The why-nots of human rights

Earlier this month, Singapore's Minister for Information and the Arts, George Yeo, said that China deserved the Nobel Prize for Human Rights. He said this in a speech at a Colloquium on Human Rights and Responsibilities in Hamburg, Germany, organised by the German newspaper Die Zeit and the Asia-Europe Foundation.

First of all, in case I leave my readers completely misled, let me clarify that there is no Nobel Prize for Human Rights; the nearest one is that for Peace, and anyway Nobel Prizes are never awarded to whole countries, but to individuals or organisations. George Yeo was speaking figuratively, highlighting the enormous progress China has made in "human rights".

Now, the last two words were in quotation marks because I felt the speech added to the muddle of what "human rights" really are.

To give you an idea of what George Yeo said, please see some excerpts in the yellow box on the right. 

In a nutshell, George Yeo's speech re-stated the "relativist" position. The meaning and appropriate objectives of human rights are relative to the culture and value-system of a society. They are relative to the economic position and recent economic history of a country. The right of foreigners to criticise is relative to the degree of knowledge the foreigner has about that society. And the validity of any criticism is relative to your motives.

He is not wrong. But it bothers me that this position is used too often to justify the lack of progress, and the lack of any effort at progress. This happens when the "Asian" side of the debate skews the arguments beyond what is supported by rationality and the facts.

This "Asian" side is very often just Singapore and Malaysia, and this speech neatly touched on all the main threads of the Singapore government's usual response to the human rights debate. I am told this set of arguments is called the "Singapore School".

The main arguments (although not all of them were elaborated on in this particular speech) are:

Asian Values -

Asian cultures are different from Western cultures. Asians prefer order and stability over individual rights. Asians have greater respect for authority and prefer a more communitarian approach to issues. Hence individualism and individual rights are alien and unacceptable to Asian countries. They are more likely to prefer that individuals subsume themselves to the state.

 

Economic Imperatives -

The hurly-burly of Western democracy is an obstacle to rapid economic growth. For developing countries, economic progress takes on a greater importance than luxuries such as free speech. Governments that are in firmer control deliver better economic growth, as can be seen in the GDP growth rates of many East Asian countries in the last 2 - 3 decades.

 

Economic Rights -

Human Rights should not be narrowly defined as merely political rights of free speech, free association, free elections, etc. Economic freedoms and benefits are also human rights. These include clean water, electricity, jobs, housing, security in the streets, for example. If we use this broader definition of human rights, then the 'score rate' of Asian countries is rather good, and the West's continued harping on human rights is shown up to have an ulterior motive, which is,

 

Western Moral Imperialism -

The human rights debate is just another way by which the West hopes to continue its domination. Their agenda is to encourage the critics of Asian governments, and undermine their effectiveness in delivering economic growth, which ultimately may cost jobs in the West. On a higher plane, it is driven by the West's sense of moral superiority, and their aim to make other countries 'just like them'.

The slightly new twists that George Yeo may have added are these:

Historical Mitigation -

Assessment of human rights in any one country must be done in the context of where it has been in the recent past. We should not only let up on countries which because of political upheaval or economic privation, have more urgent things to do in terms of basic needs, we should praise them -- hence the Nobel Prize reference.

 

Technological Change -

New technological horizons require us to re-examine our understanding of human rights (perhaps the free-for-all enabled by the internet explosion calls for more weight to be given to censorship?)

Each of these arguments is highly debatable, and I will deal with each one in turn below.

(Just a note for clarity: this is not a rebuttal of the Hamburg speech, but a rebuttal of the "Singapore School" arguments, as listed above.)

The Asian Values argument is an artifice

The Asian Values argument is the most contentious. Chris Patten, the last Governor of Hong Kong, has collected the rebuttals in the middle portion of his book East and West. I would recommend you read it. However all of us, upon a little reflection, should be able to think of the following obvious weaknesses in the Asian Values argument:

1.	Asia is far from homogenous. It is even less homogenous than the West, which at least had Christianity, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution as shared experiences. Asian countries are diverse, racially, religiously and culturally. Many proponents of Asian Values implicitly assume that Chinese Confucianism is a springhead for Asian cultures. Ask the Filipinos, ask the Japanese, the Thais, and the Muslim Bangladeshis, and you'd get either quizzical looks, or vehement objection.
2.	When these countries are so diverse culturally, how do we assume they share a set of values which we can label "Asian Values"?
3.	If at all they have, by coincidence, some similar values, these values are more likely to have arisen independently, since these countries do not share a common history or cultural fount.
4.	If so, then on what basis do we think that these sharings are restricted to Asian countries, thereby justifying the term "Asian Values"? If such a value can arise independently in different cultures, then it can well arise in non-Asian countries, probably as a basic human instinct. For example, a sense of obligation to parents in their old age, or a readiness to recognise that we may have to trade some of our more extreme freedoms (e.g. the right to take violent revenge on others for any and all perceived slights) in return for civil order in our communities.
5.	Therefore, to treat these coincidental similarities as uniquely Asian characteristics, and as the common "Asian" defence against human rights demands, is poorly founded. If other countries with these values can accommodate fundamental human liberties, what not countries in Asia?
6.	Some other values, said to be unique to Asia, turn out to be largely restricted to Chinese civilisation. The more frequently cited ones include the value placed on education as a means to success, and the deference the ruled are expected to show to the rulers. Actually, as Chris Patten said in his book, even these are selective distortions of the huge river of thought flowing down from Chinese traditions and philosophies, and I say this in the plural, because, like any old and broad civilisation, there are many streams of thought, some of them highly democratic. Furthermore, the Singapore School tends to quote from the most ancient of Chinese classics, completely ignoring more modern Chinese thought, especially the revolutionary ideas of the last 150 years. Are these more recent values not equally Chinese values?
7.	And is not the use of Chinese values, however selective and distorted, to represent "Asian Values", completely false? Instead of accusing the West of false moral and cultural superiority in the course of the human rights debate, are not the Singaporeans indulging in Chinese superiority?

It is also interesting that this Asian Values defence is largely enunciated by the Singapore and Malaysian governments. Other Asian countries hardly ever contribute to this line of argument. I guess for them, it is only all too obvious how hollow this idea of Asian Values is. As far as they are concerned, their societies are built upon Thai, Korean, Burmese or Chinese values. Only Singapore and Malaysia, with their racially mixed populations have to adopt a slogan that does not exclude any domestic constituency, even if the slogan is not well supported by the facts. It should be noted that many thinking people in these other Asian countries resent the presumption by Singaporean ministers that they can speak for all Asia. 

The Economic Imperatives argument has plenty of contra-examples

Moving on to the Economic Imperatives argument -- the one which says that for developing countries, economic progress takes on a greater importance than luxuries such as free speech, and that governments that are in firmer control deliver better economic growth, the current economic crisis has certainly taken a lot of the shine from it. Nevertheless, the region will recover, and also, if viewed over a longish span of 20-30 years, there definitely has been remarkable economic progress.

But look into the details, and the picture is not as simple as that. Just because one phenomenon occurs in the presence of another, does not mean that one causes the other. Just because your pet goldfish died the day McDonald's raised their prices, does not mean that goldfish die every time fastfood prices go up. Certainly, passing a law to ban price increases at McDonald's is not going to improve the longevity of goldfish.

So, the question really is, is authoritarianism the proximate cause for economic growth? Many economists who have studied the issue would say no. The proximate cause is sensible economic policies, long term and short term, and an open and fair trading environment. It so happens that a number of governments in East Asia (not all, by an means) have pursued relatively sensible economic policies, even as they pursued authoritarian policies in respect of their critics and opponents. It is false to say that authoritarianism is a necessary condition for economic growth; that one must choose between democracy and liberty on the one hand, and an improving standard of living on the other. The exceptions prove the lie. Hong Kong under the British was never authoritarian. It didn't have much democracy (in the sense of elections and elected governments), but it strove to be as liberal politically as the colonial home-country, Britain. Yet despite waves of refugees pouring in from China, which can be socially and economically disruptive, it enjoyed the same economic progress as Singapore.

To give credit where it is due, George Yeo singled out the case of Hong Kong in his speech:

It would be wrong to equate universal human rights and responsibilities with Western democratic values. ...[snip] The Catholic Church is not a democratic organisation. Yet no one questions its commitment to human rights and responsibilities. When Hongkong was a British colony without any democracy, it was a haven for human rights. This is not to say that political systems are unimportant but we must go beyond political systems and look at the everyday lives of ordinary human beings. Cultural differences and the issue of development cannot be swept aside.

But you'd notice that he used the same example to serve a different argument. He tried to divorce the pro-democracy camp from the pro-human rights camp. Asian countries can satisfy one without having to satisfy the other. You would also have noticed that the litmus test was finally reduced to how the "ordinary human beings" lived day to day, not whether critics of governments are tortured in jails, held without trial, nor whether minorities are discriminated against with no constitutional protection.

But coming back to human rights and economic imperatives, take New Zealand. It went into a bit of shit in the mid eighties when its socialist policies exacted their price after a few decades of complacency. Wrenching changes had to be made to restore economic health. These were carried out without once tampering with its democratic liberties. New Zealanders had to be freely convinced that the pain of economic adjustment had to be borne. They were, and they have since enjoyed much recovery in the last 10 years. Human rights did not have to be sacrificed.

India is often cited as an example of an Asian country that chose democracy and human rights, thereby forgoing economic growth. This is a red herring of an example. The problem in India is that successive governments, starting with the first one who wrote the constitution, pursued socialist policies, and allowed the bureaucracy to grow like a hydra-headed monster. In any case, recent (democratically elected) governments have been moving towards economic reform, without any need to curtail human rights.

Even in the case of China, which was the main subject of George Yeo's speech, the case is not as clearcut as it appears. The last few years of rapid economic growth did not coincide with increasing authoritarianism. In fact, the late Deng Xiaoping, and now Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji, are simultaneously trying to make the Chinese government more accountable to the public. They are reforming the law and judicial systems, they are allowing greater press freedom (albeit ever so gingerly), and introducing open elections at local levels.

Other exceptions that prove the lie are conveniently ignored in this debate. What about all those exemplars of authoritarianism like China in the days of Mao, Philippines in the days of Marcos, or Vietnam, Burma and North Korea? Where was (or is) the magic economic growth when all political opposition -- you know, the kind that make it difficult for governments to give the right medicine to its people -- is put down?

So the general rule is that countries which pursue sensible economic policies get economic progress. Human rights are not part of the equation: they can be pursued in parallel.

 
Economic benefits do not substitute for liberties and dignity

The third argument, that economic benefits delivered by GDP growth, should be counted among human rights, is really a non-issue. Governments are supposed to cater to the general infrastructure. They are supposed to organise education for the young, and basic healthcare for the many, including such inputs to public health as clean water, sewage and inoculations. They are supposed to intervene in areas where market forces don't do a good job of providing for the masses, e.g. housing, electricity or cheap public transport.

That many East Asian countries are delivering on these expectations is to be commended. But progress on this front does not excuse lack of progress on civil and political rights. It's not a zero-sum game.

To argue that the concept of human rights should be broadened to included economic achievements, thereby allowing Asian countries to chalk up a better score, is to muddle the issue. The fact remains that some Asian governments like Singapore's are extremely reluctant to respect the dignity and views of their citizens.

 
Human rights is not just a Western agenda

The accusation that it's all part of a campaign by Western moral supremicists to impose their values on Asia does not stand up to scrutiny either. Time and again, Asian citizens have exploded in disgust and anger against their good ol' authoritarian governments. Human rights are something that the local citizens want. And they do not believe that they will automatically slide back to poverty when they get it. It's as simple as that.

 
Singapore's two unique ironies

Overall, the funny thing is, on every one of the defence arguments, Singapore actually stands rather exposed. Take the two main ones:

Asian Values -

Singapore is about the most westernised place in Asia. Even if our neighbours, on account of their traditional value systems, do not readily fit into a western mode of governance, this is not true of Singapore. Singapore is the least Asian place in this part of the world. What sort of excuse is Asian Values for us, if places like Taiwan or Korea don't use such reasoning to hold back their steady liberalisation?

 

Economic Imperative -

While there may arguably be some merit about economic imperatives for developing countries, here again Singapore doesn't quite fit the description. Singapore's GDP per capita is roughly in line with the middle ranks of the developed countries. It is higher than New Zealand, just to come back to an example I mentioned earlier. What sort of excuse is this economic imperative argument for not extending full human rights to Singapore citizens?

But don't Singaporeans enjoy full human rights today? No. 

And there is one simple way to show you that Singapore does not have them: the Singapore government argues strenuously with its critics why Asian countries (which conveniently includes Singapore) should not be expected to have them.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None