How to move the Human Rights Study Group? - An outcome of a public forum on human rights held on the 10th March with a record attendance over 150 people was informally discussed over a private dinner on 24th April 2000.

Think Centre contact person, James Gomez personally invited by name those who responded to the meeting date of 26th April through the mail list to work out some ideas on what to do next. Among those who came for dinner were teachers, lawyers, students, an opposition politician, a civil servant and even an investment banker!

The meeting for the 26th was cancelled, as the announcement over the mail list would have required applying for a Public Entertainment's Licence for what was to be a closed door focused group discussion. In fact the Head Licencing Division, Mr Kor Chor Huat called Gomez personally to remind him that a licence was required for the said meeting under the Act. To avoid an incident, the meeting was cancelled.

This did not prevent about 18 people from sharing their own vision of human rights over a private dinner. The sharing showed that the human rights remained an abstract concept but nonetheless a powerful discourse for individual human dignity, especially in the wake of the Asian financial crisis in Southeast Asian countries. There was a consensus that socio-economic rights in Singapore have been well protected. However, all concurred, more must be done in the way of civil and political rights and to eradicate unwarranted fear. Ladies present also pointed to the need to expand discussion on women's issue.

There was a broad-based agreement that for Singapore its desirable first to embark on a human rights education programme. And such an education programme can stem from the provisions already provided for in the constitution. Lawyers present informed the group that there was a severe lack of awareness among the citizens about their individual rights as provided for within the constitution. This could be a starting point when discussing about human rights.

Some ideas of educating and informing the general public included engaging junior college/polytechnic/university students, organising forums cum workshops for human rights issues and securing support from other like-minded civil society groups and individuals. Sub-groups could be formed to facilitate a more detail approach to some issues. A small group of specialists and prominent members of society could also be approached to lend support to the project as advisors or patrons. The website was seen as a medium that could be better utilised to put up information about human rights. Among the several possible activities thrown up was an event to celebrate international Human Rights Day on the 10th December. A regional meeting to network with other groups working on the issue and to learn from their experiences was also deemed as being useful. Human Rights could also be fun, thus events and awareness campaigns in pubs, cafes and shopping malls could be another way to go. Collaborations with groups and individuals including businesses were possibilities that were raised.

All agreed that it is important to sustain and 'sell' the idea of human rights before actually drawing a framework for a local human rights commission. And for that to work the government at some point needs to be brought into the discussion. In the meantime it was felt that the group should first educate itself further on the relevant issues. In this regard, how the group should constitute itself also became a talking point. Ideas ranged from registering a separate society to broadening the corporate membership base of Think Centre.

Gomez, said that this would require the centre to register itself either as a society or to corporatise its operation as a company limited by guarantee with a board of directors and possibly even issue shares to raise capital. He said he has already picked up a set of forms from the Registrar of Societies and had an informal discussion with Executive officer Conceicao Jeanne Louise to clarify issues surrounding the setting up of a political think-tank. The lawyers present agreed to help Think Centre work out an approach to move the process forward through the parameters of the Singapore legal system.

Other issues that were discussed in line with registering a society to further the human rights discussions were the contradictions within the Public Entertainments Licence Act and the Societies Act. The question was why limitations were placed by the Societies Act on registered political discussion groups organisng public events when the licencing provision does not place such restrictions. These contradictions need to be urgently addressed in light of the government's Singapore 21 platform. The nature and the system of the proposed Speakers' Corner and how effective will it be for freedom of expression were also touched on. Think Centre's white paper on the Public Entertainments Licence Act will be circulated for comments. It was clear that Think Centre's initiative to move the human rights process forward would involve careful navigation through both the Societies Act and the Public Entertainments Licence Act.

By the time dessert was served all agreed for a working timetable till the end of the year to make human rights a core issue in Singapore. No one came up with empty rhetoric or silly sloganeering for human rights. In fact, the pragmatism for pursuing change and to occupy a permanent human rights space in Singapore's polity is a plus point for the growing number of Singaporeans who are willing to creatively deconstruct the old ways as they move into the 21st century. We have fed stomachs maybe it is time to feed our minds. All in all, the entire dinner was a good start for human rights.

In you are interested to join the Human Rights Study Group or help out in any way please get in touch with contact person James Gomez at james@thinkcentre.org or call 98513525.

	P21