1. The Star Online (http://thestar.com,my)
Human rights shouldn’t impose on religions and cultures IKIM Views, 28 April 2009
by Dr WAN AZHAR WAN AHMAD
Human rights should neither be made the basis to undermine the Constitution, nor be worshipped as if they represent a sacrade agenda.
MANY perceive the doctrine of human rights as a set of legal standards which determines the national and international order. Some regard it as being above their state constitutions and various other codified laws, even nobler than any religious scriptures.
It seems that a kind of a new universal jurisprudence entirely based on human rights is emerging and is becoming bolder, urging that priority be given to the so called rights of man in the area of civil, political, economic, social and cultural over national interests or religious precepts.
A number of aspects pertaining to the human rights discourse suggests that careful scrutiny is inevitable. Human rights carry unavoidable political content and epitomize certain value systems which somehow differ from one society to another.
“Value system” here is not confined to the principles of ethics and morality, but rather must include religion-based world views as well.
Therefore, one must examine those political contents and the various value systems to ensure that human rights are not in conflict with these world views.
If there exists any contradiction or deficiency, adjustments and reconciliation must be made to the effect that no party may abuse any right accorded them, and none may suffer any injustice.
This is necessary since the universal nature claimed by the human rights movement is actually complex.
It requires assessments in progressive terms, and interpretations in accordance with the current legal, political, historical, social, cultural and religious contexts of any given community.
As human rights deals with a variety of groups, we tend to have different views on how the doctrine is best integrated into the development agenda of any nation.
In our Malaysian context, like it or not, we must always bear in mind that we are governed by the Federal Constitution.
This supreme document is already incorporated, and thus guarantees a considerable number of human rights principles.
Our role here is to facilitate the understanding and awareness of our fellow citizens concerning their human rights obligations in the light of the constitutional provisions and their implications.
In this sense, human rights should neither be made the basis to undermine the Constitution, nor be worshipped as if they represent a sacred agenda which could impose restrictions in terms of transforming the country into a united, peaceful and developed nation.
Human rights must not be exploited to create security threats or economic instability for the Govern¬ment.
Yet if one examines the unfolding of events in recent years, one may conclude that human rights and the state are actually at loggerheads.
On the one hand, the country has issued statements and has even taken actions indicative of the fact that the Government supports the promotion and protection of human rights. It has even ratified a number of international treaties on human rights.
On the other hand, however, issues like religious conversion, body snat¬ching, allegedly denying one citizen¬ship, the mistreatment of refugees, and so on, are portrayed as serious infringements of certain basic hu¬¬man rights.
Human rights advocates seem to argue that although generally supportive, the country’s backing is insufficient.
The Government has never af¬¬firmed in strong clear terms that the country is more than willing to play its role effectively in relation to those human rights precepts as binding legal principles or legal obligations.
The fact that those documents are conditionally ratified with certain reservations speaks for itself.
Those human rights vanguards fail to appreciate either consciously or unconsciously that those international documents must be interpreted and understood purposely and contextually, in accordance with the peculiarities, demands and values of the community they aspire to serve.
No doubt the state plays a significant role in upholding the rights of its subjects.
But, in executing this role, the authorities must also honour the legal limits imposed by its Constitu¬tion and any other laws currently enforced.
We are not supposed to give in to any foreign provisions affecting our interests if those are contradictory to any provision of our Constitution.
The Government must also respect the religious parameters of certain religions wherever relevant.
One must know, for example, that free¬dom of religious conversion en¬¬shrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is antithetical to Islam.
Islam has its own way of dealing with such an issue.
No one has the right to interfere in matters they do not understand.
It is perhaps clear now that the state can and sometimes should take human rights into consideration in its decision-making process.
In doing so, however, certain limitations must be observed.
What is perfectly moral in certain cultures might not be the same in certain other environments.
What can be done by the authorities is to nurture a better understanding of any given country – its history, its aspirations, current situations and future directions. This is possible through education at all levels.
History is very important and must be taught properly to all citizens, either in a formal manner or otherwise.
Similarly, the followers of all religions must be made aware that their common enemy is secularism and the secularisation processes.
The current international framework of human rights is largely – if not completely – based on secular philosophy.
True religion or any value system which recognises ethics and morality has no role whatsoever apparently.
If we really believe in a religious or value system, we cannot accept any notion under the banner of human rights which propagates the idea that man is free to do whatever he likes without restriction.
© 1995-2009 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd (Co No 10894-D)
2. The Micah Mandate (http://www.themicahmandate.org)
Responding to IKIM’s View, 22 May 2009
On Tuesday 28 April 2009, The Star published an article by Dr. Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad under the column “IKIM’s Views” on the question of religion and human rights in Malaysia. We the undersigned wrote a rebuttal. The Star has chosen not to publish our rebuttal.
We would appreciate the opportunity of presenting a different perspective to that expressed by Dr. Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad in respect of religion and human rights in Malaysia. In so doing we would stress that these are our personal viewpoints and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organisation to which we belong.
In the area of supranational laws, there is a move to advance binding sets of principles that will guide nations. By its very nature these principles govern and restrict the conduct of the state.
Malaysia is no stranger to such principles. We are a party to the Geneva Conventions and the Chemical Warfare Convention. These conventions, regulate the conduct of warfare by states and are very much part of human rights laws. These laws are intended as a reflection of common decency which guide civilised nations to the extent that they override or circumscribe a state’s absolute freedom in the conduct of war. Indeed, this is only to be welcomed.
Are these rules new? Hardly. Such rules of war have been in existence for several hundreds of years. For example, when the international community questioned and condemned Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war, we appealed to international human rights and humanitarian laws.
Is this a new religion? Definitely not. Countries that became parties to such international conventions did so out of their moral outrage at man’s inhumanity to man, their deeply-held values and profound desire to ensure that common decency and humanitarian principles must prevail even when countries are at their most belligerent temper. The universality of such values is undeniable, and their intended result, peace, is beyond question. Is Dr. Wan Azhar saying that this is unacceptable?
But peace is not simply the absence of war. Peace is the enabling of equality and the dignity of human beings. Coming as we do from ancient faith traditions, Hindusim, Islam and Christianity respectively, we see human rights as a positive expression of deeply-held religious systems and moral values. Rather than being in contrast and contention with religious systems and moral values, human rights are in fact some of their highest expressions.
A God or godly pantheon responsible for the creation of humanity demands that human beings be accorded and treated with all due dignity and respect without qualification on the basis of race, religion, gender or political or moral philosophy. So human rights are a way of elucidating and enunciating how such expressions should be effected.
Such human rights should be equally applied to all citizens and residents of a country regardless of what the official religion of that country is, or if it has none. In this regard, secularism seeks to apply those basic human rights norms in non-religious terms and language, without preferring religion over non-religion or one religion over another. Human rights, simply put, is about respecting and upholding the dignity of each and every human being. How does that not accord with religious beliefs? It is a poor and sad human misinterpretation of religion that accords basic rights and fundamental freedoms only to a religion’s own adherents, or to those in agreement with the powers-that-be behind such a religion.
Dr. Wan Azhar suggests that concepts of human rights and religion in Malaysia are antagonistic. Let us look at the human rights of Orang Asli in Malaysia. If we take the situation of Orang Asli land rights, we can see that this is patently untrue. All major religions and value systems enjoin their adherents and followers to care for and improve the welfare of those amongst us who are defenceless, weak, underprivileged, marginalised and effectively disenfranchised. All the major religions would recognise the customary rights of the Orang Asli to their land. Yet for such a long time the previous Selangor State governments have chosen to challenge and dispute such rights. The present-day Selangor State Government is to be commended for finally choosing not to pursue this challenge and to recognise such customary land rights.
Whilst a national constitution can stipulate an official religion for the nation, such a document must also recognise the rights of those who do not subscribe to that religion. International human rights norms seek to make commonplace the understanding that the lives of citizens and residents of a country should be free from interference and molestation as a result of any official religious or philosophical orthodoxy.
International human rights norms object to the attempt to legislate for a particular religion and to impose such legislated rules to non-adherents or non-practitioners. And these norms also additionally object to the attempt to deny non-adherents any means to participate in a public debate about that which nonetheless affects their lives and that of their country. A self-serving interpretation of a religion’s tenets as a pretext to separation and exclusion, rather than in favour of universality and inclusivity, is to be abhorred.
Dr. Wan Azhar wrote that “human rights should neither be made the basis to undermine the Constitution, nor be worshipped as if they represent a sacred agenda which could impose restrictions in terms of transforming the country into a united, peaceful and developed nation.” We couldn’t agree more.
International human rights norms serve as a checklist to uphold our Constitution and to benchmark it against international best practices. There is no attempt to undermine but rather strengthen and undergird our Federal Constitution by eliminating any attempt to utilise it as a basis to perpetuate unjust laws, rules and regulations which cause hardship, harm and suffering to our fellow citizens and residents. Where there is a lack of clarity, international human rights norms offer a clear and unambiguous frame of reference. Hence the latest Cabinet directive regarding the religious upbringing of children of divorced parents, which we support.
Dr. Wan Azhar concludes his essay by saying that “[i]f we really believe in a religious or value system, we cannot accept any notion under the banner of human rights which propagates the idea that man is free to do whatever he likes without restriction.” The comparison is incorrect. To each right there is a balancing obligation not to act in a way that would discriminate others. Human rights do not promote anarchy and irresponsible behaviour without limitation, as Dr. Wan Azhar would like your readers to believe.
Signed:
Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan(Immediate Past President, Malaysian Bar)
Zarizana Abdul Aziz and Andrew Khoo (Co-Chairs, Human Rights Committee, Bar Council)
11 May 2009
(End)
