By Clara Chooi. Published by The Malaysian Insider on 18 November 2012.
Today’s signing, which took place during the 21st ASEAN Summit at the Peace Palace in the capital city of Phnom Penh, comes at an opportune time for Malaysia and the Barisan Nasional (BN) government led by Najib, which has come under close international scrutiny for its alleged mishandling of several recent human rights issues.
“ASEAN shall pursue the protection and promotion of human rights in the region in our own way and also try to maintain the highest standard as expressed in various declarations and instruments of the international community,” ASEAN secretary-general Surin Pitsuwan was quoted as saying in The Star Online.
According to media reports, the AHRD has a total of 40 clauses and covers areas like civil and political rights, economic, social ad cultural rights, developmental processes and peace enhancement. The declaration also states that the rights of women, children, elderly and disabled persons and migrant workers are integral and indivisible part of human rights and fundamental freedom, The Star reported.
Najib has found himself in the international spotlight on numerous occasions, taking the hit for his administration’s alleged heavy-handedness in dealing with matters concerning civil freedom, individual rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association.
Some key examples include the widespread crackdown on two pro-democracy rallies held by electoral reform movement Bersih 2.0 — one on July 9, 2011, and another on April 28 this year — which resulted in scene of chaos and violence on the streets of this usually peaceful capital city.
To dull the uproar, however, Najib has taken great pains to improve civil liberties in Malaysia, even agreeing to repeal the controversial Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Sedition Act, enacting a new law to regulate public gatherings, agreeing to allow student participation in politics and relaxing provisions in laws governing press freedom.
But after the last protest on April 28, foreign media reports predicted that the government’s handling of the event would likely undermine Najib’s image as a reformist and force the prime minister to delay the next general election.
Several newswires, picked up by major newspapers globally, also took the same stance, with Reuters reporting that police action raised “the risk of a political backlash that could delay national polls which had been expected as early as June.”
Agence France-Presse also said that “the rally poses a dilemma for Najib, who since last year’s crackdown has sought to portray himself as a reformer, launching a campaign to repeal authoritarian laws in a bid to create what he called ‘the greatest democracy’.”
Several reports pointed to the first Bersih rally held just months before the March 2008 elections, which saw BN record its worst electoral performance ever, ceding its customary two-thirds supermajority in Parliament and five state governments.
Najib took over from Tun Abdullah Badawi a year later, ostensibly to improve on the results and some observers say only a return to two-thirds majority will guarantee he remains Umno president.
Widespread condemnation from the international press of Putrajaya’s crack down on last July’s Bersih rally saw Najib announce a raft of reforms including a parliamentary select committee on electoral reforms and the Peaceful Assembly Act, a major concession to win back an alienated middle-class.
But the findings of a bipartisan panel have been criticised as cosmetic by civil society and the opposition and yesterday’s planned sit-in was the first major test of the new law regulating demonstrations the BN chief says abides by “international norms”.
The foreign press had at the time also widely carried global civil liberties watchdog Human Rights Watch’s criticism of the government, saying it showed “contempt for its people’s basic rights and freedoms.”
“Despite all the talk of ‘reform’ over the past year, we’re seeing a repeat of repressive actions by a government that does not hesitate to use force when it feels its prerogatives are challenged,” said Phil Robertson, its deputy Asia director.
Apart from Bersih, the BN administration has also earned itself international condemnation for bringing charges of sexual misconduct and sodomy against Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim numerous occasions, a move that the leader’s supporters have claimed was merely to stifle his campaign to topple the ruling pact.
Several cases of deaths in custody over the past few years had also cast the government in the spotlight for alleged human rights abuses. One example is the death of DAP political aide Teoh Beng Hock, whose death, which occurred while he was under the care of anti-graft officials, has continued to haunt the government since 2009.
Link:
Deeply flawed ASEAN Human Rights Declaration must be postponed
In a letter sent today to ASEAN Heads of State, the ICJ and other leading international human rights organizations called for the postponement of the adoption of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration. The groups are pointing out that in its current form, the Declaration falls short of existing international human rights standards and risks creating a sub-standard level of human rights protection in the region.
Of particular concern are the General Principles in the Declaration. Under General Principles 6,7, and 8 of the current draft, enjoyment of rights is to be “balanced with the performance of duties”, subjected to “national and regional contexts” and to considerations of “different cultural, religious and historical backgrounds.” Also, all the rights in the Declaration may be restricted on a wide array of grounds including “national security” and “public morality”.
http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=/2012/11/28/columnists/bravenewworld/12376749&sec=bravenewworld
ReplyDelete28 November 2012 A case in point is the Asean Human Rights Declaration. Personally, I view this document as something positive. It has its problems, and I shall deal with them later, but within the context of Asean.
It is important because for decades the issue of human rights was not really part of the Asean agenda. It was only in the Asean Charter of 2007 did the countries of Asean formally recognise human rights as an essential value. And now, we have this declaration which spells out the human rights that in principle Asean agrees has to be protected.
I say “in principle” because the Asean Human Rights Declaration is, in international law parlance, a “soft law”.
By this, it is meant that it is merely a statement of principle, it is not a binding law as say a treaty is. Therefore, legally it would be rather difficult to insist that the Asean governments comply with this declaration.
This does not mean that they do not have a moral responsibility and it is up to the people of Asean to keep pressing their governments to respect the Declaration and to make the necessary domestic legislation to give legal weight to these “soft law” principles and make them hard.
Surely our erstwhile leaders did not sign the declaration for fun.
They agreed to these principles, so let’s make sure they live up to them.
Aside from the lack of legal obligation, another criticism of the Declaration is that it appears to provide loopholes for its signatories.
For example, Article 7 begins with the emphatic statement that “all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated”.
So far so good, but it closes with “the realisation of human rights must be considered in the regional and national context bearing in mind different political, economic, legal, social, cultural, historical and religious backgrounds”.
The following article continues in this vein and states “the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition for the human rights and fundamental freedom of others, and to meet the just requirements of national security, public order, public health, public safety, public morality, as well as the general welfare of the peoples in a democratic society”.
Suspicious, is it not? Signatories of this document have left themselves a method of avoiding their responsibilities.
All they have to say is: “Oh, we are restricting your rights for the reason of national security/public morality/general public welfare … take your pick.”
Now, only an idiot would think that human rights mean the rights to do anything at all. I may have freedom of speech but I do not have the right to defame someone; my freedom of assembly does not mean I can trespass on another’s property.
So, naturally there will be restrictions on rights, but the issue here is that there must be restrictions on the restrictions.
And that is the crux of the matter. What prevents those in power from using the excuse of morality or security or whatever else to place so many restrictions on our rights that they become utterly meaningless?
The answer I submit is aspirations; idealism and principle.
Only when we have people in power, and by this I mean the legislature, executive and judiciary, can we aspire to protect the rights of others as far as possible.
Who believes that human rights are an ideal, not an imposition on governments. And, who has the conviction to live and make decisions according to these principles; only then can the Asean Human Rights Declaration have any meaning.