McGilvery Ecumenical Lectures

HUMAN RIGHTS:
DIFFERENT CONTEXTS,
DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS?

KWOK Nai Wang

MAIN ARGUMENTS

In the beginning of time, all human beings were equal. They shared the same rights and responsibilities. They all had the natural world, within it particularly the animal world, to combat. There was no privileged class among people.

But as time went on, human greed and selfishness surfaced. For those who were physically stronger, they dominated the scene. They claimed leadership among the weak and the young. Consequently, the more greedy and powerful the leaders, the more rights and privileges they enjoyed. Within a short period of time, the powerful leaders had formed an authoritarian clique. Those in authority enjoyed endless power and privileges. Immediately, this became a snowball effect, those who had the power and privileges amassed even more power and privileges while those who had less power would soon become even more powerless and poorer. This effect soon became systematized. Feudalistic or closed societies came into being and dominated the entire world for ages, even up to this day. Of course during the long centuries, there were a few changes: land and wealth, and lately knowledge and connections have taken over mere physical might. Today, the people who have the knowledge and connections still hold onto the economic, the political and perhaps the military power to get what they want.

Thanks to the scientific, urban and secular revolutions in the 20^th Century, and perhaps also due to the massive destructions caused by a few totalitarian fanatic leaders such as Aldorf Hitler, a general awakening on the value and dignity of human beings emerged. The landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 has helped to set the context for correcting the trend of the long centuries that human rights (or inherent rights of the people) had lost their way to the rights of the powerful.

This is no easy task. The powerful hold nearly all the trump cards. They are not about to give up their immense power and privileges in order to give way to human rights. On the contrary, they would use every means to safeguard their power and privileges. Moreover, most people in general are so used to this highly unjust system that they have long given up the will to fight. So those of us who are concerned must seize every opportunity to speak up against the powerful and to conscientize the masses. We do this not only to prevent further dehumanization, but more importantly enable more people gain back their dignity and rights which include especially the right to participate in and contribute to the overall societal development. The ignoring of human rights will only cause social instability which we have seen so much in the last century.

For many centuries, the world was under autocratic rule. In China, for instance, in each of the great dynasties, the rule by emperors and their officials was absolute. There was a Chinese saying: "If the emperor wants you to die and you refuse, you are considered disloyal." People in China were looked upon as ants. They had few or no rights. Since the world in general, and Asia in particular, was under this kind of absolute rule, we could only talk about the rights of the rulers. Human rights as a whole was unheard of.

However, as a result of the great scientific, urban and secularized revolutions in the 20^th century, people gradually were awakened to the fact that they too played an important part in shaping the world’s destiny, which was also their own. People as a whole came to see themselves as the masters and mistresses of this world, not the rulers alone. As a matter of fact, more and more people came to believe that the rulers exist to serve them and not vice versa.

The tragic deaths of six million Jews before and during the Second World War made clear the fact that the world no longer was able to tolerate any more absolute rulers. The founding of the United Nations in 1947 was more than a forum where nations gathered together to talk about peace. The United Nations was specifically given the task of preventing atrocities from happening again, such as the one caused by the Nazi madness.

Furthermore, the founding of the United Nations signified that this world, by and large, has come to treasure the dignity of mankind. Every human being shares this dignity which cannot and should not be taken away by another human being.

This idea was included in the United Nations Charter. Subsequently, the General Assembly of the United Nations at its meeting on December 10, 1948, adopted a resolution which is known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Essentially, this document states succinctly the philosophy (Article 1) and the principle of equality and non-discrimination (Article 2) and enumerates basic civil and political rights (Articles 3-21) and basic economic, social and cultural rights (Articles 22-27) for every human being as well as to reaffirm the entitlement of everyone to a social and international order conducive to the realization of rights for all (Articles 28-30).

It has been more than 50 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was embraced by most members of the international community. Sadly, the basic human rights outlined in this landmark document have not been realized in most countries. Why is this so?

In Asia, for example, with very few exceptions, governments have either come to power through "the barrel of the gun" or through closed rather than open and fair elections. Naturally, without a convincing mandate from the people, their credibility is very low.

In order to hold onto power - sometimes for their own benefits - they have to curtail people’s dissenting views and voices. This explains why these autocratic leaders are hostile to human rights as a whole. They believe that the more rights their people enjoy, the more dangerously fragile their own positions.

Of course, today no rulers dare say that they are against human rights. What they insist on instead is that human rights should come slowly, in a step by step manner. However, by refusing to give their people a definite timetable, these rulers show that they are less than committed to respecting human rights.

Some Asian leaders often argue that human rights is a Western concept. Since Asia has it own traditions and customs which are very different from those in the West, they claim that human rights ought to be contextualized. This was the thrust of the Asian Human Rights Conference held in Bangkok in 1993. The conference hosted by Thailand was an attempt by Asian leaders to prepare for the U.N. World Conference on Human Rights that was held in Vienna later the same year. China, one of the major proponents of this view at the Bangkok conference, for instance, argued eloquently that the most important rights for the Chinese people are survival rights. Therefore, the top priority for the Chinese government at the time was to feed its 1.25 billion people. Of course, what they did not expound on was how human rights and survival rights are contradictory and that people cannot have both at the same time. It is ridiculous to argue, for example, that women should be subservient to men because this is what Asia has been practicing for centuries. It is because this thinking not only degrades women, but men as well. For before we are men or women, we are all human beings. As such, we are all equal.

Many Asian leaders believe that developed nations or the West use human rights as a pretext to interfere in their domestic affairs. To state it differently, the West is trying to impose on Asia its values for its own benefit.

Certainly, there is a grain of truth in the thinking of these Asian leaders. They know only too well that human rights can be highly political. When China bid for the right to host the 2000 Olympic Games in 1993, at the persistent request of many Western countries, China set free its ranking dissident, Wei Jianseng. When China wanted to hold summits with then U.S. President Bill Clinton in 1997 and 1998 to enhance its international image, China finally agreed to sign both international covenants on human rights, viz., the ICCPR and ICESCR (it has since ratified the ICESCR).

When the West, led by the United States, criticized certain countries in Asia for their poor human rights record, leaders in Asia retorted by suggesting that the West is hypocritical. They are right to point out that the United States does not often treat its minorities fairly. The United States is no different than China, for example, for it still practices capital punishment. (Since 1976, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment is constitutional, there have been 720 executions in the United States). That explains why, despite the United States claims to be a champion of human rights, it was voted off the Human Rights Commission three months ago.

All we can say here is that governments, as a rule, are not honourable. Without exception, all they care about are their own political economic interests. They can say whatever they like, but they are not standing on high moral ground when they criticize the human rights conditions of their neighbours. Throughout the 1990s, the U. S. State Department has issued an annual human rights report. With no exceptions, it has been highly critical of China’s performance on human rights. Year after year, it has threatened to revoke China’s most favoured nation status, but at the end of the day, because of U.S. trade interests in China, the threat has never materialized!

Ultimately, however, it is not up to governments or those in power to define what is the meaning of human rights or which rights their people can enjoy and which they cannot. What is common to all human beings, irrespective of their race, colour, religious beliefs and so on, is that they are all HUMAN. Since they share this common humanness, they are also entitled to the inherent dignity as well as all inalienable rights which belong to the human family.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has already stated clearly what are the basic and inalienable rights. In 1966, what was contained in the declaration was further elaborated upon and put in the form of two covenants - the ICCPR and the ICESCR. During the course of the past 35 years, many nations in Asia have become the signatories of these two covenants.

What the ICESCR stipulates are positive rights. Governments often have to allocate additional resources to enforce these rights. Take education rights as an illustration. In order to give every child nine years of compulsory and free education and four additional years of subsidized education, the Hong Kong government has to spend more than US$1 billion per year.

On the other hand, the ICCPR spells out negative rights. To enforce these negative rights, there are rarely huge fiscal implications for governments. Free speech and assembly, right to vote and be elected, the right to liberty and security of the person, etc., belong to this category.

Though in two different categories, the rights specified in these two U.N. documents go hand in hand. People’s economic and social rights will not be respected unless their civil and political rights are present. In Hong Kong, for example, the most serious social problem is poverty and the ever-widening gap between the rich and poor. Basically this problem is caused by Hong Kong’s political structure. Its government is controlled by a few elites. People do not have the right to choose those who will represent them in the government. Hence, their economic rights are often neglected or denied.

Both categories of rights, therefore, are essential and of equal importance. They must be imminently present so that every person has equal opportunities to realize his or her potential, free from being oppressed. In other words, these rights are there to ensure that every person can live and grow, not only without any forceful or negative inhibitions, but also with positive assistance and reinforcement.

Unfortunately, many Asian leaders, because of their ulterior motive of wanting to control their people, still maintain that economic rights should come before civil and political rights. Deng Xiaoping, China’s supreme leader from 1979 to 1995, for example, insisted that China should concentrate on economic growth while preventing the whole country from realizing democratic and political reforms. As a result, after two decades of rapid economic growth, only a few people have become rich in China, - in fact, very rich - while the masses have remained poor. Moreover, those who live in the rural West have not been able to share the fruits of this growth and have continued to be driven into hopelessness.

It is the responsibility of every government to enhance the welfare of not just a few rich and powerful people but all the people it governs. The most positive way to fulfill this responsibility is to ensure that every person enjoys equal and full human rights.

Whether one government has a right to criticize another government over human rights issues remains an important question. The answer is simple. Human rights are universal. They belong to all human beings. People from all the world should enjoy them to the fullest extent. Human rights have no national boundaries. We now live in a global village; we share a common destiny. Whatever happens in one nation affects many others. In recent years, the world has witnessed how the AIDS epidemic, regional armed conflicts as well as ethnic genocide in a nation or region have soon become the business of its neighbouring nations and, indeed, the entire world.

When the two international covenants on civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights came into being, they specifically required all signatory nations to submit periodic reports to the 18 member - U.N. Human Rights Committee. The intention was clear. The human rights conditions of a nation should be internationally scrutinized and monitored. The major task of the U.N. Human Rights Committee is to examine these reports and ensure that human rights provisions in the covenants are fully implemented.

There are no grounds whatsoever that human rights could and should be contextualized. Government leaders who are the major proponents of this idea merely want to make excuses to withhold some of their people’s basic rights, such as the right of free speech and the right to criticize their government. These rights are deemed too dangerous to their rule. They have seen how people exercised these rights and toppled their governments one by one in Eastern Europe in 1989.

Autocratic government leaders often are allied with the business community (and sometimes with the military) in suppressing human rights. Invariably, they think human rights are not good for their business.

There is some truth in this also. The rich and the powerful consider rights to be like a pie. They always want a bigger piece (despite the fact they have fewer members in any society). If the poor and the powerless want a slightly bigger slice, the rich and the powerful will have less to enjoy. Thus, the rich and the powerful must do everything possible to prevent the poor and the powerless from getting their "fairer" share of the pie. From the perspective of the rich and the powerful, human rights are contradictory to their power and privileges.

Generally speaking, the relatively few rich and powerful people anywhere in the world are enjoying far too many privileges. They have already amassed far too big a share of their nation’s (or the world’s) wealth. Alongside economic power, they have accumulated a great deal of political power. This brings forth a snowball effect: the more power they have, the more wealth and special privileges they have (conversely, much less for the masses.) This explains why the gap between the rich and the poor in the world in general, and in Asia in particular, is widening. My personal observation is that this gap will soon reach a boiling point. We must therefore make every effort to retard or reverse this trend.

Those in power often maintain that human rights are not conducive to social stability. Actually, the reverse is true. The suppression of human rights is often a major cause of instability.

In recent years, whenever international bodies who control the destinies of the world’s poor, such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Trade Organization (WTO) have met, they have often encountered large-scale demonstrations. However, most of the demonstrators have been frustrated. They have been kept very far away so that participants, especially government leaders, have not been able to hear the grievances they wanted to express on behalf of the poor. In no way have these concerned people been able to have the government leaders address seriously the problems of the poor.

It has been unfortunate that government leaders and, indeed, the general public have blamed the demonstrators for causing social chaos. Yes, there were a few cases that turned sour, but who was actually responsible – the demonstrators or the excessive deployment of the police which prevented the demonstrators from getting their message across? In the case of the recent meeting of European leaders in Gottenberg, Sweden, in June, the riots were attributed to the hundreds of hooligans from especially continental Europe. It would therefore be wise to find out why the number of hooligans is on the rise, not only in Europe, but also throughout the world. It is generally true that the greater the suppression, the greater the resistance.

In recent years, due to a growing sense of insecurity, many governments in Asia have increased their efforts to suppress the basic rights of their people. Oftentimes, the measures that government authorities have employed have been so subtle that they have escaped the notice of the majority of people. Indeed, superficially, not too many people seem to be affected by these measures.

For example, those in authority often use the legal system or legal powers to suppress people’s rights. In Hong Kong, we have a situation that, whenever Beijing sneezes, Hong Kong catches a cold. Because Beijing has outlawed Falun Gong since the middle of 1999, the Hong Kong government is now extremely sensitive to Falun Gong followers and their activities in Hong Kong. When Jiang Zemin came for his third visit to Hong Kong in May 2001, the Hong Kong government banned more than 100 Falun Gong followers from all over the world from entering Hong Kong to participate in a planned demonstration against Jiang (the list was reportedly supplied by the Chinese government). When several Hong Kong legislators and senior barristers challenged the government over this ban, the government explained that it had acted according to the law. The immigration law gives the Immigration Department discretionary power to refuse anyone from entering Hong Kong without requiring it to disclose the reason behind its decision. However, the intent of the law is to safeguard Hong Kong so that undesirable elements, such as known criminals, could not enter Hong Kong. Falun Gong followers can hardly be considered criminals! By taking this action, the government authorities in Hong Kong have greatly undermined the rule of law. Generally speaking, laws are meant to protect people, especially the ordinary people, so that their basic rights cannot be taken away easily. The Hong Kong government is now contemplating enacting an anti-cult law. It is obvious that the Hong Kong government wants to follow the line of Beijing and outlaw Falun Gong. This is another illustration that shows that those in authority use the law as a tool to get whatever they want instead of using the law to protect their people.

However, those in authority sometimes bypass the law to get what they want. On June 14, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa used the question-and-answer time in the Legislative Council to attack Falun Gong, calling it "definitely an evil cult". This was an extremely serious accusation; but up to this day, Tung has not been able to substantiate his charge. This, indeed, is frightening. Presently, Falun Gong followers have shown that they are law-abiding citizens. They have not broken any Hong Kong law. Does it mean that Tung is above the law? Previously, only in nations ruled by totalitarian governments do we see that rule by individuals is superior to the rule of law.

Furthermore, those in authority often use law enforcement bodies to achieve their objectives. When Jiang Zemin, China’s president, came for the World Economic Forum sponsored by Fortune Magazine in May 2001, the Hong Kong government deployed 3,000 police officers to protect him. Actually, it is more true to say that the major duty of these officers was to keep the protesters so far away that Jiang would not be able to see them (reportedly, top Chinese leaders as a rule hate to encounter any protests). While in Hong Kong, Jiang stayed in a hotel owned by Hong Kong’s richest tycoon, Li Ka-shing. The police made it a point to cordon off the area around the hotel half-an-hour before Jiang left the hotel and half-an-hour before he was due to arrive back at the hotel. This caused a nuisance for many people, especially those who had to rush to work in the morning. Several schools either decided to dismiss their students early and/or cancelled their half-day classes during the two days Jiang was in Hong Kong. The excessive deployment of police officers certainly hinders people from expressing their views to those in authority and greatly disturbs people who only want to get on with their daily life.

When unchecked, those who have the power are most likely to abuse it. As I write this paper, there are reports about two incidents which shocked the world two years ago. The Malaysian ex-police chief who beat Anwar Ibrahim (Malaysia’s former deputy prime minister who was at odds with the prime minister) was freed after only 40 days of imprisonment. In the second incident, a police officer from a small town in New South Wales who brutally beat an Aboriginal man escaped criminal prosecution. Instead, he was granted early retirement!

Those in power often use law enforcement bodies to fulfill their wishes. Along the way, unfortunately, law enforcement officers also are adversely affected and tend to abuse their power as well. As a result, the human rights of many ordinary people are violated.

At times, the abuse of power by those in authority may seem to be less serious than it looks. About 18 months ago, the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong ruled that children born in mainland China who have a Hong Kong resident as their parent have right of abode in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong government did not like this ruling because, according to China, the court in Hong Kong does not have the power to interpret the Basic Law, the mini-Constitution of Hong Kong. Immediately, the Hong Kong government launched a publicity campaign by saying that, if Hong Kong follows the court’s ruling, Hong Kong will have to absorb 1.68 million mainlanders within the next few decades and that the government will have to spend HK$701 billion (or US$87.6 billion) to take care of them. Because Hong Kong’s citizens are relatively selfish (despite the fact that about half of them fled China after 1949), they were alarmed. Making full use of people’s sentiments, the Hong Kong government therefore asked the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC) in Beijing to overturn the ruling by Hong Kong’s highest court. Is it a case of "rule by deception"?

The Hong Kong government is proud to inform visitors that after the handover everything is fine in Hong Kong. There is a Bill of Rights to protect all citizens’ basic rights. What the government fails to mention, however, is that this Bill of Rights is narrow in scope. It does not include any of the citizens’ economic, social and cultural rights as provided by the ICESCR. Even in the area of civil and political rights, key rights are conveniently left out. These include, for instance, the right of self-determination and the right to elect the government. Moreover, this Bill of Rights is neither given supremacy status nor is it entrenched in the Hong Kong legal system.

The most important flaw is that, even after the repeated recommendations of the Human Rights Committee, the Hong Kong government thus far has refused to establish a Human Rights Commission. Without such a commission, the Bill of Rights in Hong Kong remains a paper tiger. It cannot truly protect and promote human rights in the territory.

Those in authority are not afraid to abuse their power to limit or even suppress human rights – people’s basic rights – in order to maintain their power and control. I have illustrated this in detail by using numerous incidents in Hong Kong, which is generally considered to be a city with a relatively good human rights record. If all of this can happen in Hong Kong, so much more so can it happen in other Asian nations.

Human rights are people’s rights. Many people are deprived of their rights. This is due to the fact that the few people who have the knowledge, skills and convictions monopolize all of the managerial positions. Naturally, the decisions they make, whether intentionally or not, are beneficial to themselves rather than the people who work for them. People must rise up to fight for the full realization of human rights, the rights which belong to them.

We cannot expect the rich and powerful to give up their power, privileges and wealth and return the rights to the people. Other than selfishness (that they do not want to give up what they are now enjoying), the rich and powerful may not know what really is occurring at the grassroots level. Robert Kennedy, attorney general in John Kennedy’s administration, once said that he did not have any sleepless nights over the civil rights of the black people in the deep South (Mississippi, Georgia and Alabama) until his visit after the Selma march in early 1963. Having spent all his life in the Boston area, he was ignorant of the deteriorating situation in the South.

Sometimes, even if some of those in authority want to open up, it may not be easy, for invariably, all those in power have confined themselves into a closed society. Though sometimes in fierce competition, they need each other to hold onto power so that this power will not be easily snatched by the people from outside this small circle.

There is no doubt that those who are concerned about human rights must keep on pressing for change. Their struggle is not only for their own sake but for the sake of millions who are deprived of their basic rights, especially the right to live a dignified life.

To move forward achieving this goal, we must first of all be vigilant. Many accidents happen as a result of our carelessness but especially while we are not alert. In Hong Kong, almost every night there are car accidents involving fatalities. There are two major reasons. One is that some drivers fall asleep. The other is speeding. There is much less traffic during the early hours and drivers’ span of alertness is low. Likewise, people in positions of authority make important decisions that often adversely affect the livelihood of the masses while people are not watching. We must thus watch closely every move of our government and business leaders. We must try to gain a thorough understanding of the power structure in our society and how decisions are made.

Secondly, we must seize every opportunity to speak up. People’s silence is generally viewed by those in power as consent.

Furthermore, the people who are in powerful positions are always good at manipulating public opinion. They are extremely tactful in curbing dissent so that there will be a dominant voice or opinion. They can do this fairly easily because oftentimes they are in full control of the mass media. In Hong Kong, for example, all of the television stations are owned by big businesses. Increasingly, big businesses have also bought the most widely circulated daily newspapers. The government has also stepped up its control of Radio and Television Hong Kong (RTHK), one of the most credible broadcasting agencies in Hong Kong. The former director, who fought fiercely to maintain RTHK’s independence, was removed two years ago as were some of the presenters and programmes that had been critical of the control as well as local government leaders.

Thus, we must counter the dominant voice with alternative voices. Particularly, we must fight to preserve a free press. One effective way is to use the letters-to-the-editor column and constantly write to express our opinions with reason rather than with emotion. The other is to actively participate in any of the phone-in radio programmes. There are signs in Hong Kong, that because of the insistence of a handful of well-informed social critics to speak up, the government appears to be dumbfounded. Increasingly, senior government officials have made irrational arguments. Alternative voices should continue to expose the flaws of all policy decisions made by those in authority.

It is often said that the powerful write history and the victors interpret any war. Similarly, stories are often told by those in power and authority. Hong Kong was a refugee centre in the 1950s. After 40 years of struggle, Hong Kong has now become one of the world’s major financial centres. The official story is that an efficient administration, the rule of law and dynamic entrepreneurism have brought about Hong Kong’s success. There is no mention though of the hard work and resilience of its ordinary people.

In 1951, an 18-year-old refugee worked in a biscuit factory, for example. She worked nine hours a day, six days a week. Her monthly salary was less than US$10. In 1966, a refugee family of six living in a 120-square-foot room in the oldest resettlement area worked day and night putting bags of plastic flowers together. The money they earned was barely enough to keep the whole family alive. These were not exceptional cases. Hong Kong was built on the blood and sweat of millions of people who received little in return while hundreds, or perhaps thousands, got wealthy and powerful. We should reject the story that Hong Kong owes economic success only to the capitalists who invest generously to create millions of jobs.

However, it is a fact that the majority of people want to maintain the status quo, though it might not be advantageous to all in society, themselves included. The only way to loosen this extremely tight social atmosphere is by constantly speaking up.

We must seize every opportunity to get to the root of issues by seeking changes in the political structure, by making it even more participatory and responsible. This requires a great deal of courage, resolve and personal sacrifice. It is because there will be many powerful people who do not want to see a realignment of political and economic power as well as any adjustment of wealth and privileges.

Thirdly, we must engage in human rights education. The most effective way to remove all threats to human rights in the long term is to enable people to stand up to fight for what rightfully belongs to them. Human rights are not given by the powerful. They are inherent. It is unfortunate that during the course of history the powerful obscured these rights so that they could get much more than their share.

Human rights education is best carried out by conscientization, making the poor and the powerless fully aware of their dignity and rights. Generally speaking, people do not care because they do not know. The poor and the powerless are indifferent because they think there is nothing they can do which can make a difference. Actually, most of the time those in authority try everything possible to ensure that the poor and the powerless will not rise up to make demands. Consequently, the poor and the powerless are driven to hopelessness.

Human rights education, most of all, has to deal with this defeatist attitude as well as the victim image of the poor and the powerless. In order to do this, we must constantly be with the people, showing that we genuinely care about them. The task of empowering the people often looks difficult or even impossible; but when there is a will, there is a way. Persistence always yields better results than we expect. There are many success stories which can help to sustain our mood; they can also assist us in trying to convince the poor and the powerless not to give up. One of these stories concerns Nelson Mandella, a freedom fighter whose solitary imprisonment for almost 27 years helped to end apartheid in South Africa and who was elected to the presidency in 1993.

Human rights might seem to be a modern term. It merely attempts to articulate a simple truism that all human beings are equal. Every human being, whatever colour, gender, race and family background, has his or her intrinsic value. Nobody can take it away from them. In other words, human rights concretely expresses the humanness that all people share. Without human rights, the dignity of a human being is not possible. Human rights exist when human beings come into being. Unfortunately over the centuries, some people have become more daring and have snatched land – the original source of wealth – monopolized knowledge and skills and acquired military might. As a result, their wealth, privileges and power skyrocketed while the majority of the people were forced to become poorer and more powerless. The rise of aristocrats in Europe suffices for this illustration.

Another phenomenon was that when many people were fed up with their living conditions a saviour or saviours might come along and promise to deliver the people from boredom. The rise of Hitler was a good example in modern history. Invariably, these saviours, instead of saving people, actually brought misery to millions. The magnitude of misery which Hitler and his Nazi Party brought was beyond comprehension.

The second half of the 20^th century was dominated by the forces of secularization. One good thing which surfaced was the fact that people were made conscious of the worth of the self. This made possible the recovery of human rights.

The advent of the 21^st century has brought with it the forces of globalization. Globalization advocates free trade. It means forcing open the doors of developing nations which, in turn, means the onslaught of the economic, political and cultural might of the developed nations, or to be exact, the powerful transnational corporations (TNC). Consequently, the rich and powerful from the developed nations receive the largest chunk of profits while leaders from the developing nations a smaller chunk. Globalization offers no protection and, hence brings little or no benefits to the masses of the poor from developing nations. Globalization, therefore, is a strong reactionary force on human rights. All concerned people should stand up against it.

Asia needs a faster pace of development. However, it must be genuine. Asia should not only concentrate on developing its economy and building up a more solid infrastructure, but also it needs to work hard on its fundamentals, viz., the rule of law and democratically elected government institutions which can truly represent the people and respond to people’s needs. Ultimately, however, the most important element of Asian development lies with its people. Asian governments must begin to trust their people, to let them have ample opportunities to contribute to the complex process of development. Without genuine participation from the people, Asian development remains hollow and meaningless.

Asian leaders and intellectuals are afraid of social instability. Social instability though will not be a result of people’s participation. On the contrary, social stability will only come about when all people are treated fairly and justly. There is an old saying: peace and harmony do not come as a result of an absence of war but instead from the actual presence of justice. There is an urgent need today to heed these words of the past.