Oleh: Uthaya Sankar SB Selain menulis, membaca dan bercakap, satu lagi aktiviti yang amat saya gemari adalah menonton filem pelbagai bahasa. Saya tidak menganggapnya sebagai hobi atau aktiviti mengisi masa lapang. Sebaliknya sebagai aktiviti intelektual yang mencambah minda; sekiranya kita bijak memilih filem untuk ditonton.
Sejak sekian lama, saya tidak membazir masa menonton televisyen yang ketara menyajikan sampah dan propaganda semata-mata. Televisyen di rumah digunakan khusus untuk menonton filem dan siri televisyen bermutu dalam bentuk cakera padat video (VCD) dan cakera video digital (DVD).
[caption id="attachment_1298" align="alignleft" width="300"]
mengenai “binatang politik”.[/caption]
“It’s such a pity that ‘Political Animals’ (2012) starts and ends with Season One. There’s so much hope in the political and journalism theme it portrays.”
Demikian saya berfikir – saya memang berfikir dalam Bahasa Inggeris – semasa menonton keenam-enam episod dalam siri itu pada 23 Disember 2012. Pada 2 November lalu, USA Network mengumumkan “Political Animals” tidak akan diteruskan.
Sebelum ini, pada 13 Mei 2012, National Broadcasting Company (NBC) mengumumkan bahawa siri “The Firm” (2012) tidak akan disambung bagi musim kedua. Drama televisyen 22 episod itu menggambarkan kisah penuh mendebarkan dan mencabar minda berhubung apa yang berlaku kepada watak Mitch McDeere (lakonan Josh Lucas) dan keluarga peguam itu dalam tempoh sepuluh tahun selepas peristiwa dalam novel “The Firm” (1991) tulisan John Grisham dan filem “The Firm” (1993) lakonan Tom Cruise.
[caption id="attachment_1301" align="alignright" width="300"]
konspirasi politik dalam “The Event”.[/caption]
Tepat setahun sebelum itu – 13 Mei 2011 – NBC membatalkan siri televisyen fiksyen sains berunsur politik, “The Event” (2010) selepas 22 episod (satu musim). Kisah penuh mendebarkan dan mencabar minda itu pula menampilkan isu konspirasi politik semasa dan kisah makhluk asing yang dijadikan tahanan oleh kerajaan Amerika Syarikat (AS) sejak 66 tahun lalu. Ada dua watak yang amat menarik perhatian saya, selain watak Sean Walker
(lakonan Jason Ritter). Laura Innes memegang watak Sophia Maguire, ketua
kumpulan makhluk asing yang ada beberapa kuasa istimewa dan sudah hidup dalam kalangan manusia. Misinya adalah menyelamatkan orang-orangnya. Untuk itu, Sophia sanggup melakukan apa sahaja; termasuk membunuh Presiden AS. Fiksyen meniru realiti Presiden yang baru dipilih ialah Elias Martinez (lakonan Blair Underwood) dan politikus Afrika-Amerika itu mungkin segera mengingatkan kita kepada presiden ke-44, Barack Hussein Obama II. Walaupun Elias cuba menjadi pemimpin berjiwa rakyat, suasana politik kebinatangan – dan suatu rahsia keluarga – sentiasa menjadi penghalang.
Berbalik pada “Political Animals”, Sigourney Weaver yang baru-baru ini saya tonton dan suka akan penampilannya sebagai profesor psikologi bernama Margaret Matheson dalam filem “Red Lights” (2012), kali ini memegang watak Elaine Barrish, bekas Wanita Pertama AS – bukan Wanita Farsa Pulau Cinta atau ‘First Lady’ Malaysia – yang juga bekas Gabenor Illinois dan kini Setiausaha Negara AS.
Lakonan mantap Sigourney mengingatkan saya kepada kehebatan Meryl Streep yang saya kagumi sejak “mengenalinya” menerusi filem “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” (1981); hingga kepada “The Iron Lady” (2011).
[caption id="attachment_1302" align="alignleft" width="300"]
Deklarasi (pencabulan) Hak Asasi Manusia ASEAN 2012
Dr Mohd Faizal Musa
Felo Penyelidik Institut Alam dan Tamadun Melayu (ATMA)
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM)
43600, Bangi, Selangor
Adalah suatu hal yang tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa hak asasi manusia adalah satu fenomena yang baharu, dan dibincangkan secara meluas sejak 1945. Hal ini misalnya diakui oleh Fred Halliday (1999:135). Salah satu diskusi hangat mengenai hak asasi manusia, dalam hal ini Universal Declaration on Human Rights (selepas ini UDHR) 1948 ialah betapa ia bersifat ‘Euro-sentrik’ atau terlalu kebaratan, dan dengan itu gagal menimbangkan tradisi oriental dan agama sebagai teras ketika penggubalannya. Kenyataan di atas amat disedari oleh sarjana di Barat. Alfred Fernandez (2006) misalnya menjelaskan bagaimana negara-negara Islam dan Timur mempersoalkan kedudukan UDHR 1948 sebagai ‘satu agama baharu’ yang sukar untuk disambut oleh mereka:The countries of the South, in particular African and Asian, claim that they were not present in 1948 as they did not exist as such at the time. And number of countries of Islamic faith regard human rights as a kind of civil religion alternative to their beliefs, which they are not ready to accept (Alfred Fernandez, 2006: 18).
Petikan pandangan Alfred Fernandez tersebut adalah refleksi terhadap apa yang berlaku di Vienna, pada tahun 1993, iaitu ketika berlangsungnya UN Conference on Human Rights. Ketika persidangan hak asasi manusia anjuran United Nations tersebut berlangsung, negara-negara Asia dan Islam bergabung tenaga mengkritik United Nations dan negara-negara Barat, sebagai memaksakan secara keras model hak asasi manusia yang digubal mereka tanpa menimbangkan faktor-faktor lokal. Adalah penting untuk dinyatakan di sini, di Vienna itu juga, sebagai satu reaksi kepada UDHR 1948, negara-negara Islam telah menyerahkan Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (selepas ini Cairo Declaration). Deklarasi ini dikemukakan lebih awal ketika berlangsungnya 19th Conference of Islamic Foreign Ministers pada tahun 1990, di Kaherah. Menurut Cairo Declaration, hak asasi adalah bersumberkan Allah Yang Maha Esa dan tiap tafsiran hak haruslah tidak bertentangan dengan undang-undang Syariah:All Rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shariah (Article 24). The Islamic Shariah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any articles of the Declaration. (Article 25).
Apakah undang-undang syariah yang dimaksudkan oleh artikel 24 pada Cairo Declaration di atas? Selain artikel yang dikemukakan di atas, prinsip-prinsip Syariah turut ditekankan dalam artikel yang lain:Article 22(a): Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such a manner as would not be contrary to the principles of Shariah.
Sekali lagi soalan timbul, apakah undang-undang syariah yang dimaksudkan? Cairo Declaration turut melarang sebarang ‘cubaan’ memurtadkan seseorang Islam dalam artikel 10, namun ia juga gagal menjelaskan kedudukan ‘seseorang yang telah pun murtad’:It is prohibited to exercise any form of pressure on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to force him to change religion to another or to atheism.
Selain itu, kekaburan yang lain juga terjelma pada artikel yang lain. Hak-hak individu misalnya diberi jaminan dalam artikel 18, Cairo Declaration tetapi ia juga menimbulkan persoalan, misalnya, apakah negara (state) berhak menceroboh kehidupan rahsia seseorang yang secara tersembunyi adalah ateis atau lesbian di mana ia mengamalkan cara hidup yang tidak menurut Syariah tersebut antara empat tembok kediaman peribadinya:Article 18(b): Everyone shall have the right to privacy in the conduct his private affairs, in his home, among his family, and with regard to his property and his relationships.
Petikan-petikan dari Cairo Declaration di atas adalah satu bentuk ‘cultural relativism’ yang kelihatan dihujahkan untuk tidak menerima UDHR 1948 secara mutlak (Fred Halliday 1999: 153). Dalam konteks hak asasi manusia, ‘cultural relativism’ dilihat dengan kaca mata bahawa nilai-nilai kemanusiaan tidak universal seperti yang disangkakan, sebaliknya berbeza menurut perspektif budaya yang pelbagai. Permainan cultural relativism ini memang diketahui oleh aktivis hak asasi manusia, dan memang menjadi alasan yang paling berbahaya untuk perjuangan hak asasi manusia. Seperti yang ditegaskan oleh Diana Ayton-Shelker (1995);Cultural relativism is the assertion that human values, far from being universal, vary a great deal according to different cultural perspectives. Taken to its extreme, this relativism would pose a dangerous threat to the effectiveness of international law and the international system of human rights that has been painstakingly constructed over the decades. If cultural tradition alone governs State compliance with international standards, then widespread disregard, abuse and violation of human rights would be given legitimacy. Accordingly, the promotion and protection of human rights perceived as culturally relative would only be subject to State discretion, rather than international legal imperative. By rejecting or disregarding their legal obligation to promote and protect universal human rights, States advocating cultural relativism could raise their own cultural norms and particularities above international law and standards.
Kekaburan yang terzahir pada Cairo Declaration dapat dihujahkan sebagai sangat serius memandangkan tafsiran syariah yang ada pada mazhab-mazhab dalam Islam acap kali bertentangan. Ini adalah kerana persoalannya, meminjam Fred Halliday (1999: 147) bukan sahaja ‘perennial tradition’ tetapi juga ‘a set of discourses and interpretations that are created by contemporary forces and for contemporary needs’. Ambil sahaja rigidity yang ada pada mazhab Hanbali dan bandingkan dengan mazhab Syiah yang jauh lebih progresif dari mazhab-mazhab fikah dalam jurus Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah. Fatwa berkaitan sesuatu isu dalam mazhab tersebut boleh sahaja luput sebaik sahaja mujtahid yang mengeluarkannya meninggal dunia kerana menurut prinsip mazhab ini ialah la qaula l’l-mayyit (yang sudah meninggal dunia tidak dapat bersuara). Dalam mazhab Syiah juga, fatwa hanya terpakai dalam dunia Islam dan tidak berjalan di negara bukan Islam. Selain itu, mazhab Syiah seperti yang ditekankan oleh Imam Khomeni sebelum meninggal dunia, meletakkan maslahat lebih utama mengatasi fatwa atau ‘religious injunction’. Ini menunjukkan, sukar sekali Salman Rushide misalnya yang dianggap mencabul human dignity (dalam hal ini agama adalah maruah kemanusiaan) untuk djatuhkan hukuman mati sebagai seorang ‘murtad’. Dalam erti kata lain, Cairo Declaration sangat terdedah kepada interpretasi syariah yang pelbagai dan ia berbahaya Malaysia, adalah anggota Pertubuhan Negara-negara Islam (OIC) dan juga merupakan salah satu anggota ASEAN yang aktif. Dalam tahun 2012, negara-negara ASEAN memilih untuk mempunyai dan menandatangani satu deklarasi yang dinamai ASEAN Declaration of Human Rights (selepas ini ASEAN Declaration). Malaysia diwakili oleh ketua kerajaan yang memerintah, Perdana Menteri Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak . Tentu, sekali imbas, tidak ada yang menjolok mata atau sebarang kontradiksi antara ASEAN Declaration tersebut dengan UDHR 1948. Malah bahasa, dan rangkap yang digunakan adalah sama. Akan tetapi, pengamatan yang lebih dekat akan mendapati ASEAN Declaration ini bertujuan untuk ‘membentuk acuan sendiri’ dengan memberi penekanan kepada apa yang dinamakan sebagai cultural relativism dalam disiplin ilmu hak asasi manusia:All human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. All human rights and fundamental freedoms in this Declaration must be treated in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis. At the same time, the realization 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 (ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, 2012).
Perenggan dari ASEAN Declaration tersebut memaparkan betapa hak asasi manusia yang dipromosi ASEAN adalah sangat bergantung kepada ‘regional and national context’. Maka tidaklah menghairankan, di sebalik pujian terhadap ASEAN kerana ‘berjaya’ dan ‘mahu’ memiliki deklarasi sendiri berkaitan hak asasi manusia, United Nations mengkritik ASEAN Declaration tersebut sebagai mengandungi kekaburan dengan terma-terma seperti ‘legitimate restrictions’, ‘morality’, atau ‘public order’ dan ‘national security’ yang terbuka kepada pelbagai penafsiran menurut selera masing-masing. Malah Michel Forst, sebagai mewakili UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) menyatakan terma-terma tersebut boleh disalahguna oleh pemerintah untuk mengehad bahkan mencabul hak asasi manusia; “acutely aware of the risk of these terms being used as a pretext by Governments to place arbitrary, disproportionate and unnecessary restrictions on human rights.” (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2012). Bacaan akademik terhadap ASEAN Declaration ini juga mengesani terma ‘in accordance with national law’ yang membolehkan hak asasi manusia dihad, diketepikan, malah tergugur memandangkan ia boleh ditafsirkan dengan begitu terbuka. Selain penuh dengan kekaburan. Perkara kedua yang lebih menyedihkan ialah, penggubalan ASEAN Declaration ini tidak melibatkan secara serius kumpulan sivil yang merupakan komponen penting dalam hak asasi manusia:About five-dozen rights groups from across ASEAN have also signed statements criticizing the declaration. Critics have also slammed the process behind drafting the declaration. An ASEAN committee was formed to create initial drafts, but these were never released publicly, even during limited consultation sessions with civil society groups (Irwin Loy, 2012).
Kritikan di atas adalah relevan, memandangkan Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, sendiri menggesa supaya pimpinan ASEAN menyemak kembali draf ASEAN Declaration tersebut, memandangkan tiada penglibatan yang cukup dari kumpulan sivil; ‘reflected insufficient input from civil society and other stakeholders’ (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2012). Adakah agama Islam, seperti yang ingin ditonjolkan dalam Cairo Declaration dan negara Timur seperti yang terjelma dalam ASEAN Declaration ingin menunjukkan kejuaraan mereka berbanding Barat dalam melindungi hak-hak asasi manusia? Kurang seminggu setelah menandatangani ASEAN Declaration, pada 22 November 2012 Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor telah mengganggu hak kebebasan beragama dan kepercayaan minoriti Syiah dengan menyerbu dua buah pusat komuniti mereka di Ukay Perdana Heights dan di Sri Gombak iaitu Hauzah Ar Ridha Alaihissalam. Kedua-dua pusat komuniti itu adalah di Selangor. Operasi serbuan yang diketuai Sharom bin Maarof memberi amaran kepada hadirin bahawa ‘tidak ada lagi sebarang majlis Muharram diizinkan mulai sekarang’ (Temu bual, 2012). Dalam kes ini ‘in accordance with national law’ seperti yang terkandung dalam ASEAN Declaration telah mengehad hak asasi manusia secara serius, serta mencabulnya. Tanggungjawab mempertahankan hak asasi manusia tidak harus dipolitikkan. Kesimpulannya, seperti yang ditegaskan oleh Diana Ayton-Shelker (1995), tiada sebarang pertentangan antara hak asasi manusia dengan mana-mana agama, dan budaya. Melainkan kita bertegas ingin mengatakan bahawa agama anutan kita, atau budaya amalan kita memang tergolong dalam agama atau budaya yang menolak hak asasi manusia. Tentu sahaja Islam, adalah agama yang suci dan mendokong hak-hak asasi manusia. Juga, tentu sahaja budaya Malaysia (biar ia Melayu, Cina, India dan suku-suku Sabah dan Sarawak) adalah budaya yang menghormati hak-hak asasi manusia. Diana Ayton-Shelker malah yakin dialog berguna antara pelbagai agama, budaya dengan hak asasi manusia dapat dimulai dan dijalankan, bermula dengan ‘traditional cultures’ yang memberi dan mempertahankan hak-hak asasi manusia:…greater understanding of the ways in which traditional cultures protect the well being of their people would illuminate the common foundation of human dignity on which human rights promotion and protection stand (Diana Ayton-Shelker, 1995).
Dalam erti kata lain, pada setiap agama dan budaya, terdapat nilai-nilai kemanusiaan dan perlindungan untuk semua manusia tanpa terpilih. Ini bermakna, kita harus memperakukan nilai-nilai kemanusiaan dan perlindungan dalam Islam turut merangkumi individu yang berbeza mazhab dan agama. Ia juga membawa pengertian nilai-nilai kemanusiaan dan perlindungan dalam budaya Timur tidak memilih kasta, kelas atau jantina. Adalah menjadi satu kekhuatiran, Cairo Declaration atau ASEAN Declaration disuguh sebagai satu deklarasi balas di peringkat serantau atau satu-satu blok negara hanya untuk menafikan legitimasi UDHR 1948 bagi membolehkan penyelewengan kuasa dan politik regim tertentu dilindungi dan diteruskan. Hal ini telah pun diamati oleh sarjana Reza Afshari (1994: 249), yang menulis makalah akademik berjudul ‘An Essay on Islamic Cultural Relativism in the Discourse of Human Rights’. Menurut Afshari, isu-isu tradisi lokal termasuk keagamaan bukanlah hal utama yang perlu diperbesarkan, persoalannya di negara-negara Islam yang membantah UDHR 1948 itu, dan kemudian mencadangkan Cairo Declaration ini pun, hak-hak asasi warganya terus dicabuli oleh regim negara terbabit, yang tanpa segan silu menodai hak-hak asasi manusia secara terang-terangan. RUJUKAN Afshari, R. 1994. An Essay on Islamic Cultural Relativism in the Discourse of Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly 16 (4). Hlm. 235-276. ASEAN. 2012. ASEAN Human Rights Declaration. Association of Southeast Asian Nations Web Page. http://www.asean.org/news/asean-statement-communiques/item/asean-human-rights-declaration?category_id=26. Ayton-Shelker, D. 1995. The Challenge of Human Rights and Cultural Diversity. UN Doc. DPI/1627/HR. http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1627e.htm. Fernandez, A. 2006. From an Idea to a Culture of Human Rights. Dlm. Fernandez, A & Gowlland, G. (Ed.). Towards a Culture of Human Rights. College Universitaire Henry Dunant Universite D’ete des Droits de L’Homme et du Droit a l’Education. Geneva. Halliday, F. 1999. Islam and the Myth of Confrontation. I. B Tauris. New York. Heads of State/Government of the Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. 2012. Phnom Penh Statement on the Adoption of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration. 19 November 2012. Association of Southeast Asian Nations Web Page. http://www.asean.org/news/asean-statement-communiques/item/phnom-penh-statement-on-the-adoption-of-the-asean-human-rights-declaration-ahrd?category_id=26 Loy, I. 2012. ASEAN Approves Controversial Human Rights Declaration. November 18. Voice of America. http://www.voanews.com/content/asean-summit-opens-in-phnom-penh/1548305.html Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2012. UN Experts Raise Concerns Over ‘Landmark’ Southeast Asian Human Rights Declaration. 16 November. UN News Centre. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=43520&Cr=human+rights&Cr1=#.UKzrVGctmZS Temu bual. 2012. Serbuan Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor 22 November 2012 Terhadap Komuniti Syiah. The Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. 1990. The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam: Adopted and Issued at the Nineteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers in Cairo. 5 Ogos. http://www.religlaw.org/interdocs/docs/cairohrislam1990.htm ]]>Mahu jadi "deposit tetap"?
The ASEAN Human Rights Declaration: Five Talking Points
th marks International Human Rights Day, some three weeks after the ASEAN Declaration of Human Rights was launched. Despite the fact that the declaration is not legally binding for their member-state signatories, it is still nonetheless lauded as a necessary first step forward for a region that has for long been known as a club of dictators. However, many too have pointed out the ambiguities and noticeable escape clauses in some of the key parts of the declaration. They reveal longstanding points of contention, if not outright obstacles, that citizens of the region will face in demanding a more just and equitable state of affairs. There is much at stake here: as the region becomes more and more integrated, so too will we see more economic deregulation and compromises in environmental safety, migrant welfare and labour security, among other things. The declaration then, for Malaysians and other Southeast Asians alike, stands ambivalently as both a point of departure and critique to inform future action. It is timely then to revisit the document to review some of the latent issues and questions therein. The contentious articles or principles they are related to are italicized, while their questionable parts are highlighted in bold: 1. Universal and local tensions Article 7: “All human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. All human rights and fundamental freedoms in this Declaration must be treated in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis. At the same time, 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.” Observers are concerned because saying that rights should be “considered” in national, religious and cultural contexts can easily mean that they should also be restricted on the very basis of those contexts. Malaysians are all too familiar with this move, as citizens of an authoritarian government that has justified the curbing of rights on the basis of Asian or Islamic values for the past three decades. Must human rights be foreign or hegemonic? No. Considering differences does not mean eradicating them: it just means that the process of mainstreaming human rights must engage with local actors, from the ground below who are most aware of the contexts, policy makers, history, languages and particular issues affecting a given country. These are the groups of people and organizations who are most informed of who the human rights victims are and why, the legislation that needs reforms, the rights-friendly interpretation of religion that is most context sensitive and so forth. Underlying the issue is not a struggle between Western / foreign values against Islam or Asia but the open or closed, complex or straightforward, consultative or dictatorial nature of ensuring how rights can be more integrated into laws. 2. Balancing individual and community needs Article 8: “The human rights and fundamental freedoms of every person shall be exercised with due regard to the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others. 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 freedoms 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.” There are two problems with this clause, which is the first out of two occasions where the word “limitation” is used. The first problem is that general “public concerns” is privileged as a potential pretext to override individual freedoms. Secondly, it conflates too many issues at once. Surely, “public morality” is not to be weighed beside the individual in the same way as “national security” or “public safety” might. Furthermore, to include “public order” as a reason to curb individual freedoms harks back all too easily to authoritarian justifications for disregarding basic civil liberties, the examples of which Southeast Asia are not lacking. Narcissism is never good. One cannot feel free to burn garbage or torture animals on one’s land, even if it is private property. Wanton freedom is not what rights are about. Indeed, it is precisely because morality is not private that we are compelled to care for others. But the solution to individual errors is not the summoning of state power. The goal is to find a common good, whereby innocent individuals and minorities are protected from harm. Rights should never be recourse for the already strong state to solidify its punitive tendencies. 3. Why so many mention of national laws? The ASEAN Declaration of Human Rights mentions national laws a total of 4 times. It is mentioned only once in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Vienna Declaration, which is a far longer document mentions national laws a mere three times. When national laws are not mentioned explicitly they are nonetheless implied. Often they are added to qualify rights. Consider the example of the second statement of article 19 that discusses the right to dissolve a marriage: “Men and women of full age have the right to marry on the basis of their free and full consent, to found a family and to dissolve a marriage, as prescribed by law.” Consider the article that deals with marriage in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is more forthright in its commitment to equality: “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.” The Universal Declaration makes equal rights to divorce unconditional, whereas the ASEAN declaration makes it subject to what law prescribes. For all intents and purposes this can only mean national law, and this brings Malaysian Muslim women back to square one, where she stands at a disadvantage against a male-centric Shariah institution. Qualifying that certain rights are subject to national laws also has a particularly damning effect for workers, especially migrant workers. To see this we will have to look at articles 27 (1) and (2): “(1) Every person has the right to work, to the free choice of employment, to enjoy just, decent and favourable conditions of work and to have access to assistance schemes for the unemployed.” “(2) Every person has the right to form trade unions and join the trade union of his or her choice for the protection of his or her interests, in accordance with national laws and regulations.” Having just and favourable conditions of work depends on workers having a voice. That is more likely to happen when workers organize, and that organizing is most fruitful when it takes the form of unions. But what the clause, taken together, basically says is that ultimately workers can only unionize insofar as national laws permit. In other words, the only have as many rights that are allowed by the state they work in. Put in context, this article means nothing to the millions of migrant workers in Malaysia who -already with little political significance – are forbidden by law to unionize, many of whom are also from other Southeast Asian countries. Nowhere is the anti-union sentiment underlying the document clearer than in the absence of any mention in the declaration about the freedom of association. This is not the only instance where the declaration privileges the interest of member-state regimes ahead of inalienable rights. The clause following the above two says: “ASEAN Member States should also set age limits below which the paid employment of child labour should be prohibited and punished by law.” 4. Vague or cohesive? As one reads further it becomes clear that there is a great deal of vagueness in how this Declaration is to be really upheld. Article 40 expresses this conundrum: “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to perform any act aimed at undermining the purposes and principles of ASEAN, or at the destruction of any of the rights and fundamental freedoms set forth in this Declaration and international human rights instruments to which ASEAN Member States are parties.” The question is raised as to who ultimately is to be accountable for human rights violations in the region. The key principle of ASEAN, after all, is non-interference and yet the document itself is supposed to be universal, binding all human beings to a shared moral code. Thus the question must be asked: what if upholding certain rights will clash with an ASEAN principle? More interestingly not all ASEAN member states are party of the same treaties and conventions (for example, Malaysia, unlike Thailand and Indonesia, has not ratified ICERD). Thus the above clause can be read to all at once criticize certain controversial policies on the basis that they violate human rights, or justify silence or indifference on the basis of non-interference. 5. The marginal remain invisible Article 2 reads as follows: “Every person is entitled to the rights and freedoms set forth herein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, gender, age, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, disability or other status.” Two key omissions are noticeable from the onset: that of the LGBTQ community and the indigenous. While they can qualify as being of “other status”, the aforementioned four points easily shows that they may not be completely protected. Moving forward? Civil society organizations were not consulted in the process of forming this declaration: neither the draft of the document nor terms of reference were distributed for stakeholder insights and inputs beforehand. All things considered it is reasonable to conclude that much can remain the same, and rhetorical, until the above issues and discrepancies are dealt with. Ahmad Fuad Rahmat is managing editor for www.projekdialog.com and research fellow for the Islamic Renaissance Front.
]]>