A Tale To Tell & Remember

I'm very much inspired by the words of Thomas L. Friedman in his book "The World Is Flat" which renders about the influence of bloggers in this new age. I want to keep the highest integrity and honesty in posting my words to the world. This blog act as a testimony to my alacrity of sharing information with the borderless world. Hope we can share a high regards of veracity and chivalry with this blog because that's why it is here. So help me God!

Visit Malaysia

Visit Malaysia
Malaysia Truly Asia

Tuesday, 19 August 2008

Book review: Human Rights – Views of Dr. Mahathir Mohamad

By: Ahmad Syah Ejaz Hj. Ismail

Human rights

Human rights consign to "the basic rights and freedoms, to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law." The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

The concept of human rights came from the philosophical idea of natural rights which are considered to exist even when trodden by governments or society. Some recognize virtually no difference between the two and regard both as labels for the same thing, while others choose to keep the terms split to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights. Natural rights, in particular, are rights of the individual, and are considered beyond the authority of a future government or international body to dismiss.

United Nations on Human Rights

The United Nations (UN) is the only international entity with jurisdiction for universal human rights legislation. All UN organs have advisory roles to the Security Council. Article 1-3 of the United Nations Charter states "To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion."

The United Nations Human Rights Council is involved with the investigation into violations of human rights. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principle judicial organ of the United Nations.

Human rights – from Asians standpoint

The concept of human rights has been largely formulated by the developed countries of the West. Nor surprisingly they reflect the culture of the West at a given time. Just as Western society undergoes changes and development, the perception of what constitutes human rights also changed and developed. Thus voting rights were initially accorded to select landowners only. The enfranchisements were then widened to ordinary citizens. It was not until after the First World War that woman gained their rights to vote. In Switzerland women could only vote in the 1960’s.

Human right is therefore neither inherently natural nor static nor free from change. Since the different human societies differ in term of their development and culture and they all undergo change with time, it is unrealistic to insist that all their values and therefore their perceptions of what constitutes human rights should be identical all the time. True, certain basic rights should be universal. The right to one’s life and to freedom from oppression should be part of the universal rights of all human societies. But it is not just governments which should not deprive their citizens of their rights, no one else should deprive anyone of their rights. Unfortunately when one talks about human rights invariably one thinks of the Government as the violator. And so many have their rights trampled upon with impunity by others within the community or by foreigners and foreign countries.

There is also a difference in the perception of human rights between the East and the West. Whereas the West is also obsessively concerned with the rights of the individual, the East is more concerned with the rights of the Community. One cannot really say whether the West or the East is more right. Thus democracy is based on the will of the majority. But the majority is not beyond abusing their power and oppressing the minority. Would curbing the exercise of the right of the majority result in denial of human rights? On the other hand, the minority may exercise their rights in such a way as to deny the rights of the majority. Should the majority accept what amounts to the curtailment of their win rights in the name of observing human rights?

The developed countries have now appointed themselves the arbiter of human rights worldwide. In the name of human rights they have applied all kinds of pressures on the countries unable to defend themselves. Every now and again new forms of human rights are invented and any country found defaulting is subjected to vile publicity and other repressive measures.

Clearly upholding human rights is not as simple as it is made out to be. Even as individual have rights, society too, being a collecting of individual has rights. In the end the answer must lie in a compromise where the important thing is not just the rights of the individual or of society but good that comes from the practice. Society and individual must accept the need to make sacrifices in the interest of the good of everyone. There can be no absolute rights for anyone. Even basic rights need to be curtailed if that becomes necessary. Rigidity in the practice of human rights can only result in society and individuals in the society paying a high price without achieving the deal. It is the result which counts, not the pious adherence to doctrine.

Human right is not a licence to do anything without regard to the rights if others, the rights of the majority are just as valid as the rights of the minority or the individual. A society has a right to protect itself from the unbridled exercise of rights by individuals or as minority which in the West has contributed to the collapse of morality and the structure of human society. In individual and minority rights are so totally inviolable then you must allow the resurgence of Nazism and the violently racist activities in Europe and elsewhere.

For Asians, the community, the majority comes first. The individual and the minority must have their rights but not at the unreasonable expense of the majority. The individuals and the minority must conform to the mores of society. A little deviation may be allowed but unrestrained exhibition of personal freedom which disturbs the peace or threatens to undermine society is not what Asians expects from democracy. Democracy is a method of Government. It is good only if the result is good.

Uniformity should not be a feature of Asian democracy. Each country should be allowed to tailor its democracy to cater to the characteristics of its people and their needs. The people should decide through the basic democratic process what kind and what degree of democracy they want.

The same applies to human rights. Asian human rights need not be a fair copy of Western human rights. The individual and the minority must be allowed their freedom but such freedom must not deprive the majority of their rights. Apart from being more democratic and subscribing to their owns perceptions as to what constitutes human rights; apart from accepting the free market economy there can be no certainty about the future of Asia. Several scenarios are possible. Based upon Asian History and the present state of Asian countries, all these scenarios are possible.

Before a Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be accepted the different perception and the various results must be carefully understood. Failure to do this may result in oppression rather than the enjoyment of such rights.


The adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stems in large part from the strong desire for peace in the aftermath of Second World War. Although the 58 Member States which formed the United Nations at that time varied in their ideologies, political systems and religions and cultural backgrounds and had different patterns of socio-economic development, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights represented a common statement of goals and aspirations as a vision of the world as the international community would want to be.

The Declaration serves as a guide for governments to create national laws that protect human rights. Citizens can then use their own judicial and legal system to prosecute individuals or groups that have violated human rights. In Canada for example, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has incorporated the human rights standards of the Declaration into Canadian law.

The Universal Declaration of Human rights is a profoundly important document for people all over the world because it is founded on three key principles. Human rights are alienable and no one can ever take them away from you. Human rights also are indivisible which you cannot be entitled to some of them and denied others. Finally, Human rights are interdependent which means they are all part of a larger framework and work together so you can enjoy a safe, free and productive life.


Human rights – views of Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, 1999, Compiled by World Youth Foundation, Affluent Master Sdn. Bhd.


meanlin said...

I must admit I did not give this a thorough read but I will ask some questions to provoke a discussion:
1) Dr. Mahathir says that the majority has rights which must be respected just as minority rights should. I have to agree. Yet how would he apply this principle to the case of the Moros of the Philippines. They are a minority (23%?) in their homeland and not all the Christians in Mindanao are immigrants. This discussion could apply also to Malays in Singapore and maybe Thailand also, as well as to the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Would Dr. Mahathir respect majority rights for Filipinos, Singaporeans, Thais, or Israelis?
2) Dr. Mahathir quotes the UN declaration. What are his thoughts on Article 18 of that declaration which states that the right to choose one's religion, and to CHANGE it, is a human right?

Tun Teddy said...

A very tough question to answer. But I can stated here knowing that man to well here my comments on the issues you have raised based on the particular country:-

1. Phillipines - He would not go deeper to instigate any motion for the total break up of muslim from the Manila based government. However, he would proposed an autonomy between the southern muslim of Mindanao with the central phillipines government. He actually did the same with the Thailand southern problems. He won't go deeper as to assist any muslim insurgents in the south minadanao.

2. Israel - He won't recognize any Israel rights to be on the current land as he always regards that the current Jewish state was an alien presence injected into traditionally Arab lands on the basis of a 2,000 year old claim and to expiate Jew's suffering, which the Arabs peoples had no caused.

3. Singaporean - Dr. Mahathir always regards Singapore as a malay land that had been conned by the British (slice of salami) ever since from the Raffles time till now. He will always used the Malay minority problems (economic and political) as a pretext to launch a political barrages. I would say that he won't and will never recognized the political power held by the Chinese leaders upon singaporean and he would justify his action by the historical facts that Singapore were once belongs to the Malays Johore Sultan.

On the second question, Dr. Mahathir always regards that it was an individual rights to choose any religion and muslim must not stop them from professing other religion. You can see through his action when he was the prime minister, the issues of converts were tone down and never heard of although there were clear case of convert. Such need to be done as to impede racial flare up especially among the mild civil malaysian society.

afif said...

I care more about what he did on Malaysian's human right than how he views the UN's declaration

ISA, if imposed on suspected terrorist is well justified for me. But when you put your political enemies who pose no physical harmness to the society behind bars just because you feel threatened or betrayed by their advances, that's a crystal clear act of human right violation. Plain and simple truth, your actions speaks louder than you. Period.

Tun Teddy said...

if you want to learn more about Dr. Mahathir foreign policy, you should read the recently publish book Dr. Mahathir - the selected letters to world leaders. I'm very much happy to lend it to you.

afif said...

Thanks for the generous offer. But I prefer third party review on someone's policy than the one that published by the very person instead. Third party's lot less unbiased in reviewing mostly

Letters does not really give real impact on earth surface. Real action does - you know, like sending your marines to Iraq. As I said, you can't speak any louder than your own action

Faces of Tun Teddy

Faces of Tun Teddy