What Is CEDAW

Wee Kim Wee Centre Lunchtime Talk series

1 – 2 p.m., 17 Oct 2007

Wee Kim Wee Centre, Singapore Management University

What is CEDAW?: Demystifying the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination against Women

Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished members of the audience,

Thank you for being here with me today. I would like to begin with a question: “What is CEDAW?” I am not surprised if not too many of you know or have heard about it, despite that fact that Singapore became party to CEDAW in October 1995. CEDAW is an abbreviation for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and with 185 signatories, it is the second-most ratified United Nations treaty after the Convention on the Rights of Children, or the CRC.[1]

Why CEDAW?

One might ask: “Why CEDAW?” Predecessors to CEDAW safeguarded women’s political rights and the rights of married women – two areas where women were thought to be most vulnerable. Women’s rights in general were felt to be adequately protected by the International Bill of Human Rights, which comprises the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols.[2]

However, while these treaties exhorted the equal rights of men and women, they failed to take into account the discrimination that women regularly face throughout the world across a myriad areas, whether it be work, access to health services or legal rights. What was needed was a comprehensive, wide-ranging treaty which was aware of the pressures tradition, prejudice and custom placed upon women.

The final draft of CEDAW was ready in 1979, and was signed by 64 states and ratified by two in 1980 before it came into effect in 1981.[3] Its articles cover women’s economic, political and social rights, and also delve into more focused areas such as education, health, recreation, access to land, citizenship rights and rights of married women.

The CEDAW process and its Optional Protocol

Once a state has ratified CEDAW, it is obligated to submit a report to the CEDAW Committee every four years. The Committee, which is composed of 23 elected international experts, convenes three times a year to question states on the gaps in their implementation of the Convention. At the end of each session, concluding comments are issued to state parties, who are urged to take heed of and carry out the recommendations within. The Committee has always been meeting at the United Nations headquarters in New York, but from next year onwards it will be moving to Geneva.

The Optional Protocol to CEDAW is another powerful instrument which individuals or groups can use, and has to be ratified separately from CEDAW, therefore not all states which are party to CEDAW are necessarily party to the Convention. It offers an opportunity for those who have exhausted all domestic remedies to bring their cases to the CEDAW Committee, which will decide on the admissibility of cases and arbitrate over them should they be so eligible.

Individual complaints: A.T. vs. Hungary and A.S. vs. Hungary

Two cases dealt with by the Optional Protocol Working Group, namely A.T. vs. Hungary and A.S. vs. Hungary, highlighted acutely the issues of domestic violence and forced sterilization. The individuals in both cases were unable to seek suitable redress within their domestic legal system, and successfully brought their cases before the CEDAW Committee. Optional Protocol cases can be delicate to deal with as one has to balance the many interests which are at stake, including those of the complainant, the state party, its diplomats and NGOs. However, it is always heartening when the cases come to a close after much lengthy deliberation, and a just conclusion is reached. Singapore has not ratified the Optional Protocol yet, but I hope that in time to come, we will be able to see Singapore on the list of states party to the Optional Protocol.

Inquiries: Ciudad Juárez

The Ciudad Juárez inquiry is another cogent example of the Optional Protocol at work. Apart from the complaints above, which are formally known as ‘communications’, the Optional Protocol also allows the Committee to make an inquiry into cases of abuse. In this instance, the abduction, rape and murder of young women in Ciudad Juárez, a city in Mexico which is located near the US border, was brought to the attention of the Committee by two NGOs, Equality Now and Casa Amiga, which informed the Committee that the rights of women protected by CEDAW were being violated.

The CEDAW Committee first communicated with the Mexican government regarding the information from the NGOs, after which the government extended an invitation to the Committee to investigate the problem in Ciudad Juárez. Two committee members – Maria Yolanda Ferrer Gómez of Cuba and Maria Regina Tavares da Silva of Portugal – travelled to Mexico to gain a first-hand view of the situation. The issues were numerous: the staggering poverty in the region, which is densely populated by maquiladoras [factories producing export goods, which frequently have high levels of foreign investment in them. Many workers in such factories are women], the climate of impunity which prevailed, and the inefficiencies of the justice system being among them. At the end of their visit, the two experts reported on their findings to the Committee, who then drew up a list of recommendations to the Mexican government. These recommendations urged the Mexican government to make a concerted effort to prosecute perpetrators fully, educate the population at large on the rights of women in the area and to protect these rights, and also to improve support services for families of victims. The government took heed of the recommendations, and responded to the Committee accordingly to update it on the actions the government was taking to safeguard the rights of women in Ciudad Juárez.

This case is exemplary in that it is an illustration of how the Committee, NGOs and governments can work in tandem to confront complex issues, and also shows how essential political will is in protecting women’s rights.

I have been a member of the Committee since January 2005, and from then until the last session I attended in July and August this year, 85 states parties have come before the Committee. For me, it has been an enlightening and sobering experience – on the one hand, I have had the privilege to meet with governments and activists from all over the world, and to be privy to the development of women’s rights across an incredibly diverse range of cultures and societies. On the other hand, I also note that women, no matter where they are, are often plagued with the same problems and issues, which only differ in terms of scale.

The CEDAW effect

However, one thing has become very clear to me during my term as a CEDAW Committee member – CEDAW does have an impact in states which are party to the treaty. While some might criticize the Convention for being too general in its language, which, for better or worse, is a necessity as it is intended to be applicable to any and every state, its effect is undeniable.

For states which are already mindful of women’s rights and are relatively advanced in terms of legislation which protects the rights of women, such as Scandinavian states, CEDAW acts as a guide against which they can measure their achievements and make sure that they are on track For states where women have fallen behind and where the political will improve their lot is weaker, CEDAW is a prod and reminder that there is much room for improvement, and the reporting process, which includes compiling data, carrying out studies on women’s situations and writing the report, can be a learning process for the officials and groups involved, whereby problems are highlighted and brought to the fore, and where gaps in policy and their practice can be identified and acted upon.

Singapore and CEDAW

Many of you would have heard from the news and press that the Singapore government was in New York just this August to present its third periodic report to the CEDAW Committee. While I was not present in the chamber which was examining Singapore’s report as I was examining Norway’s report then, but heard from my colleagues that Singapore did well that day. While Singapore women have come a long way, there is still much work to be done. Among other points, the CEDAW Committee pointed out that the participation of women in political and public life can be improved, and that a gender wage gap still remains.[4]

However, as I mentioned before, knowledge about CEDAW in Singapore is still not very widespread, and there are few who realize that Singapore is party to, and is bound by, the terms of this very important treaty. Education is therefore the key to raising awareness about CEDAW and its applications.

Indirect and direct discrimination are still problems faced by women in Singapore, and there can never be enough awareness-raising done in this area. I am sure that many of you here are SMU students, and there is no better time than now to start educating yourself and others on these pressing issues.

Spread the word

I am heartened to note that UNSA-SMU, the United Nations Students’ Association of SMU, was established five years ago. I hope that some of its members are present in the audience. I am sure those in the group would be familiar with the United Nations and its workings, convoluted though some of those may be. As a group, you could hold talks on CEDAW and how it applies to Singapore, distribute materials on CEDAW to fellow students, and to brainstorm with each other on what you could do to improve the problem areas highlighted by the CEDAW Committee in its concluding comments, in SMU and also well after you graduate.

I also understand that there is a group in SMU called Women’s Connection, which ‘connects women to inspire and help one another discover and live their passion.’ These sentiments are fully in keeping with the spirit of CEDAW, and I am sure that Women’s Connection members can find much in CEDAW which will drive them towards the realization of their goals. The networks and bonds forged in such an association can, I am sure, open doors for women to explore their opportunities to their fullest extent and make the most of themselves.

While CEDAW has been branded by some as the domain of man-hating feminists, I should make it clear that CEDAW is relevant to both women and men. Societies are made up of men and women, and it is essential that they both have their rights equally protected. Therefore, I fully recommend that education on CEDAW should reach both men and women, so that as men will come to see that there is nothing exclusive about CEDAW, and it merely seeks to raise levels of equality between men and women, and is not, as might be popularly believed, a buttress for female superiority.

Conclusion

A society can be judged by the way it treats it most vulnerable groups, and only when a society values and respects the equal rights of men and women, and acts to protect them, can it then be said to be a civilized society. In my experience, CEDAW is basically a clear set of rules which can help societies move towards that goal. Ladies and gentlemen, I hope that you all share my opinion on this matter, and that you have, hopefully, been inspired to spread the word about CEDAW and its vision of a better, more equal society.

Anamah Tan

Member, United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
(UN CEDAW)

President, International Council of Women (ICW)

Country Vice-President, International Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA)

Board member, Singapore Association of Women Lawyers (SAWL)

1

[1] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/index.html

[2] ‘Fact Sheet No. 2 (Rev. 1), The International Bill of Human Rights’, Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights.

http:// www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs2.htm

[3] Ibid.

[4]‘Concluding Comments of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: Singapore’, CEDAW 39th session, pp. 4 – 5.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/459/59/PDF/N0745959.pdf?OpenElement