Dear editor,

I am a regular reader of TOC. I felt compelled to write the following response after reading the justification given by the Nobel Committee which was posted on the website a few days ago. [See here: “Why we gave Liu Xiaobo a Nobel”]

I support the Chinese government’s stance. I think they have every right to protest. Such a decision (to award Liu) is inherently political since it is made by a very exclusive group of politicians that presumably share very similar outlooks on what “fundamental human rights” should be.

How can such notions of human rights be considered universal if they are only championed by the West? Fundamentally, I do not see a difference between the Pentagon’s condemnation of the Wikileaks releases and China’s censorship of “sensitive” materials such as Charter 08. It shows that there is always a limit to the freedom of information when an issue is deemed subversive to certain national interests. Since it is reasonable to expect that what constitutes national interests is different for every country, then there is no basis for such “universal” standards to be applied.

I am not against human rights. I am against the imposition of the standards of a small minority to the world, possibly with political agendas.

If we take an extreme and perverse example, suppose China decided to give an award to Osama Bin Laden for his promotion of democracy in the world by giving a voice to the impoverished masses who have suffered under decades of American intervention in the Middle East. Would this be acceptable?

No one in the right frame of mind would even consider that, much less seriously make such a suggestion. Which is exactly the point that the West needs to stop placing itself on a pedestal and consider the diversity of values in the world (especially in the area of political rights) if we want to seriously talk about any form of universality.

I know it is not much, but I would really appreciate it if you would take the time to consider the article for publishing.

Thank you.
Regards,
James Min Zhang

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Two die jumping from building to escape Myanmar junta forces

Two people died and three were injured after jumping from the fourth…

被五巴士司机起诉 新捷运聘本地知名大状文达星辩护

五名巴士司机分别状告本地巴士业者新捷运(SBS Transit),指责后者违反加班工酬条款,支付不足工酬。新捷运则已委任本地司法界大状文达星(Davinder Singh)为他们辩护。 代表巴士司机的Carson律师楼,今日也在脸书证实新捷运委任文达星,针对五位巴士司机控诉作辩护。目前,新捷运有14天时间提呈辩词。 文达星目前还代表我国总理李显龙,个别针对时评人梁实轩和本社总编许渊臣进行诽谤诉讼。 上月23日,新捷运企业沟通副主席Tammy Tan向本社证实,上述五名巴士司机经由Carson律师楼提呈的诉状,并正与律师商讨,有意针对相关指控进行辩护。 这些司机已在该公司任职三至10年不等。在上月20日提呈的诉状中,也提及其中四名司机,曾向推事庭提呈类似的诉讼。尽管在今年7月和八日,出席了两次与国家交通工友联合会(NTWU)和康福德高的会谈,不过他们认为控诉和报告未受到重视。 原告也申诉到劳资政纠纷调解联盟(TADM),也被转介给职工总会(NTUC)。不过基于没有得到“结论性的答复”,他们向新捷运发函,要求解释每月薪资明细。 “尽管当时新捷运同意这些司机在两日后回函,不过此后没有再收到任何回复,于是他们再向新捷运连发四封追问邮件。” 诉状中提及的控诉,包括原告指责他们被预期在休假日之前,可以“连续7日工作无休”,这不符合双方同意的聘任书,故此可能违反《雇佣法》36条,即员工理应每周获得休息日,或者值班超过30小时理应获休假。 原告也指控被要求“每周工作超过44小时”,也违反《雇佣法》规定的法定工时。

No teeth, but a sharp tongue

Whether the human rights body we establish will have teeth, I don’t…

Singapore listed as 8th most ignorant country in research by Ipsos MORI

The latest research by Ipsos MORI, the second largest market research organisation…