ST Insight: 'Human rights' label often abused (July 4)

July 4, 2008
'Human rights' label often abused

Barely three months into his appointment as Attorney-General,
Professor Walter Woon is in the thick of public debate over human
rights and civil liberties. He spells out his thinking on these
ever-controversial issues
By Lydia Lim

NINE years in the diplomatic corps and two in the Legal Service have
done little to dilute the pungency of Professor Walter Woon's speech.

The former law academic-turned-Attorney-General still speaks his mind,
including on controversial topics at the heart of ongoing tussles
between law enforcers and activists from the ranks of civil society
and political opposition.

Last month, just seven weeks into his appointment as Attorney-General,
he sparked debate in the letters pages of The Straits Times and Today
newspapers with an off-the-cuff speech on human rights, delivered at
the launch of the Law Society's Public and International Law
Committee. He had warned against foreigners who are fanatical about
human rights and seek to impose their views on Singapore.

But some local civil society activists took umbrage as they thought
his use of the term 'fanatics' was aimed at them.

Prof Woon, 52, who lived in Europe from 1997 to 2006 while serving as
Singapore's Ambassador to Germany and Belgium, makes it clear his
issue is with foreigners who harbour the 'delusion that they define
human rights for the rest of humanity'.

That is why he welcomes efforts such as the Law Society's to encourage
Singaporeans to discuss where they believe the line between human
rights and obligations should be drawn.

'If we don't discuss ourselves where our society is going, then we
abdicate the debate to all these fellows and the types in Singapore
who follow that line,' he says.

One local development that disturbs him is how the term 'human rights'
is abused by many people with grievances against the Government.

'Often enough, if someone runs foul of the law, one of the things they
yell is, 'It's a breach of my human rights, you shouldn't arrest me
for doing this, you shouldn't charge me for doing this.' I get loads
of rubbish letters along those lines,' he says.

That has also been the claim of former Singapore lawyer Gopalan Nair,
who faces charges for insulting two judges.

One charge involves a blog posting in which he accused Justice Belinda
Ang of having 'prostituted herself'.

Prof Woon makes it clear such language goes beyond the pale.

He challenges those who dispute the need for any limits on an
individual's freedom of speech to engage in an experiment.

'Go and tell your friends and family exactly what you think of them
and criticise their faults and when they object, say 'No, it's my right.'

'Do it for six months. If you're not divorced by then, I'd like to
know,' he says.

In his view, those who claim to fight for greater political and civil
liberties by deliberately breaking the law are doing others who want
more elbow room a disservice.

People who want to push for change need to learn 'how to work the
system', and accept that others will have different views.

'I have been overruled on many things and I've been criticised on many
things. Sometimes it takes a while before others will accept what you
say.'

I won't stand idly by while people insult our judges

# There seems to be a lack of clarity on where Singapore officialdom
stands on human rights. What is your view?

There's a general impression that Singapore officialdom is against
human rights, but that's not the impression I get. Most of our senior
officials and ministers have been educated abroad and I don't think
there's a single one who says human rights are not for us.

But when it comes to implementation, there will be arguments about
where the lines are to be drawn. And when there are new so-called
rights, then there has to be debate - is it really a right?

For example, take 377A (the Penal Code section dealing with acts of
gross indecency between males). I express no view on either side.

As far as I'm concerned, it's still against the law and we still
prosecute if there's a need.

The Prime Minister said that, if it's consensual between two adults,
we're not going to go after them if nobody complains.

But if you look at the debates on the issue, they're often phrased in
terms of: 'You're breaching my human rights by not letting me get
married.' Now, I think that's a very controversial statement.

This is something new for all our societies. Just because some Western
societies have accepted it, doesn't make it a human right.

You take the argument about the death penalty. It's phrased entirely
in human rights terms in the West. But you have to remember that in
1947, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated,
the West had just held the Nuremburg war crimes trials, the Tokyo war
crimes trials and the war crimes trials in Singapore. The war
criminals were hanged.

There was no question at that time that the death penalty was not
against human rights.

# What about established rights such as freedom of expression?

You have a right to freedom of expression. It's in the Constitution.

But can we also accept that freedom of expression doesn't mean
unlimited freedom? There has to be a line drawn somewhere. I think
most civilised societies accept that.

In many European countries, you cannot question the Holocaust. And any
suggestion of anti-Semitism is immediately whacked, even with jail
sentences.

But you can use extremely vulgar terms to describe Muslims, which is
what Theo van Gogh, a Dutch film-maker, did. That, apparently, was
freedom of expression. You can insult the Prophet Muhammad. That's
freedom of expression.

Now, they may accept that within their society. Can we? Should we?
That's the question.

Many of these fanatics think: 'We've decided that this is human
rights, therefore when Singapore does something, we're entitled to
criticise them.'

I say rubbish. You want to do it in your society, do it in your
society. Don't come and tell us you draw the line for the rest of the
world.

On freedom of expression and freedom of religion, we've got to be
clear ourselves where we want the line to be.

Do we want to allow people like Theo van Gogh to insult Muslims? Theo
van Gogh paid with his life. He was assassinated by a Muslim fanatic
who basically said: 'I refuse to accept Dutch law, I'm seceding from
Dutch society, and if you let me out, I'll do it again.'

This is what happens when you don't draw the line properly. You
encourage fanaticism on the other side.

# Are there similar issues in Singapore?

You can take, for example, contempt of court. The court has to decide
when your right to freedom of expression clashes with somebody else's
right to reputation, which is a very long-established right in all
Common Law jurisdictions.

In the court system, there's always one disappointed party. Are you
going to allow the disappointed party to go round criticising and
undermining the courts?

I didn't become Attorney-General to stand idly by while people
undermine the courts and insult the judges.

Now, you have people like Gopalan Nair, for example. He says the judge
has prostituted herself. He says: 'I'm here, what do you propose to do
about it?'

We charged him. He will stand trial. He is claiming his human rights
have been breached. Reporters without Frontiers claims his human
rights have been breached. Did they even check the facts? I doubt it.
They're talking about rights without talking about responsibilities.

But some Singaporeans wonder why the Government has to come down so
hard on people who, to them, are just mouthing off.

If you don't take action, over time people lose respect for institutions.

I've been going back to the United Kingdom for nearly 30 years on and
off, and I think the standard of civility has dropped. There's no more
respect for authority, for teachers, for judges, for priests, for parents.

If you don't draw the line and say, 'This is unacceptable' then, over
time, you lose respect and you cannot get it back.

The courts are in a very unfortunate position because when somebody is
disrespectful to a judge, the judge must impose a sanction and then
people say: 'That's not fair, he can't, he shouldn't.'

But a parent does it all the time. Teachers, too, should do it. They
used to do it.

The judge does it when it's done in the face of the court. When it's
not done in the face of the court, when somebody insults the judge by
saying she's prostituted herself, for example, then the
Attorney-General has to take some action because the
Attorney-General's Chambers is the protector of the public interest here.

And when the fellow says, 'I'm posting this, I'm here in Singapore,
what are you going to do about it?', it's a direct challenge to the
authorities. If you don't take action, after a while, every time
somebody loses a case, he's going to call the judge names, he's going
to call into question the integrity of the court system.

That is the danger we face, which is why we must draw the line and
draw it firmly.

It's a different thing to criticise a judgment, which as an academic
I've done. Law students and lawyers do it too, but we don't do it in
that way. There's a certain respect due to the office.

# Some opposition politicians advocate civil disobedience because they
believe they have a right to break laws which are unjust. Your response?

If you break the law, I must react. I can't say you break the law, I
avert my eyes. That you disagree with the Government doesn't give you
licence to break the law.

Otherwise, everybody will say: 'I disagree with this, I'm going to
break the law.' Then we're going to have real trouble.

They say they have no alternative because they cannot change the laws
through legal means. Your view?

I have my own views on that as a citizen but I won't comment on that
because it's political and I take no sides.

All I can say is that has not been my own experience. You can get
policies changed, you can get mindsets changed, you just have to be
more subtle than that.

It's one thing to say, 'I do not think this policy is just. It affects
the poor too much and it's unfair', and another to say the officials
or the politicians are corrupt and clinging on to power and we must
get rid of them so we can help the poor.

There's a world of difference between the two. I have not found
officials in Singapore to be closed-minded. The higher you go, the
less closed-minded they are.

But they are also very concerned about how far we can go without
unravelling the whole fabric.

When you look at other countries, the ones who talk loudest about
rights very often have very dysfunctional societies when you live in
them. So the rhetoric doesn't match the reality on the ground.

When we're talking about where lines are to be drawn and whether we
can move them, we do need a dialogue.

# What is the difference between breaking the law through acts of
civil disobedience and people who do things that are against laws such
as 377A, but are not going to be prosecuted?

People break the law all the time. Take jaywalking. I've seen people
who do it right in front of the old Supreme Court. If we spend our
time prosecuting such cases, we will do nothing but that. So there is
always a public-interest element when we decide whether or not to
prosecute.

In the case of 377A, for example, we are prosecuting some cases, such
as where you have older men preying on young, underage boys.

If it's two consenting adults, technically it's an offence but, if
nobody complains, the police aren't going to beat the bushes in the
parks to spy on you. If somebody does complain, then the question is:
Do we want to prosecute or do we just warn? Very often, we warn rather
than prosecute.

In cases where there are arguments between neighbours, sometimes it is
sufficient to say, 'Don't do that again. We'll let you off this time,
but don't ever do that again,' because each time we prosecute, it
takes resources. We do not want to prosecute in all cases, we only
prosecute in clear cases.

# What would you say to people who say: 'Walter Woon used to be
liberal and far more critical of the Government and now he's gone over
to the dark side and become a hardliner'?

Ah, these are the people who never read my speeches, obviously. It's
the same reaction I got to the speech I gave at the Law Society. They
didn't read the speech; they just lay on their own prejudice.

I've never agreed with everything the Government has said and I've
never felt any pressure from above not to say so.

When I've said something, I've taken the consequences. I've been
criticised by every member of the Cabinet from Minister Mentor
downwards. Some people seem to think I should be free to say anything
I want and nobody should criticise me in turn.

It doesn't work that way.

I haven't changed my views, but now I'm in this position - as
ambassador first, and now Attorney-General - my freedom of speech has
been reduced because I can no longer say things I would like to
without people misconstruing.

As far as law and order is concerned, my views haven't changed. I've
always been a law-and-order person. I was head prefect in my primary
school, and a prefect in Raffles Institution, yet people seem to think
that, for some reason, I'm not in favour of law and order.

lydia@sph.com.sg

LOSING RESPECT

'There's no more respect for authority, for teachers, for judges, for
priests, for parents. If you don't draw the line and say, 'This is
unacceptable' then, over time, you lose respect and you cannot get it
back.'

ATTORNEY-GENERAL WALTER WOON, on why he will not stand for insulting
attacks on judges and will take action, as in the case of US lawyer
Gopalan Nair

ST Forum: Rights debate: Whose interest is right? (June 25)

Rights debate: Whose interest is right?
I FEEL unnerved after reading Ms Ng Eew Hwong's views last Saturday in
her letter, 'Rights Debate: Question is 'what are good values'?". She
seems to echo only cliches and official comments in her letter.

If she wishes to ask 'what are good values', I would ask what are
'public interests' or, for that matter, what is the 'public' in the
first place? As I understand it, the 'special consideration' claimed
by Ms Ng is nothing more than a financial incentive, a carrot to
entice people to start families. The policy purpose is to increase the
national birthrate, not to provide for a family's needs. The latter is
meant to be achieved by the Baby Bonus policy. I am not being
insensitive; just realistic.

Ms Ng's belief that homosexuality will be mainstreamed is indicative
of homophobia. While I personally am not so inclined towards the LGBT
(lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered) 'cause', nonetheless I
believe that banning too many shows on homosexuality would lead to the
prohibition of essential educational material. At the same time, just
because 'many may find it undesirable' like Ms Ng doesn't mean that
they are necessarily right. Only the future will lead us to a
definitive conclusion on whether they are harmful or not.

At any rate, Ms Ng did not qualify specifically why she finds the
Government's statement encouraging. If she is offering blind faith to
the Government, then her level of intellectual maturity is not
particularly encouraging. If the vague nationalism in the comment
appeals to her, then she should reconsider why she thinks we are
superior to the West?

What is 'public morality' anyway? Is it moral standards of the public,
including the 'vocal people' Ms Ng dislikes, or the moral standard of
some senior members of society, who wish to force it on everyone else?

Lastly, I would comment that Ms Ng and other like-minded people should
consider whether their version of the 'common good' is applicable in
today's society where extremely diverse personalities and lifestyles
exist.

Not every agenda deserves special treatment, but to merely dismiss any
agenda as false and their proposers as 'some (vocal) people" is
tantamount to adopting a supremacist attitude and a closed mindset.

For at the end of the day, values are merely interests that a minority
projects onto the majority or vice versa. The real question is: Whose
interest carries the largest element of truth?

Clement Wee

ST Forum: Rights debate: Question is ‘What are good values?’ (June 21)

I struggle to understand Dr Wong Jock Onn’s views in his Wednesday letter, ‘S’poreans guilty too, not just rights activists’.

He suggested that Attorney-General Walter Woon had wrongly criticised Western human-rights activists for believing ‘they and their values represent the apex of human moral development’. He cites three examples to illustrate Singapore’s own impositions on ‘Singaporeans who do not hold the same view’.

First, Dr Wong took issue with the Housing and Development Board for offering ‘hefty’ subsidies and new flats only to family units and not to singles. As a single person, I appreciate that public resources are scarce. The Government must prioritise the public’s interests.

Families as the backbone of society deserve special consideration. Singles generally do not have the same responsibilities such as raising children although there are exceptions where they are the sole provider for their parents. In such cases, they may seek assistance from the Government or charitable organisations. Singles 35 and above are given some HDB entitlements.

Second, Dr Wong objected to the Media Development Authority’s (MDA) ban on programmes with homosexual themes. Does he wish to see homosexuality mainstreamed? Many will find this undesirable.

While Singapore accommodates homosexuals, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said the Government will ‘not allow or encourage activists to champion gay rights as they do in the West’. This is encouraging.

Additionally, MDA adopts a calibrated approach; while banning programmes which celebrate homosexual themes like same-sex marriage, it allows programmes on free-to-air channels featuring famous lesbian hosts.

MDA is responsible for protecting social interests like public morality and the interests of the young. Adults who want exposure to homosexual values have Internet access.

Third, Dr Wong states that ‘men get better treatment than women’ because of influential Confucianist ideas that men are more ’superior’ than women. He glosses over policies that treat both sexes equally.

Women should receive equal pay for equal work and equal voting rights, but there are justified instances of differential treatment. For example, NSmen receive pay differentiation and tax relief in recognition of their sacrifices.

Laws embody social values which serve the common good, not merely the preferences of some vocal individuals who consider certain policies oppressive or unjust as violating interests which they like to (falsely) call ‘rights’.

Disagreements exist in all mature democracies. Not every agenda deserves special legal treatment. Good governments must balance interests and make wise decisions. The real question is: What should our society recognise as good values, deserving legal protection?

Let’s be specific.

Ng Eew Hwong (Ms)

ST Forum: To say homosexuality is immoral is a cultural view (June 18)

S’poreans guilty too, not just rights activists

I read Lydia Lim’s article ‘Let’s not turn human rights into a battle ground’ on Saturday in which she reminded us what the Attorney-General, Professor Walter Woon, said rather critically: ‘These are people who evidently believe that they and their values represent the apex of human moral development.’

I find the statement rather ironic because it seems to me that there are among us enough Singaporeans who also believe that their values represent the apex of human moral development.

One blatant example is the declaration of the family as the smallest unit of society. It is a matter of cultural view but this value seems to be treated like a truism in Singapore with its manifestations imposed upon Singaporeans who do not hold the same view. One consequence is that only family units, and not singles, are entitled to hefty government subsidies and brand-new HDB flats.

Another example is the view that homosexuality is immoral and somehow wrong. Again, this is a cultural view but its manifestations suggest that it is treated like a hard fact. Programmes on homosexual relations and lifestyles are banned from TV channels, with violators slapped with hefty fines, disregarding the sentiments of gay and gay-friendly people.

A third example is the view that a man is somehow more ’superior’ (for want of a better word) than a woman. This is a view strongly associated with Confucianism. As a result, in some public sectors, when it comes to benefits, it seems to me that men get better treatment than women.

When it comes to believing that one’s cultural values represent the ‘apex of human moral development’, my examples suggest that Singapore is not exactly innocent.

Therefore, I wonder why Prof Woon sees this flaw only in Western human-rights activists but not among his fellow Singaporeans.

Dr Wong Jock Onn

ST Forum: Vital to distinguish between rights and claims (June 12)

June 12, 2008
Vital to distinguish between rights and claims
I REFER to Mrs Constance Singam's letter, 'Human-rights fanatics is
what S'pore needs' (June 6).

There is a need to distinguish between a human right and a claim by
vested political groups.

For instance, is the right of adoption a human right?

In some countries, vested parties push for rights of adoption,
including assisted reproduction for same-sex couples. This is
campaigned under the banner of human rights.

Homosexual activists, keen for the decriminalisation of homosexuality,
use the human rights banner to push for their cause.

However, when this is achieved, homosexual activists use the same
argument to push for other 'equal rights'.

In some countries, it is compulsory to teach that homosexuality is a
norm in public schools, recognise same-sex couples as 'married' and
for orphanages to allow adoption by same-sex couples.

The promotion of the homosexual lifestyle is funded by tax payers'
money under the 'equal rights' argument.

Opponents like orphanages which are against adoption by same-sex
couples, for instance, are subject to legal action or even forced to
close down.

The Singapore majority have demonstrated their preference for family
values as a basic fabric of society.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) also states that the
family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is
entitled to protection by the State.

It is prudent of Attorney-General Walter Woon to highlight the danger
of human rights being abused by a fanatic group, against the will of
the Singapore society and the founders of the UDHR.

Chua Chor Ping (Ms)

ST: A-G cautions against human rights becoming a 'religion' with fanatics (May 31)

May 31, 2008
A-G cautions against human rights becoming a 'religion' with fanatics
By Chong Chee Kin
AMID a new push by the legal community to raise awareness about human
rights, Singapore's Attorney-General has warned against 'fanatics' who
seize on the cause to further their own political agendas.

Human rights has become a 'religion' that breeds devotees who border
on the fanatic, Professor Walter Woon said on Thursday.

It would be 'hypocrisy' for such people to decide what is acceptable
for the rest of society, he said.

Prof Woon made the comments to over 100 lawyers and embassy officials
at a Law Society gathering on Thursday. The event marked the launch of
the professional body's Public and International Law Committee headed
by Dr Thio Su Mien, founding partner of TSMP Law Corporation. The
committee is designed to raise awareness about topics like public law,
a field that deals with human rights and constitutional issues.

'We have to be careful when we are talking about public law and not to
confuse it with politics,' said Prof Woon.

He also warned against a no-holds-barred society. In some places, he
said, religions were targets for insults and advocates for same-sex
marriage were allowed to frame their cause under the banner of human
rights.

'But is this what we want?... Is this a question of human rights?' he
asked.

He and Professor Thio Li-ann of the National University of Singapore
were speakers at the launch of the Law Society committee on Thursday.

Prof Thio said foreigners have criticised Singapore's civil rights
record, including the state of freedom of expression.

But such rights must be balanced against a responsibility towards the
public at large, she said, citing the example of a racist blogger who
was jailed in 2005 on fears his rants could split society.

Human rights issues are wider than just a right to the freedom of
expression, Prof Thio said. They also include things like the right to
work and the right to clean water.

'(In Singapore) the idea is that economics must come first. No point
having free speech if your rice bowl is empty. But I disagree, because
if my rice bowl is empty, I would like to say that I am hungry,' she said.

The president of the Law Society, Senior Counsel Michael Hwang, said
lawyers have to be 'alive' to the legal avenues they can use to
challenge decisions by the authorities.

Despite the fact that it's one of the first courses lawyers take, the
practice of public law has slipped, said Mr Hwang.

He blamed public ignorance and the reluctance of clients to challenge
authorities like statutory boards, Government agencies and tribunals.

Lawyer Raymond Chan, the former president of the Singapore Institute
of Arbitrators, agreed, adding that Singapore's public law is not as
developed as other legal sectors, like criminal law.

In the latest issue of the Law Gazette, the society's official
magazine, Mr Hwang said there were several areas where citizens could
question decisions made by authorities. The list includes rulings from
licensing centres and statutory boards.

'In an age where commercial activities are increasingly becoming
regulated by statutory authorities, it is important for lawyers to be
able to advise whether (they) are exercising the regulatory powers
(properly),' he said.

Today: Keep our doors open to ideas (June 6)

Keep our door open to ideas

Dismissal of sincere views not helpful to engagement between a govt
and citizens

Friday • June 6, 2008

Letter from Siew Kum Hong

Member, Pro-Tem Committee

Maruah Singapore

I REFER to the report, "Politics, law and human rights `fanatics': AG
Walter Woon" (May 30).

The Attorney-General, Professor Walter Woon, reportedly said that
human rights has become a "religion among some people" for whom "it's
all hypocrisy and fanaticism", that we should not confuse public
law with politics, and that some people assume that their definition of
human rights is the decision of the rest of humanity.

As a group that seeks to work on issues related to the establishment
of the Association of South-east Nations (Asean) human rights body
from a Singapore perspective, Maruah finds the AG's reported
statements regrettable. Such a dismissal of sincerely-held views, even
those expressed immoderately, is not helpful to engagement between a
government and its citizens.

History tells us that ardent campaigners who were highly controversial
in their day must be thanked for much of today's social progress.

While controversial causes are not necessarily right, our progress as
a society depends on us keeping the door open to ideas, and not
peremptorily dismissing ideas and their proponents with pejorative
language.

Maruah also believes that no single group of persons — including
officials — has the right to conclusively define human rights for the
rest of society.

The definition of human rights evolves as society changes. This
evolution is stunted if dissentients are cast as troublemakers
pursuing their own causes under the guise of human rights.

Rather than criticising dissentients, we should see them as making a
positive contribution to our understanding and conceptualisation of
what human rights means to Singaporeans.

Finally, it is not helpful to view public law in complete isolation
from politics.

After all, politics must be conducted within the framework of the law,
and political decisions must be lawful.

Similarly, the law does not exist in a vacuum divorced from the
politics of the day.

Reuters: Singapore attorney warns of rights "fanatics": paper (May 30)

Singapore attorney warns of rights "fanatics": paper
Fri May 30, 2008 10:23pm EDT

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore's attorney general warned that the concept of human rights must not be allowed to become a religion for fanatics to achieve political goals such as gay marriage, the Straits Times reported on Saturday.

The newspaper quoted Attorney-General Walter Woon as saying that it would be "hypocrisy" for such activists to decide what is acceptable for the rest of society.

"There is a misconception that Singapore officialdom is against human rights," the pro-government daily quoted Woon as saying at a Singapore Law Society event.

"What we are against is the assumption of some people that when they decide what are human rights, it is a decision for the rest of humanity,"

Last year the Singapore government decided to uphold a law that bans sex between men, saying the idea of advocating a homosexual lifestyle was unacceptable to large parts of its conservative society. In spite of the ban Singapore has a thriving gay scene.

Singapore's constitution guarantees free speech, but speaking in public requires a police permit as do public gatherings of more than four people -- a practice that has been criticized by human right groups.

The small but rich Southeast Asian island has been run by the same party since independence in 1965 and political opposition parties play no big role in public life with 82 out of 84 parliamentary seats held by the ruling People's Action Party.

(Reporting by Jan Dahinten; Editing by David Fox)

Forum to educate the public on the ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, Establishment of Singapore Working Committee

The ASEAN Summit that will be held in mid-November will see the signing of the ASEAN Charter in Singapore.

During the 40th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Manila last 30-31 July 2007, the ASEAN Foreign Ministers agreed to include a provision in the ASEAN Charter that mandates the creation of a human rights body.

As such, an ASEAN Human Rights Working Group (AHRWG) was established whose goal is to push for an intergovernmental human rights commission for ASEAN. At the moment, countries that have national Working groups and are part of the (AHRWG) are Cambodia, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand.

Human rights advocates in Singapore are looking to establish a national working group. As such a forum will be held to discuss the process towards the formation of such a group here.

The forum will look to educating the public on the ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism and also the establishment of a Singapore Working Committee. Public consultation, input and participation are important if the group hopes to represent views of civil societies, NGOs, interest groups and human rights bodies.

Date: 23 September 2007, Sunday
Time: 2.00 pm
Venue: Allson Hotel, Victoria Room, Level 2

Speakers:
M Ravi, human rights lawyer
Jolovan Wham, social worker
Alex Au, gay rights activist
Isrizal, arts community representative
Chee Soon Juan, politician & political activist

Admission: Free and open to the public

Society and Sexual Diversity: Human Rights, International Law, Western Patterns, Asian Developments

The talk to be held at ISEAS was cancelled.

Topic: Society and Sexual Diversity: Human Rights, International Law, Western Patterns, Asian Developments
Speaker : Professor Douglas Sanders, Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Law
University of British Columbia, Canada

Date: Wednesday, 8 August 2007
Time: 10.30 am – 12.00 noon
Venue: ISEAS Seminar Room II
Admission: Free

Those interested in attending are requested to register with Mrs Betty Kwan of ISEAS at 6870-2472 or to
email her at betty@iseas.edu.sg>.

Southern Cross University: Homosexual rights book earns national prize

Southern Cross University senior lecturer and Director of the Centre for Law, Politics and Culture Dr Baden Offord has been awarded the annual George Duncan Memorial Award for his book Homosexual Rights as Human Rights.

The book (published in 2003), on homosexual rights as human rights in Indonesia, Singapore and Australia, was described as "groundbreaking" and "an important contribution to the struggle for equal rights worldwide" by the George Duncan Memorial committee.

The national George Duncan Memorial Award commemorates the murder, with no subsequent conviction for the crime, of law lecturer Dr George Duncan near the University of Adelaide in 1972. South Australia later became the first state to decriminalise homosexual acts in 1975.

Dr Offord said receiving the award was an honour. He said he was 14 when Dr Duncan was murdered and remembered the news at that time. " Australia has come some was way in the past 30 years, but it would be incorrect to think that enough has been accomplished to end overt and covert discrimination in our society and families," he said.

" Sexuality, that dimension of being human which makes us most vulnerable, is still caught up in social and cultural apartheids."
In the foreword to Homosexual Rights as Human Rights, the Hon. Justice Michael Kirby compared the work to the pioneering studies of Alfred Kinsey and said Dr Offord pushed the boundaries of understanding, knowledge and acceptance.

The award, in its second year, is presented for an outstanding piece of work contributing to legal reform and the betterment of the Australian lesbian, gay, queer, bisexual, transgender or intersex community.