"Asian Values": a credible alternative to a universal conception of human rig... - 0 views
ibamedialaw.wordpress.com/...sal-conception-of-human-rights
Human Rights UDHR Freedom of Speech Asian Value
![](/images/link.gif)
-
Singapore has not ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but as a member state of the United Nations is bound to respect “fundamental human rights”. But who decides these rights? Many commentators will argue that they are those enshrined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, in which Freedom of Expression is guaranteed by Article 19.
-
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has stressed that freedom of expression ensures the free political debate essential to democracy[ii] and has expressed concern that overbearing government controls of the media are incompatible with Freedom of Expression.
-
The Singapore government’s view is different. They have long asserted that human rights principles and conceptions are dominated by Western perceptions and argue for an “Asian Values” interpretation of human rights. This has been characterised as the assertion of the primacy of duty to the community over individual rights and the expectation of trust in authority and dominance of the state leaders.
- ...4 more annotations...
-
The “Asian Values” hypothesis is equally suspect. The UDHR recognises the universal applicability of human rights and any nation party to this treaty is not permitted to restrict rights purely on cultural, religious or political grounds.
-
“Asian governments are justified in restricting civil and political rights in some circumstances in favour of social stability and economic growth. Civil and political rights are immaterial when people are destitute and society is unstable. Accordingly, as luxuries to be enjoyed once there is social order, civil and political liberties must be temporarily suspended so as to not inhibit the government’s delivery of economic and social necessities and so as to not threaten or destroy future development plans.” Whilst this argument may have been slightly more palatable if Singapore’s citizens were, in fact destitute, the reality is that Singapore is ranked as one of the world’s wealthiest countries and boasts a high life expectancy. Thus in Singapore’s case, arguments made in favour of a “liberty trade-off” are rendered completely untenable.
-
these cultural and religious justifications for violating rights are as unacceptable as Singapore’s purported assertion of an “Asian Values” conception of human rights. Even though the Singapore government’s language is more subtle, their arguments amount to same basic tenet: the purported justification of the denial of fundamental human rights, by reference to cultural, religious or political specific norms. Speaking recently in New York, the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon warned against such an interpretation of human rights:
-
“Yes, we recognize that social attitudes run deep. Yes, social change often comes only with time. Yet, let there be no confusion: where there is tension between cultural attitudes and universal human rights, universal human rights must carry the day. ” The universal and fundamental nature of human rights is the founding principle on which the United Nations was built: the right to freedom of expression must be guaranteed, “Asian Values” notwithstanding.