths, isunknown.
The regional HIV epidemic
among trans* people is strongly
linked to stigma and prejudice.
Research on Asia-Pacific trans*
people, scattered and often smallscale, has tended to focus on
young and urban communities oftrans* women, and has neglected
the elderly and rural, as well astrans* men. 3 That said, theresearch indicates that stigma

and prejudice are major
problems for trans* people, andare rooted in a range of beliefs(either traditional or modern,
depending on the culture
concerned) about sexuality,
gendernorms
andnonconformity. The stigma andprejudice appear to put large
numbers of trans* people onto aslope (a ‘stigma-sickness slope’),prompting patterns of
discrimination, harassment andabuse (verbal, sexual andphysical) in the family, atschool, in the workplace, in theprovision of services (including
health) and in society more
broadly (including in the law
and law enforcement). Trans*
people commonly report
dropping out of or being
excluded from education, ande x p e r i e n c i n g d i f fi c u l t y i nfinding, keeping and advancing
in employment. Trans* people
become marginalized, bothsocially and economically. AsiaPacific legal environments serve
to marginalize trans* people
further, failing to offer trans*
people sufficient protection
against discrimination (orindeed against the more serious
forms of sexual assault), anddiscriminating by withholding
either practical or legal
recognition of self-affirmed
gender, criminalizing trans*
people’s sexual or genderedbehaviors, and subjecting trans*
people to gender-inappropriate
detention or incarceration

2

practices, as well as
contributing to police abuses.
There is good reason to believe,in the absence of much AsiaPacific research in this area, thatthese experiences can damagetrans* people’s psychologicala nd e mo ti o n al wel lb e i n g ,conspiring with other factors
such as poverty to tilt them intolife situations and patterns of
behavior that put them at risk of
HIV (as well as risk of otherthreats to their physical healthand well-being). Unsafe sexual
practices and engagement in sex
work appear common amongcommunities of trans* women.
It is known that Asia-Pacifictrans* women commonly
engage in unprotected receptive
anal intercourse (URAI), but weknow little about any safer sex
behaviors (other than condomuse) in which they engage(either in or out of sex work).
Although many trans* women in
the region appear quite badly
informed about HIV risks, it isclear that many of those who
are well-informed neverthelessengage in unsafe sexual
practices. There is little research
to indicate why. The lack of
information on these matters
mirrors more general (andglobal) ignorance on risks
associated with neo-vaginal
intercourse and lubricants(especially those that are notwater-based and developed forFOCUS ASIA!PACIFC"
lubrication during sex), and of
how trans* women’s use ofcross-sex hormones, hormone
blockers and silicon injections,or their cis-male partners’ use ofpenile implants and drugs forerectile dysfunction might raiset r a n s * p e o p l e ’s H I V
vulnerability.4
Across much of the Asia-Pacificregion, many trans* women
engage in sex work at somepoint in their lives. It is likely
trans* men also do sex work,
providing services as female sex
workers (FSWs) or as male sex
workers (MSWs). In each casethe numbers of trans* sex
workers (TSWs) remain
uncertain. It is highly likely thatsex work raises their HIV risk,
though little work has been
done in this area, especially to
examine the ways in which
different reasons for andpatterns of sex work might
contribute to risk.
Across the region, there are
numerous reports documenting
problems in healthcare fortrans* women - whether for
general, transition or sexual
health. The challenges facing
trans* men remain severely
under-researched. Trans* people
approaching health services
commonly report that providers
are uncooperative or hostile
with staff addressing or
responding to the trans* person
in a gender-inappropriate way,
adopting a mocking or
ridiculing attitude, withholding
or refusing healthcare, or evenoffering ‘reparative’ treatments.
Providers may lack competencein regard to trans* health care.
Services are often difficult toa c c e s s o r c o s t l y. C o s t s ,especially in regard to transition
healthcare, serve to push trans*

SEPTEMBER 2012 VOLUME 69
people towards sex work. Trans*
people often seek out whateverhealth services there may be,relying on word-of-mouth
recommendations. They pay forwhatever transition they can
a f f o r d ; g e n d e r a f fi r m i n gsurgeries, implants and/or highquality silicone injections (forthose trans* people that havethe money), or (traditional or
backyard) castration and/or
industrial quality silicone frommedically unqualified ‘fillers’and ‘pumpers’ (for those on abudget). Some take care of theirown healthcare needs as best
they can (e.g., getting hormones
wherever and whenever they
can and taking them with little
or no medical supervision).
Th o s e wh o s e e k g e n d e raffirming surgeries find that they
are likely to be the mostexpensive procedures they everundergo.
Requirements for psychiatricevaluation before provision of
hormones and/or surgery may
add to the expense. Public
subsidies for gender affirming
surgeries are rare. In many
countries transition-related
surgeries (especially gonadogenital5) are simply unavailableo r e l s e a r e p r o h i b i t iv e l yexpensive. For somecommunities castration has
proved to be a cheaper, andmore easily available, route tofeminization (or more precisely,
emasculation).
Trans* people often find thatsexual healthcare services are
not suited to their needs,
focused instead on female and(more recently) on gay men andother MSM. The challenges
facing trans* men again remain
severely under-researched.
Trans* women are likely to be3

denied women’s services, andeven turned away from MSM
services. Confidentiality is notalways assured, especially inregard to mandatory HIV testingfor sex workers. HIV positivity
often compounds the problems
in accessing appropriate care.
Tr a n s * w o m e n ( p e r h a p s
especially TSWs where sex
work is stigmatized or illegal)
are often reluctant to seek
sexual healthcare services,
unless and until they experiencea symptomatic sexuallytransmitted infection (STI).
Across the region, few trans*
people step forward for HIV
testing.
The failure to address trans*
people’s sexual health needs is
to some extent symptomatic ofa more general failure
extending across the broader
sexual minority spectrum.
However, it is also clear thatthroughout much of the historyof the global HIV response,t r a n s * p e o p l e h av e b e e ninvisibilized; in that they haveseldom been properly
recognized as a distinct
population for purposes ofconfronting the HIV pandemic.
Trans* women attracted tomales have often been
subsumed, researched andreported as MSM, or as a
subpopulation within thatbehavioral group. The portrayalof these persons as MSM isoften in direct conflict with theirown identities as female or third
gender. It undermines theirfrequently voiced claims to betreated as female. It often
conflicts with the identities of
their partners as heterosexual,or ‘real men’. Trans* men again
have been completely left out ofany kind of reporting; eventrans* men who have sex with

FOCUS ASIA!PACIFIC"
men (TMSM), a group which(ironically, and unlike trans*
women) are best thought of as a
sub-group of MSM.
To s o m e e x t e n t n o n governmental organizations(NGOs) and community-basedorganizations (CBOs)6 have inrecent years stepped in toprovide sexual health services.
However many in trans*
communities region-wide
remain out of the reach of these
services, and the work of theseorganizations has sometimes
been hindered through actionsof police and officials who
harass both the providers andrecipients of these services,
detaining outreach workers,
confiscating materials, andraiding offices and events.
There is an increasing tendency
for trans* people to be seen as
communities distinct from
MSM. The increasing ability of
Asia-Pacific trans* communities,
especially trans* feminine
communities, to organize
themselves for advocacy can
only help this process along. In
this regard trans* men lag
behind their female
counterparts.
A research agenda is proposedthat can facilitate reduction in
future HIV risk for trans* people,
as well as promoting better
access to treatment, care andsupport for transgender persons
living with HIV in the AsiaPacific region. Donors may want
to bear this agenda in mind
when making funds available forresearch, or assessing individual
research proposals.
Recommendations are that:
1. Researchers (particularly
those involved in HIV-related
health and rights research)

SEPTEMBER 2012 VOLUME 69
should work to end theinvisibility of trans* people,
researching them in their own
right and, when necessary,disaggregating them from othergroups in a research study. This
will enable the building of adatabase on trans* people’s HIV
vulnerabilities and healthcare
needs. Research should seek torecognize diversity within trans*
communities, and the existenceof hitherto under-researchedcommunities of trans* people;
in particular the elderly andrural, as well as trans* men,about whose life circumstancesand needs little is known.
2. Researchers should avoid
letting cisgenderism (a way of
thinking that demeans trans*
people and privileges those whoare not transgender) enter theirresearch work, and note it inother’s research, bearing in
mind that such practices canreinforce stigma and prejudice,and undermine trans* people’s
claims for gender rights.
3. Researchers should engage
with trans* people as partners,
involving them as key membersof research teams, paid on an
equal-pay-for-equal-work basis
alongside their cisgendercolleagues. This helps avoid
cisgenderism, facilitates more
informed and sensitive research,and helps build researcher
capacity. Research capacity canalso be enhanced by improved
access to international research(translated and summarized
where necessary).
4. Research is needed that
attempts to ascertain or estimate
how many trans* people there
are across the region, including
elderly and rural trans* people,
trans* men, and trans* sex

4workers (male and female). With
good population data for trans*
people (including for TSWs),
and good HIV prevalence data,
it should be easier to plantargeted health services,
i n c l u d i n g H I V p r e ve n t i o nprograms.
5. Research (especiallymultidisciplinary) is needed
which seeks to understand the
HIV vulnerabilities of trans*
people, especially key
populations like trans* sex
workers, the young, the elderly,
and the rural. Trans* men,
hitherto little studied, areanother key population. Amongpotentially important researchstudies are those which throw
more light on patterns of sexual
behavior, and some of the ways
in which those patterns of
behavior may impact on HIV
risk. Another important initiative
would be a central database
documenting rights violations
against trans* people, as well as
research which aims tounderstand more fully thenature of life on the stigmasickness slope. Multidisciplinary, comprehensive,large-scale and longitudinal
research may be particularly
valuable, enabling a morethorough assessment of theeffects of stigma, discrimination,harassment, abuse andmarginalization upon trans*
people’s lives, and making
possible an examination of the
impact of changes in laws andlaw enforcement.
6. Research is needed that goesbeyond risk factors for trans*
people and looks instead at
protective factors and personalqualities conferring upon trans*
people resilience against theeffects of stigma and prejudice,FOCUS ASIA!PACIFC"
discrimination, harassment andabuse, and consequentmarginalization. Research ofthis sort may facilitate thedevelopment of programs thath e l p t ra n s * p e o p l e avo i dslipping down the stigmasickness slope, as well as
countering a view of trans*
people as passive victims.
7. Research is needed thatexamines ways to make trans*
CBOs and relevant NGOs more
effective in work by and fortrans* people. Local, nationaland regional organizations
already serving the trans*
communities should bemapped, perhaps building on
earlier initiatives. A
comprehensive mapping will
identify service gaps, andprovide a basis forrecommendations aimed at
extending services, andevaluating improvements inservice provision. There is aparticular need for research,
perhaps longitudinal, examining
ways in which the effectivenessof CBOs may be enhanced so as
to better meet local needs,
including those of underserved
populations such as ruralcommunities, elderly trans*
people, and trans* men, as wellas trans* people in migrant andethnic/cultural/religious
minority groups. While it isdifficult to generalize, it is likelythat those needs will include
any or all of the following four
key components, as per theremainingfour
recommendations.
8. There is a need to document
information about innovativeand good practice in regard toefforts to help the public (andkey social agents such as police,
judiciary, health workers,

SEPTEMBER 2012 VOLUME 69
teachers, and various media,etc.) become better informed
regarding trans* people, andmore sensitive to their needs.
Such research, properly
disseminated, may prove usefulin helping CBOs to develop
more effective (and scaled up)
education campaigns.
9. It is important to document
the ways in which key
conventions, declarations, court
judgments and juridical andjurisprudential reports can beused to advance the rights oftrans* people across the AsiaPacific, and to find ways inwhich transgender communities
across the region (and theiradvocates) can use that
information in ways that makesense in the societies in which
they live.
10. It is important to document
means (both well-establishedand innovatory) by which trans*
communities can effectively getaccess to important healthinformation. Also useful would
be research aimed at identifying
ways of getting healthinformation to the hard to reachtrans* communities –particularly the elderly and therural, who may neither bemembers of community groups
nor linked to the internet, andmay have limited literacy.
11. Research is needed whichdocuments good practice in theprovision of trans* positive,competent, comprehensive andaccessible healthcare, that is out
there. 7 Especially useful isresearch which helps CBOs andother key stakeholders workwith healthcare providers toscale up existing services, andto develop new initiatives,
adapted to local context but

5drawing on what has beenlearned elsewhere (particularly
i n r e l a t i o n t o b e h av i o r a linterventions in the field ofHIV).
This is the slightly edited versionof the executive summary of thereport of the same title
published by the Asia Pacific
Transgender Network (APTN)
and the UNDP Asia-PacificRegional Centre. The whole
report can be downloaded atwww.undp.org/content/undp/
en/home/librarypage/hiv-aids/
lost-in-transition--transgenderpeople--rights-and-hivvulnerabi/.
Dr. Sam Winter is an Associate
Professor at the Faculty of
Education of University of HongKong.
For further information, pleasecontact: Sam Winter, Faculty of
Education, Room 419,4/F, Run
Me Shaw Building, Main
Campus, University of Hong
Kong, Pokfulam Road, HongKong; ph (852) 2859 1901; email: sjwinter@hkusua.hku.hk.
TransgenderASIA website at
www.transgenderASIA.org
Endnotes
1 Following the practice of organizations such as GATE (Global
Action for Trans*-Equality) theterm trans* people is used as an
open-ended social umbrellaterm, rather than a descriptor ofa specific identity or culturalclassification acknowledging thewide range of identities, andidentity-based communities,
within this population andacross the Asia-Pacific region.

(Continued on page 15)

FOCUS ASIA!PACIFIC"SEPTEMBER 2012 VOLUME 69

Beyond Invisibility: Great East Japan Disaster andLGBT in Northeast Japan
Azusa YamashitaThe Great East Japan Disasteron 11 March 2011 caused
death to an incredible numberof people with many more still
missing, 1 destroyed a hugeamount of properties, anddisplaced numerous
communities. On top of this
there were gender-insensitiveand gender-unequal
evacuations, relief andreconstruction processes2 that
added further damage. But
equally shocking was the dearthof information about and voicesof different groups of so-calledsocial minorities such as people
with disabilities, non-Japanese
speaking residents, children, theelderly, and those who arelesbian, bisexual, gay andtransgender (LGBT). Amongthem, the LGBT people areprobably the most invisible.
Having been born and raised in
Iwate prefecture, one of theprefectures affected by thed i s a s t e r, I k n ow t h a t myprefecture is not an inclusive
place for people of diverse
communities. The fact that we
hardly hear anything from LGBT
survivors in coastal towns in theprefecture even after having
established Iwate's first LGBT
group is appalling. The disasterhighlighted the invisibility ofLGBT survivors and the
difficulties they have faced inJapan's rural towns.

Invisibility of LGBT Survivors
While Japan does not penalize
same-sex relationships ortransgenderism,3 the situation
faced by LGBT people in Japan
has been characterized byinvisibility, marginalization,
silent prejudice andstigmatization even before thed i s a s t e r. W h i l e J a p a n ' sConstitution guarantees
fundamental human rights andprohibits discrimination on thebasis of "race, sex, social status
or family origin," substantive
equality is not guaranteed toLGBT people. Japanese lawsalso do not protect them fromdiscrimination and abuse. The
government included "people ina difficult situation because of
sexual orientation or living withgender identity disorders" in thelatest Basic Plan for Gender
Equality and “sexual minorities”
in the latest Suicide Prevention
Measures; and provided funds
to the 24-hour LGBT hotline.
But neither the government nor
civil society organizations haveadequately incorporated LGBT
perspectives or issues into theirpolicies.
The disaster made theinvisibility, marginalization,
silent prejudice andstigmatization suffered by LGBT
people visible. "I totally forgotthat I was a lesbian for a while
after the disaster" - a friend ofmine who lives in one of the

Ofunato, one of the disaster-stricken towns in Iwate

6

FOCUS ASIA!PACIFIC"
coastal towns in northern
Tohoku told me over the phone
two months after theearthquakes and tsunami. WhenI asked a gay friend of mine in
one of the worst disaster-hit
towns in Iwate whether he wasfacing any difficulty because of
who he was, he replied saying "I
was never out as gay in mytown. I never told anyone that I
had a same-sex partner in mycommunity. When we were ona date, we went to anothertown where nobody would
know us. That's what it was likebefore the disaster. So, I don't
face any difficulty for being gay
even after 11 March."
The only cases I came to know
regarding LGBT survivors wereabout a transgender woman
described as a "cross-dressing
deviant fag at an evacuation
shelter" by a volunteer, andabout a trans-person4 having
refrained from using a shower at
an emergency shelter for
privacy reasons. These illustrate
how life as LGBT has beendifficult in northeast Japan
before, on and after the day ofthe disaster.
It is said that LGBT people
account for 4-10% of the
population in any community inany country. The level of LGBTvisibility depends on how
understanding and inclusive asociety is. Needless to say,LGBT people, including myself,
do live in smaller towns in
To h o k u . B u t s i n c e t h eestablishment of Iwate's
Rainbow Network about a week
after the disaster we have not
met any LGBT survivors who
spent time at an evacuation
shelter, lost their partners,
families or job because of thetsunami, or have no option but

SEPTEMBER 2012 VOLUME 69
to live in temporary housing till
today for losing a house. Thisshows the level ofunderstandingandinclusiveness of our community
in the northern part of Japan.
LGBT people in smaller towns
are more afraid of theconsequences of disclosing
their sexuality, such as possible
rejection by their family andfriends, losing a job and place
to live, and isolation andexclusion from community. A
lot of them have practically no
option but to hide an integral
part of who they are and whomthey love. That must be thereason why we have not met
LGBT survivors of the Great East
Japan Disaster.
Imagining LGBT Difficulties inthe Disaster
After 11 March 2011, fellow
LGBT activists from different
countries including those who
experienced disasters or worked
with LGBT communities after
the disasters in Haiti, Chile andBangladesh contacted me. In
Haiti, where the earthquake hit
in January 2010, an aid nongovernmental organization(NGO) faced difficulty inreaching out to LGBT survivors
because of prejudice and stigma
those people faced. It was moredifficult for male same-sex
couples to get relief supplies
because supplies were
distributed to children, theelderly and women first. In
Chile, where the earthquake hit
in February 2010, atransgendered woman was
kicked out of temporary
housing because of her gender
identity. In Bangladesh where
cyclones hit almost every year,
LGBT people have been seen as
a "shame on the family" and7

excluded from their family sothat other family members
could share more relief
supplies. These things could
happen in Japan as well if LGBT
people and issues became alittle more visible.
I discussed LGBT difficulties
with LGBT friends and tried toimagine them in disastersituations if LGBT visibility was
higher:(1) Denied access to medical
treatment
Disasters such as tsunamis
destroy hospitals andtransportation facilities.
Tr a n s g e n d e r p e o p l e o nhormone therapy or post-SRS(sex reassignment surgery)treatment or gay or bisexual
men with Human ImmunoDeficiency Virus/Acquired
I m m u n o - D e fi c i e n c y
Syndrome (HIV/AIDS) could
have their access to medicalt r e a t m e n t d e n i e d wh e n
hospitals are destroyed,
doctors are killed, medicine
is lost or transportation
facilities are demolished.
Some trans-people in Tohoku
go to clinics in towns otherthan their own because offear that their family
members, friends, colleagues
or neighbors might find out
about their gender identity.
Losing access to medical
treatment would certainly
lead to the deterioration of
the health of the survivors.
(2) Treated as "suspiciousp e r s o n s " a t e va c u a t i o nshelters
There are different genderspecific services and facilities
in our daily lives in Japansuch as washrooms, publicbaths, locker rooms andFOCUS ASIA!PACIFC"
women-only train cars in rush
hour. One is likely to be seen
as a "suspicious person" ordenied access to services or
facilities if one does not dress
or behave in a genderconforming way. One canimagine how trans-people
with a non-genderconforming look are treatedas "suspicious" or denied
access when they try to use
temporary washrooms or
public baths at evacuation
shelters. It is possible that
their sanitation turns poor inthese situations as they may
refrain from using thefacilities to avoid possible
unfair treatment andhumiliation. They could facediscrimination in accessing
specific relief supplies suchas underwear and sanitary
goods as well.
(3) Not informed of partner’s
death
In Japan, same-sex couples
do not have the right to marrywhile heterosexual couples
are legally recognized as
unmarried couples or in defacto marriages. In otherwords, same-sex partners aretotal strangers under Japanese
l a w. I n h e t e r o s e x u a lmarriages or de facto
marriages, people areinformed whenever theirspouses are killed bydisasters. On the other hand,same-sex partners are not
likely to be informed of theirpartner’s death unless theirfamily, friends, colleagues orneighbors knew of ther e l a t i o n s h i p a n d wo u l dkindly inform them of the sad
news. Like the gay friend ofmine mentioned above, there
are few same-sex couples
that have disclosed their

SEPTEMBER 2012 VOLUME 69
relationship to others outside
the LGBT community. Even if
their same-sex partners werein a critical condition, no one
would notify them and theywould not be able to seethem because they do nothave visitation rights at thehospital.
(4) Unable to live with asame-sex partner intemporary housing
People basically live in
temporary housing on ahousehold basis. But samesex partners have no legal
recognition as a "couple" or"family" and would not beallowed to live together in thesame temporary housing even
if they had been together fora few decades. Even outsideof a disaster situation, samesex couples do not usuallyqualify to live in public
housing because most of themunicipal governments that
decide who are eligible limit
contract candidates to"relatives" or "household" thatJapanese laws and regulations
define.
(5) Refraining from using
counseling service
In response to the mental
health needs of women indisasters, the Gender Equality
Bureau, under the Cabinet
Office, launched face-to-facecounseling and hotline
services for women survivors,in partnership with local
women's centers. But LGBT
people worry about thecounselors in these services.
Would they listen to LGBT
clients without judgment?
W o u l d t h e y b e L G B Tsensitive? They worry because
they often see LGBT people
and topics about them being

8

mocked in the media or in
every-day life. It is hard forthem to believe that
counseling or hotline services
could be LGBT-sensitive.
They tend not to access theservices even though theyneed them because theycannot trust them.
Beyond Invisibility"We've been receiving manycalls from women after thedisaster, but none of them werefrom lesbian, bisexual womenor trans-people. They must havecalled us, but they didn't tell us
so. I feel that LBT women areforced to stay quiet," - a feminist
friend of mine who has been
supporting women survivors
through the women's hotline
told me. After almost eighteenmonths since the once-in-amillennium disaster hit Japan,
the everyday lives of LGBT
people in smaller towns innortheastern Japan have notchanged much. As she
described, they still live ininvisibility, marginalization,
silent prejudice andstigmatization. The Tohoku
disaster revealed this reality.
Without sounding too
optimistic, more inclusive laws
and policies such as the Basic
Law for Reconstruction from theGreat East Japan Disaster,5 theBasic Plan for Disaster
Prevention,6 and the Proposal
for Reconstruction7 have comeout after the disaster, that LGBT
groups and allies can utilize fora more inclusive post-disastercommunity. The number is still
small, but more people in civilsociety organizations and policy
makers are keen to incorporate
LGBT voices, perspectives andissues in their policies andFOCUS ASIA!PACIFC"
activities. Now is high time forLGBT people to lobby thegovernment to raise awarenessabout them and related issues
and break their invisibility. Thatmay sound too simple andvague, but the LGBT difficulties
in disasters as experienced in
the Tohoku disaster are likely tobe repeated in other parts ofJapan and elsewhere outside thecountry in future disasters. We
learned that difficulties ineveryday life are enhanced indisaster situations. If thecommunity faced inequality ineveryday life, it would face
greater inequality during adisaster. If the community faced
invisibility in everyday life,
there would only be silencesurrounding them. We, or I at
least, do not want this to berepeated anywhere. Living ininvisibility, marginalization,
silent prejudice andstigmatization deprives LGBTsof their dignity.
Among the 20,000 lives lost on
11 March 2011 and some
343,000 survivors8 nationwide,
there must be LGBT people
whose voices were never heard.
In order to not waste their lives,
we must learn from LGBT
experiences in northeasternJapan and start working withdifferent possible allies for an
inclusive society, and prepare
for the next disaster we neverknow when and where will
happen.
Azusa Yamashita is Co-Directorof Gay Japan News, LGBT
online news source andadvocacy group and founder of
Iwate Rainbow Network, thefirst LGBT group in Iwate
Prefecture. She has beenworking for the Office for

SEPTEMBER 2012 VOLUME 69
G e n d e r E q u a l i t y, I w a t e
University as project researcher
since 2010 and serving for Rise
Together – National Women’s
Network for Great East Japan
Disaster.
For further information, pleasecontact Azusa Yamashita atazusa@gayjapannews.com.

Endnotes
1 5,869 people died while 2,847
are missing as of 29 August2012 according to the National
Po l i c e A g e n c y. S e e
www.npa.go.jp/.
2 On issues regarding genderequality during the disaster,
please visit http://
risetogetherjp.org/.
3 Transgender people who would
like their gender identity
indicated in the family registryh a v e t o m e e t s p e c i fi c
discriminatory conditions
under the law for people with
Gender Identity Disorder(GID). These conditions form
barriers that prevent people
from changing their
documented gender identity
and must be combated byproviding appropriate healthservices, access to informationand the guarantee of the rightto identity expression.
4 Transgender is an umbrellaterm for people whose gender
identity, expression or behavior
is different from that typicallyassociated with their assigned
sex at birth, including but notlimited to transsexuals,
travestis, transvestites,
transgenderists, cross-dressers,and gender non-conforming
people. Transgender people (ortrans-people) may beheterosexual, lesbian, gay orbisexual.
5 Refer to Article 2(2) of the
Basic Law for Reconstruction

9from Great East Japan Disaster(Law No. 76 of 24 June 2011.)
It says that “opinions of diverse
citizens including women,children, people withdisabilities and others must be
reflected” in the reconstructionwork.
6 Refer to Chapter 3, Part 1 of the
Basic Plan on Disaster
reduction.
It
says“Enhancement of women’s
participation in policy making
regarding disaster and actual
field of disaster reduction andest abl is hment of di sast er
reduction system with genderequality perspectives arenecessary in order to improvedisaster reduction skills in local
community by implementing
disaster reduction measureswith diverse perspectives ofpeople in local communities.”
7 The Reconstruction Design
Council in response to theGreat East Japan Earthquakes ay s “ ” I n a n a t t e m p t t oreconstruction, attention to
those who have difficulty tomake their voices heard mustbe paid in order to establish
inclusive society where nobody
is excluded” in its proposal“Hope in Misery.” (p. 34 of the
proposal by the Reconstruction
Design Council in response to
the Great East Japan
Earthquake on 25 June, 2011.
See www.cas.go.jp/jp/fukkou/
pdf/kousou12/teigen.pdf
8 According
totheReconstruction Agency as of 8
August 2012.

FOCUS ASIA!PACIFIC"SEPTEMBER 2012 VOLUME 69

Resolving the Muslim Rohingya Issue
HURIGHTS OSAKA

I

n June 2012, riots broke out in
Rakhine state in Burma/
Myanmar that led to the deathof fifty-seven Muslim Rohingyas
and thirty-one Rakhine
Buddhists, and the destructionof houses and places of worshipof both communities.1
Thousands of Muslim Rohingyas
fled their homes for fear of
being attacked by the Rakhine
Buddhists.
Th e r i o t s r e c e i v e d m u c hinternational attention as
Muslim communities in a
number of countries in Asia andinternational institutions raised
alarm at the possible worseningof the situation.2 Muslim
Indonesians and Malaysianscondemned the killing anddestruction that occurred but
also offered humanitarianassistance to the Muslim
Rohingyas.3 President Susilo
B a m b a n g Yu d h o y o n o o fIndonesia “appointed former
vice-president Jusuf Kalla as his
special envoy on the issue,[ w h i l e ] … M a l ay s i a h o s t e dinternational conferences and[would] do more in the future.”4
Th e B u r m e s e / M ya n m a r e s egovernment considers theMuslim Rohingyas as illegal
migrants from Bangladesh.
Buddhist Burmese marched on
the streets to show support to
the government, specificallyPresident Thein Sein, who called
the Muslim Rohingyas Muslim
Bengalis. President Thein Seinsuggested deporting them orholding them in camps.5

The international concern for
the welfare of the Muslim
Rohingyas led representatives ofinternational organizations andgovernments visiting the
Rakhine State: the Special
Advisor to the United Nations
Secretary-General (Mr. Vijay
Nambiar), the Special
Rapporteur on the situation ofhuman rights in Myanmar (Mr.
Thomas Ojea Quintana), theTurkish delegation headed by
the Minister of Foreign Affairs(Mr. Ahmet Davutoglu), thePresident of Indonesian Red
Cross (Mr. Jusuf Kalla), and theRepresentative and Assistant
Secretary-General of theOrganization for Islamic
Cooperation (OIC) (Mr. Atta Almanam Bakhit).6
The Secretary-General of theOIC, Mr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu,
was quoted as saying that7[T]he government in Yangon
refuses to recognize
Rohingyas, whom, it claims,
are not natives and classifies
them as illegal migrants,
although, the Rohingyas are
said to be Muslimd e s c e n d a n t s o f Pe r s i a n ,Turkish, Bengali, and Pathan
origin, who migrated to
Myanmar as early as theeighth century.

The government of Saudi Arabia
reportedly8 condemned the riots
as part of an "ethnic cleansing
campaign and brutal attacks
against Myanmar's Muslim
Rohingya citizens, as well as
violation of human rights by

10

forcing them to leave their
homeland…"
The OIC held an extra-ordinary
Executive Committee Meetingon 5 August 2012 on the
Rohingya issue, and highlighted
the “United Nations
Declaration” that the "Rohingya
are a linguistic, religious, ethnic
minority from western Burma".”9
It emphasized thatthe atrocities committed
against Rohingya minority in
Myanmar including killing,razing houses, forced
eviction, forced labor in harshconditions, summary
executions, rape, torture haveapproached the crime of
genocide and represent a
serious threat to international
peace and security andregional stability, as clearly
demonstrated by the recent
violence. It is a serious crime
against humanity, and ablatant breach of internationallaw, which needs to receive
proper reaction by theinternational community
through bringing Myanmar
authorities who areresponsible for these heinous
acts to justice.

The United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees(UNHCR) has long consideredt h e M u s l i m R o h i n g ya s a s“stateless people” in Burma/
Myanmar. Its statistics on thenumber of stateless persons in
the country as of 2012 reached
808,075,10 almost equal to theestimated total number ofMuslim Rohingyas.

FOCUS ASIA!PACIFIC"
Measures to Resolve the Issue
Th e B u r m e s e / M ya n m a r e s egovernment declared that it”took immediate actions withfull restraint to restore law andorder and stability in places
where riots broke out since thevery beginning of violence” andthe Office of the President
formed a 27-member"Investigation Commission" on
17 August 2012 to find out what
happened. The head of the
Rakhine Investigation
Commission, in a press
conference on 17 September
2012, “pledged [that] his teamwould find a solution to theconflict in Rakhine State that is
acceptable to the international
community.”11
A high-level OIC delegation
visited Burma/Myanmar on
5-15 September 2012 with themandate of making“preliminary observations as to
the root causes of the problem
and the effect of the violence
that took place in the RakhineState; to explore the conditionsand various aspects of aprospective visit by the OIC
Secretary-General; and to makethe necessary contacts
regarding the ways and means
for the OIC to carry out
humanitarian assistance andrelief operations in the RakhineState." The representatives of the
OIC and Burma/Myanmar's
Ministry of Borders Affairs also
signed a “Memorandum of
Cooperation (MoC) ... in aneffort to implement ahumanitarian program for the
benefit of all communities livingin the State of Rakhine.”12
Recognizing the Rohingyas asstateless persons, the UNHCR
has already adopted a plan tohelp “improve the status of the

SEPTEMBER 2012 VOLUME 69
Muslim residents of northern
Rakhine State (NRS).”It reports that in13
NRS, UNHCR assists some
800,000 Muslim residents
who do not have citizenship.
Members of this group werea l l ow e d t o vo t e i n t h eNovember 2010 elections,using temporary registration
cards issued for that purposeby the Government. Initial
discussions on replacing the
temporary documents withcards denoting full citizenshiptook place at different
administrative levels, but did
not yield any concrete results.
Indeed, there has been no
improvement in the legal
status or living conditions of
the Muslim residents of NRS.

In July 2012, the ASEAN
Secretary-General, Mr. Surin
Pitsuwan, said that he expected
President Sein to explain thegovernment plan in resolving
the issue during his visit to the
U.S. for the United Nations
General Assembly session inlate September 2012.14 During
a forum in New York on
September 27, 2012, when the
Rohingya question was raised,
President Thein Sein asked Lt.
General Thein Htay, of the
Ministry of Border Affairs to
respond to the question. 15
Minister Htay explained that the
problem is a communal
violence issue, twocommunities in conflict witheach other. He explained thatthe root causes were “mistrust
and misconduct” among thepeoples in the two
communities. He also explainedthat poverty - lack of
employment opportunities, poor
infrastructures – in RakhineState was also a cause of the
problem. He cited the need to11

develop human resources aswell as change the “constrictive
culture” of the people. He
mentioned that the government
was now providing relief andrehabilitation services andpromoting reconciliation andsocial harmony in the RakhineState.
Role of ASEAN
The Association of the Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN) is
expected to play a role inresolving the Muslim Rohingya
issue. Its ASEAN Charter
provides for the maintenanceand enhancement of peace andsecurity in the region, and theprotection of human rights andfundamental freedoms. TheA S E A N I n t e r g ove r n m e n t a lCommission on Human Rights(AICHR) has the purpose ofenhancing “regional
cooperation with a view tocomplementing national andinternational efforts on the
promotion and protection ofhuman rights” and upholding
international human rights
standards. Based on these
purposes, the AICHR can“consult, as may beappropriate, with othernational, regional andinternational institutions andentities concerned with thepromotion and protection ofhuman rights,” and “obtain
information from ASEAN
Member States on the
promotion and protection ofhuman rights.”
But will AICHR move to help
resolve the Muslim Rohingya
issue?
So far, it seems that AICHR has
not been heard on this issue. It
also seems that it neither has
been requested by the ASEANFOCUS ASIA!PACIFC"
secretariat to take action suchas gather information on theissue nor make an analysis of
the situation from a humanrights perspective.

SEPTEMBER 2012 VOLUME 69

2

Final Remarks
The Muslim Rohingya issue isan old problem that has eluded
resolution. It is tragic that riots
had to happen in order to bringthe Muslim Rohingya issue backinto international limelight.
The reactions of various nongovernmental organizations,
Asian governments as well asinter-governmentalorganizations to the riots(including the responses fromsections of the Burmese/
Myanmarese public) helped
stop the violence anddestruction, and bring order inthe Rakhine State.

3

4

5

Would the government finallyheed the plea for recognition of
the Muslim Rohingyas as
citizens of the country?
The Muslim Rohingya issue
constitutes one of the several
ethnicity-based problems thathave to be fully addressed tomake the current politicalchange in Burma/Myanmar agenuine step towards peace,justice and reconciliation in the
country.
Endnotes
1 Statement of the Ministry ofForeign Affairs, The Governmentof the Republic of the Union of
Myanmar, Nay Pyi Taw, 21
August 2012, President Office,Republic of the Union of
Myanmar, www.presidentoffice.gov.mm/en/issues/foreignpolicy/id-568 This statement isalso available at the website of
ASEAN, www.aseansec.org/

6

727088.php. Other reports statehigher number of casualties.
“Myanmar Stung by Global
Censure Over Unrest,” The
Jakarta Globe, 15 September
2012,
atwww.thejakartaglobe.com/
international/myanmar-stungby-global-censure-over-unrest/
544575.
“Asean NGOs want to aid
Rohingya,” New Straits Times, at
w w w. n s t . c o m . m y / n a t i o n /general/asean-ngos-want-to-aidrohingya-1.112823#ixzz27d22j
sgv.
Kavi Chongkittavorn, “Rohingya
Plight Further Divides Asean,”
The Jakarta Globe, 5 September
2012,
atwww.thejakartaglobe.com/
opinion/rohingya-plight-furtherdivides-asean/542446.
Sithu Lwin with AFP, “Mandalay
residents, monks protest
Rakhine violence, 10
S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 2 ,” Th e
M ya n m a r Ti m e s , a t
www.mmtimes.com/index.php/
national-news/mandalay-upperm ya n m a r / 1 4 0 0 - m a n d a l ay residents-monks-protestrakhine-violence.html. But
President Thein Sein had alsocommented that the “Rakhine
people are continuously
thinking to terrorise the Bengali
Muslims living across thecountry.” See “Monks kindlinghate: Myanmar President,” The
Hindu, 25 August 2012,www.thehindu.com/todayspaper/tp-international/monksk i n d l i n g - h a t e - m ya n m a rpresident/article3818944.ece.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs press
release (21-8-2012), President
Office, Republic of the Unionof Myanmar, www.presidentoffice.gov.mm/en/issues/foreignpolicy/id-568.
“OIC proposes probe into
Myanmar massacres ofRohingya Muslims,” 5 August
2012, www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/08/05/254663/oic-floatsprobe-into-myanmar-massacres/

12

8 Al Arabiya with Agencies,“Saudi Arabia accuses Myanmarof 'ethnic cleansing' ofMuslims,” Al Arabiya, 7 August2012,
http://
english.alarabiya.net/articles/
2012/08/07/230876.html.
9 Organisation of Islamic
Conference (OIC), Final
Communiqué of the Extraordinary, Executive Committee
Meeting held on 5 August 2012,
Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
Re: Rohingya Minority, available
at islamicforumeurope.com/
images_uploaded/2012/08/
img3452.pdf.
10 Statistical snapshot, 2012
UNHCR country operations
p r o fi l e – M y a n m a r ,w w w. u n h c r. o r g / p a g e s /49e4877d6.html.
11 Ei Ei Toe Lwin, “Rakhine
investigation team discusses first
visit,” 24 September 2012, The
M ya n m a r Ti m e s , a t
www.mmtimes.com/index.php/
national-news/1769-rakhineinvestigation-team-discussesfirst-visit.html.
12 “OIC Delegation Concludes its
Vi s i t o f O b s e r va t i o n i nMyanmar,” Organization ofIslamic Cooperation, 17
September
2012,w w w. n e w s x s . c o m / e n / g o /9390159/2394/
13 See 2012 UNHCR country
operations profile – Myanmar,w w w. u n h c r. o r g / p a g e s /49e4877d6.html.
14 Ismira Lutfia, “Myanmar Must
Explain Rohingya Ethnic
Violence: Asean,” The Jakarta
Globe, July 26, 2012, at
www.thejakartaglobe.com/
seasia/myanmar-must-explainrohingya-ethnic-violence-asean/
532716.
15 A s i a S o c i e t y, “ M y a n m a r
President Thein Sein: No
Reversal to Democratic
Transition” [Video], September
27, 2012, accessible at http://a s i a s o c i e t y. o r g / b l o g / a s i a /myanmar-president-thein-seinno-reversal-democratictransition-video.

FOCUS ASIA!PACIFIC"SEPTEMBER 2012 VOLUME 69

Northeast Asia Training Resource Material
for Human Rights Education
HURIGHTS OSAKA

I

n line with its subregional
approach to program
implementation, HURIGHTSOSAKA organized a meeting ofNortheast Asian educators in
March 2008 to identify thechallenges and opportunities insupport of human rights
education in the Northeast
Asian school systems. This wasfollowed by a 2009 research
project on these challenges andopportunities for human rights
education in Northeast Asian
school systems. A research
report was issued in 2010
entitled The State of Human
Rights Education in Northeast
Asian School Systems:
Obstacles, Challenges,
Opportunities.1 As a next step,
HURIGHTS OSAKA decided todevelop a human rights
education training resource
material based on Northeast
Asian experiences and incollaboration with Northeast
Asian educators. The material
should provide Northeast Asian
educators ideas and practicalmeasures that support thegrowth of human rights
education in the school systems
in the subregion.
Project Objectives
The development of a training
resource material for the
Northeast Asian subregion isdesigned to help in theinstitutionalization of humanrights education within theschool systems in the subregion.
As in the previous projects forSoutheast and South Asia,2 thetraining resource material mustbea) C o n t e x t u a l i z e d i n t h e
Northeast Asian subregion,b) Composed of some of thebest teaching and learningmaterials for human rights
education that are available
in Northeast Asia,c) Embodying the perspectives
and experiences of thehuman rights educators inthe subregion particularly
those that relate to thechallenges of teaching/learning human rights withint h e s ch o o l s y s t e m s i n
Northeast Asia,d) Promoting the international
human rights standards
through their concrete
application in the education
setting as content, teaching/learning processes, school
rules and regulations,teachers’ guiding principles,issues for parents-teachers
associations, and schoolcommunity relations,e) An appropriate material forteacher-training, and even as
teaching/learning material,
andf) S u p p o r t i n g n e t w o r k i n gamong Northeast Asian

13

educators through continued
exchange of information on
the development of humanrights education in the
different school systems.

The development of a resource
training material started with ameeting in September 2011 in
Osaka of educators from China,
Hong Kong, Japan, Korea,
Mongolia and Taiwan. The
September 2011 meeting led toan agreement to develop lessonplans based on existingmaterials in the subregion.
The contributors met for thesecond time on 1-2 September
2012 to review the lesson plans
they had sent previously and toagree on additional contents ofthe training resource material.
The invited contributors havevaried educational roles. They
consist of law professors whoteach human rights courses aswell as heads of human rights
centers, professors in educationd e p a r t m e n t / u n i v e r s i t y, aconsultant on human rights
education, two school teachers(primary and secondary levels),
and a head of a nongovernmental organization that
undertakes human rights
education.
Current status
The contributors3 agreed toadopt the HURIGHTS OSAKA
proposal on the contents of theFOCUS ASIA!PACIFC"SEPTEMBER 2012 VOLUME 69

training resource material. They
consist of the following:a. Human Rights: Concepts,
Mechanisms and Issues –this is a brief discussion on
the basic principles
underlying the international
human rights standards, listof basic rights, international/
regional/national humanrights mechanisms, nationallaws and policies on humanrights education, and issues
in Northeast Asia that relate
to human rights. This section
shows the legal support forhuman rights education at
the international andnational levels.
b. Northeast Asian School
Systems and Human Rights
Education – this is a basic
introduction of the school
systems in Northeast Asiaand the human rights
education initiatives thatexist.
c. Human Rights Education
Pe d a g o g y – t h i s i s a
discussion on thepedagogies being employedin the lesson plans in the
resource material. It
provides pedagogical
techniques for human rights
education, with a userfriendly description, and afocus on the positive aspectsof the pedagogies.
d. Schools and Human Rights
Education – this presents a
number of initiatives inschools that support humanrights/human rights
education. A good example
is the School Charter on
Human Rights that has been
adopted in a number ofschools in South Korea. If
available, Teachers’ Charteron Human Rights can be
included.
e. Civil Society Initiatives on
Human Rights Education –this highlights a number of
non-governmentalorganization programs that
support human rights/humanrights education such as theChild Assault Prevention(CAP) in Japan and Korea
and the "Erkhuulei" – Youthinitiative in Mongolia.
f. Local Government andHuman Rights Education –this discusses the role oflocal governments insupporting human rights/
human rights education andpresents several examples
such as the Kawasaki Child
Rights Ordinance (Kawasaki
city, Japan), Children’s Free
Talk (Tsurugashima city,
Japan), and the “Human
Rights Subway” in Gwangju
city, South Korea.
g. Teachers and Human Rights
Education – this highlights
the significant role of theteachers and theirorganization in providing

14

support to human rights
education in the schools y s t e m . Th e t e a c h e r s ’involvement in surveying thehuman rights awareness ofstudents, development ofteaching materials, and intraining teachers on humanrights will be included. One
example is the organizationof teachers on human rights
education based in Osaka,
Japan and named Furitsu
Jinken.
h. L o c a lCommunity
Participation – this presents
initiatives of the community
around the school that help
the schools in their humanrights education program.
i. Human Rights Curricular
Framework – this presents
the issues as well as thescope and sequence of thelesson plans covered by the
resource material.
j. Human Rights Lesson Plans– as the major content of theresource material, theselesson plans discuss anumber of issues
appropriate to each level of

FOCUS ASIA!PACIFIC"
school education – primary,lower secondary and upper
secondary.

The training resource material
will also have appendices that
include basic human rights
instruments (Universal
Declaration of Human Rights
and the Convention on the
Rights of the Child) andinformation on where to getreference materials in Northeast
Asia. Online teaching andlearning materials in Northeast
Asia will be included in the
appendices.
The publication is expected tocome out in print in March
2013, and its digital file will bemade available online throughthe website of HURIGHTSOSAKA and possibly of otherinstitutions.
For further information, pleasecontact HURIGHTS OSAKA.

Lost in Transition(Continued from page 5)

2 Based upon 2010 United Nations population data for the region, and an estimate that 0.3
percent region wide may fallwithin the definition for beingtransgender. See main body ofreport for more detail.
3 Trans* women here are birthassigned males identifying and/or presenting as female, or (inthose cultures in which it is accepted that there are more than
two genders) as members of another broadly feminized gender.
Trans* men are birth-assigned
females identifying and/or presenting as male or as anotherbroadly masculinized gender.

SEPTEMBER 2012 VOLUME 69
Endnote1 A v a i l a b l e i n p d f fi l e a t
www.hurights.or.jp/english/
publication.html.
2 The Southeast Asia project
resulted in the publication of
the Human Rights Lesson Plans
for Southeast Asian Schools in2003 and their versions in a
number of Southeast Asian
languages (Bahasa Indonesia,
Bahasa Melayu [courtesy of thenational human rights institution
i n M a l ay s i a , S U H A K A M ] ,Khmer, and Vietnamese). The
South Asia project resulted in
the publication of the South
Asian Teachers and Human
Rights Education - A Training
Resource Material in New Delhi
in 2009. The Southeast Asianpublications are all available in
pdf file at www.hurights.or.jp/
english/publication.html.
3 The contributors include thefollowing:a. China - Professor Bai Guimei,
Executive Director, ResearchCenter for Human Rights and4 Cisgender people identify andpresent in a way that is congruent with their birth-assigned sex.
Cis-male refers to birth-assigned
male who identifies and presents
as male.
5 Gonado-genital surgery is‘downstairs’ surgery. It can involve (in the case of a birthassigned male) removal of testicles and penis, and perhaps construction of a vagina, labia andclitoris. In the case of a birthassigned female it can involve
removal of the ovaries anduterus, and perhaps surgery tocreate a penis.
6 CBO as defined here includes
non-registered networks andgroups, as well as more formal
and/or funded organizations.
7 Trans* positive here refers topractice that affirms trans* peo-

15

Humanitarian Law, Peking
University and Professor Yang
Songcai, Executive Director,
G u a n g z h o u
University! Research Centerfor Human Rights;
b. Hong Kong - Mr. Law Yuk Kai- D i r e c t o r, H o n g Ko n g
Human Rights Monitor
c. Japan - Mr. Akio Hige, upper
secondary school teacher
d. Korea - Ms. Arah Goh,primary school teacher
e. Mongolia - Mr. Altangerel
Choijoo, Project Coordinator,
National Human Rights
Commission of Mongolia
f. Taiwan - Professor Mei Ying
Ta n g , Ta i p e i M u n i c i p a l
University of Education.

ple’s rights to their gender identities and expression, and support their ability to lead theirlives with respect, equality anddignity.

HURIGHTS OSAKA Calendar

DE
AU
OSAKA

ST
PO

BUR
E

HURIGHTS OSAKA is now preparing the second edition of the Directory of Asia-Pacific Human Rights
Centers. The first edition of the Directory was published in 2008. The second (2013) edition will
include many more human rights centers including those in countries that were not included in the firstedition.

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)
8F, Takasagodo Bldg., 1-7-7 Nishihonmachi, Nishi-ku, Osaka 550-0005 Japan
Phone: (816) 6543-7002! !
Fax: (816) 6543-7004
E-mail: webmail@hurights.or.jp Web site: http://www.hurights.or.jp

HURIGHTS OSAKA