By Natalie Shobana Ambrose theSun, Malaysia (page 14) November 3rd, 2011 http://www.thesundaily.my/news/196906
The issue of human rights is very much contested and everyone from former prime ministers and IGPs to migrant workers, civil society and even you have opinions on the issue not just in terms of what freedoms you should have but what others should too. So I tread carefully as an advocate for the universality of human rights, acknowledging that there are real challenges and realities of it becoming a certainty for every human being including myself.
Having presented a paper in Kyoto University last week discussing various perspectives of human rights within Asean, I feel it most apt to share the following story in light of recent statements made on the issue.
Anna served as associate professor in the largest local university for over 30 years and yet her children were never allowed admission into that university on the basis that they were considered migrants, though many foreigners call this university their alma mater. If Anna’s children wanted to attend local university, it meant two extra years in high school which wasn’t a guarantee of university or degree choice. Bella, her daughter, had aspired to be an architect since young and with great effort went through those two extra years. After doing well and fulfilling the requirements for architecture school, Bella was told instead that the only spot available for her was in interior design – the quota system had failed her. Now not only did Bella have to start university two years later, she was two years behind many other students in a course the system chose because she was considered a migrant. It didn’t matter that her parents are citizens, her grandparents citizens and her great grandparents citizens – Anna and Bella were both born with a generational debt that they can never repay no matter how hard they tried.
This story narrates the reality of an age old dilemma of cultural diversity and universal human rights coexisting. Now one can argue that when it comes to human rights, one size does not fit all and that culture, philosophy, belief and history should be taken into consideration and the margin of appreciation apply when implementing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). To take the point further, many governments in this region in particular attest that such universality of human rights is a western precept and does not resonate with the values of the east; but are not all of Adam’s decendents born equal regardless of race, doctrine and creed? Most religions subscribe to this fundamental belief and many developed minds do too.
Some believe that fundamental rights are the outcome of a developed economy, yet there is no evidence of countries that progress economically automatically according all their citizens basics rights. Neither is there a prescribed level of development to be achieved before fundamental rights can be accorded.
It’s a dangerous line to tread when trying to make a convincing argument on the merits of blatant discrimination for the preservation of human rights for some. The simple equation of continual oppression, as we have witnessed around the world in the last year alone, has the potential to equal a real threat – for some the threat is violence, but in the case of Anna and Bella, the threat is brain drain and mass migration which are extremely detrimental to any economy.
Countries in which the four fundamental freedoms (Roosevelt) – freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from fear and freedom from want – are violated do not develop evenly and breed deep insecurities. An analysis of countries that did not fare well in the United Nations Human Development Index, showed them tending to have a weakened state of human security and human rights.
Hence, in order to have a positive functioning economy, achieving human rights for all (not relative human rights) is necessary as there are no substitutes for good governance and the rule of law to make a functioning state.
The reality is there are many variations when discussing human rights. Some prescribe to it being a gift based on descent, religion and cultural relativism. Then there are the generations of extremists, moderates, liberalists, absolutists, progressives and contextualists with varying intensities of conviction. However, there are no half rights or half truths.
Rights should not exclude groups of people but include rights of the aged, minorities, the displaced and so forth which are all embodied in the UDHR.
Anna’s story is not uncommon but closer to home. Anna’s story is my story, Anna my mother and Bella my sister; a Malaysian family who have lived and served this country for generations and for generations have never had equal rights to education, employment, land and the full privileges of being a citizen.
If the debate in Malaysia today is still against universality, I guess then the question should be is there such a thing as half torture and half discrimination? I’m still not convinced.
Natalie believes that the protection of human rights is a unifying ethic and should not be misused to cause divide. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
