The government has not renewed a controversial contract under which anti-gay rights campaign group the Society for Truth and Light held human rights courses for teachers, opting instead to teach the courses itself. The decision last year to award the contract to the society, which opposed the introduction of gay rights laws, drew fire from equal opportunities organisations and other pressure groups. The society's assistant general secretary, Helen Fu Dan-mui, said it had not been approached to submit a tender for the contract to teach secondary and primary school teachers this year. She said the subject of homosexuality or introduction of equal rights legislation for gay people had not arisen during its four 10-hour human rights courses, which were attended by more than 100 teachers and school principals. A spokesman for the Education and Manpower Bureau said its own staff had acquired the 'experience and expertise' to conduct the in-house courses. Bureau chief curriculum development officer Cheung Wing-hung said the format and content of the courses had not been finalised, but he did not rule out homosexual rights being addressed. Intensive 10-hour courses or 'thematic' seminars with guest speakers were being considered. Mr Cheung said 86 per cent of participants who took part in the Truth and Light courses found them rewarding. The society's contract, which one detractor compared to hiring al-Qaeda to lecture on peace, ended during the last school year. A secondary school civic education teacher who attended one of the courses said the instructors could not explain themselves clearly, 'especially when the participants challenged them with questions on some issues'. When she raised a query about the rights of homosexuals, she was told it would be dealt with later, adding: 'Later meant 'never'.' Human Rights Monitor director Law Yuk-kai questioned whether the bureau had the expertise to carry out such courses. He said it should not do the work in-house 'simply to avoid controversy'. Roddy Shaw Kwok-wah, chairman of Civil Rights for Sexual Diversities, said the bureau was responsible for the content of its courses but in this case it had little control over content.