Human rights in comparative perspective: a universal and relativist claim on

the capital punishment in Singapore

Tanja Lok-Yi Fleischer

In recent decades, the universality of human rights has been a polemical debate,
which has occupied the minds of human rights scholars, policymakers and
political science theorists. At present, human rights are undoubtedly not a
universal concept with the death penalty, oppression and the exercise of torture
in some parts of the world. More often than not, states have misused the human
rights dialogue as an integral part of their political agenda, which raised strong
counterarguments against the idea of its universality. This paper will commence
by evaluating the tension between Universalist and Relativist perspectives on
human rights, by drawing on factors such as culture and sovereignty as opposed
to the notion of universal human rights. The case study of Singapores capital
punishment for drug abuse will suggest practical implications of the debate with
citizenship coming into conflict with individual rights. It will conclude by
arguing for a universal standard of human rights by drawing on the Capabilities
Approach as a normative guidepost that is applicable to cultural diversity whilst
preserving the human dignity.

First and foremost, it is essential to define the concept of universal human
rights. Rooted in Western ideology and natural law, the universality argument
proposes that human rights are self-evident, inalienable and applicable to all
human beings due to their mere existence (Donnelly 2003:10). Scholars, such as
John Locke suggest that human rights exist independently from the political and

thus are detached from cultural variables or political agendas (Langlois 2009:11).
The contemporary consensus lies in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
1949 in that it calls for internationally recognized human rights (Donnellly
2003:21).

However, some regard culture as the deepest and most determinative aspect of
human life (Zakaria 1994). For instance, the relativist argument claims that this
norm of universal human rights has its roots in the Western culture and thus is
incompatible for non-Western cultures (Langlois 2001:73). The literature on
human rights habitually points to Asian cultural values at the opposite end of the
spectrum. The Asian value system believes that citizenship takes precedence
over individual rights, whereas Western philosophy privileges the individual
and its freedoms (Tharoor 1999:1). A universal standard would thus be regarded
as the Western attempt to override their cultural traditions. Consequently,
cultural relativism advocates that cultural groups ought to be liberal in designing
their lives in accordance with their traditional value systems (Donnelly 2003). For
the Asian culture, the Confucian virtue of obedience and respect for authority
values the community and thus, explains the economic success of countries, such
as Singapore (Freeman 2008:362). Being a member of the Four Asian Tigers, the
island state is presently wealthier per capita than Germany and the United States
(Ammam & Brunner 2014). Particularly in countries with ethnic divisions, which
undoubtedly is the case for the demographics of Singapore, universal human
rights have the ability to subvert social order and thus hinder development
(Freeman 2008:359). For instance, Singapores former Prime Minister Lee Kuan
Yew asserted that should Singapore adopt a democracy with Western values, the
nation-state would go down the drain and have more drugs, more crime, more
single mothers and a poor economy (Bell 1997:2)

Another argument, which stands in direct conflict with universal human rights,
is the notion of Western imperialism. Therefore, claims, which argue in favour of
universal human rights are often said to follow an imperialist project, as they
embody a weapon of cultural hegemony (OBryne 2003:42). That is, this notion
of common human rights often comes with a hidden agenda, as it masks the
interests of the West (Tharoor 1999:3). For example, human rights theorists
investigated that the West ignored individual rights during the Cold War by
cooperating with states infamous for their human rights violations (Adar
1998:34). Sceptics of this hypocrisy therefore regard the US as a disguiser of US
interests (Amin 2004:78). In addition, within the dialogue of torture in the post-
9/11 era, international spectators witnessed torturous dehumanization methods
of detainees (codified in the Torture memos), which embody a legalized
violation against human rights (Luban 2005:1425). Likewise, Kuwaitis did not
experience any human rights proposals by the US despite their long-term
presence in the Arab country (Amin 2004:76). Having that said, it is safe to
assume that these Western double standards render critics persistent in their
view, while simultaneously weakening the Western capacity to push the
universality claim forward (Donnelly 2003:100).

Nonetheless, there are critiques of these positions, as cultural relativism is
suggested to follow a political agenda of its own. The Nobel price economist
Amartya Sen broaches the issue of power dynamics within the human rights
discussion in that Asian regimes employ the cultural variable as a political tool to
justify their authoritarian nature (Sen 1999:249). Some scholars even propose that
these Asian-style democracies are regimes that have failed the transition to a
liberal democracy (Hood 1998:854). Sen maintains that these so-called Asian

values are the language used by the elites and that in fact, the Asian intellectual
tradition addresses a variety of different thoughts that are left ignored in the
political sphere (Sen 1999:248). Certainly, due to the rich history of
Confucianism, the evidence for any given context is endless (Kausikan 1997). The
criticism of cultural relativism is further compounded by gendered concerns,
which evaluate the relativist view as a male-dominated opinion (Phillips 2001).

Furthermore, the anti-imperialistic rhetoric is often adopted to counter the norm
of the Responsibility to protect, which rejects national sovereignty as a right.
R2P argues that states and the international community are held accountable to
prevent populations from being vulnerable to crimes against humanity (Badescu
2010:110). While empirical evidence suggests that the motivation behind
humanitarian interventions is often one that nurtures the self-interest of states,
the use anti-imperialistic language is equally maintained to oppress certain
communities (Coyne & Ryan 2009). For instance, the current President of
Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, uses the anti-imperialist argument as a rhetoric
shield in order to continue his authoritarian rule that believes in oppression and
brutality against certain groups within its community (Phimister & Raftopoulos
2004). Thabo Mbeki, the former President of South Africa was equally also
known for his anti-imperialistic view, but received criticism for his engagement
in fraud and corruption in the arms industry (Berger et al. 2009).

Singapore with its draconian drug laws feeds into the debate as an example and
intensify the need for universal human rights in that capital punishment in the
city-state of Singapore is preserved until the present day. An Amnesty
International Report on executions revealed statistics, which suggests that the
most executions worldwide take place in Asia (Amnesty International 2013).

National security laws entail long-term imprisonment, caning and the death
sentence for drug trafficking, depending into which category the drugs fall, as
codified in The Misuse of Drugs Act of Singapore. For instance, a mandatory
death sentence is in force for the possession of 30 grams of cannabis (The Misuse
of Drugs Act 1973 Act. 5). Capital punishment in the island-nation originated
during the period in which Singapore was a British colony, but celebrated its
independence before the United Kingdom eradicated the death sentence.
The objective behind the strict drug laws in Singapore is undeniably the safety of
its citizens, as well as the maintenance of the states civilizational integrity
(Langlois 2011:22). By inducing fear into the minds of the community and by
eradicating any obstacles that have the potential of endangering the lives of
Singaporeans, the death sentence follows a utilitarian concept in that it believes:
it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right
and wrong (Bentham 1907). Nonetheless, the death sentence equally serves as a
tool to stress the power dynamics within the hierarchies of the Singaporean
government, making Singaporean citizens one of the most obedient society
worldwide (Chor & Campante 2010)

These so-called Asian values, which are an integral part of Singapores
philosophy (Langlois 2011:22) are explicitly codified and accentuated in the
Bangkok Declaration 1993 - a World Conference, which broached the issue of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A central theme of the Conference was
the very debate on a universal human rights standard with one side stressing the
importance of objectivity and universality, whereas the other brought the need of
sovereignty and cultural rights to the fore. These Confucian core cultural values
celebrate selflessness, filial piety, chastity and industry (Roy 1994:232). Yet, the
commitment to the public good often infringes upon individual rights with the

Asian value system standing in conflict with the Western ideology of individual
freedom. This Asian reasoning of I am because we are and because we are
therefore I am feeds into the Hobbesian philosophy, according to which humans
are motivated to sign a social contract for a better and secure life in exchange for
personal liberties (Armitage 2007). Subsequently, as far as the Asian values
model is concerned, giving up certain individual liberties is a natural
phenomenon.

Yet, should the right to life and the preservation of human dignity in the case of
the death sentence differ from one country to another?
According to Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union, capital punishment is prohibited in all instances. Likewise, the Council of
Europe forbids the practice of the death penalty by its members. Despite several
international efforts by the United Nations General Assembly and other
protocols pushing towards a global moratorium on execution, capital
punishment is not yet prohibited under the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (International Bar Association 2008:3). Similar to other countries
such as Malaysia and Singapore, Singapores national laws of The Penal Code
and the Misuse of Drugs Act lists sanctions for drug-related activities, including
lifelong imprisonment, caning and capital punishment.

In fact, Singapores Representative to the United Nations advocated that:

"the death penalty is primarily a criminal justice issue, and therefore is a question
for the sovereign jurisdiction of each country [] the right to life is not the only
right, and [] it is the duty of societies and governments to decide how to balance
competing rights against each other." (Amnesty International 2004)

However, this radical form of cultural relativism (Donnelly 1984:402) is as

impractical as radical universalism (ibid) in that it leads to power abuses or
culture dismissal. In any case, the reason behind the need for a universal
standard other than the previously mentioned arguments is the simple fact that
the world is becoming increasingly connected with international organizations
progressively globalizing the world. Due to the fact that human rights address
each member of the human existence, its global appeal is granted. As a result,
Shashi Thahoor, the Communications Director of the United Nations suggests
that universality does not imply uniformity (Thahoor 1999:6). Rather, he argues
that the universal character of human rights will sustain under the condition that
cultural, religious and philosophical differences are not dismissed, but rather
incorporated into an approach that develops a sense of immunity against
diversity (ibid). Thahoor calls this phenomenon the indigenization of human
rights (ibid). At the same time, it is crucial to be led by a normative framework
that finds a solution to the existing human injustices of the world rather than
simply focussing on the origin of different value systems (Ramcharan 2008:16).

Amaryta Sens Capabilities Approach offers such standards. This theoretical
framework is defined by the normative claim that social arrangements ought to
be evaluated in accordance of the individuals freedom to achieve well-being
(Sen 1987) and thus, makes a cross-cultural judgement on the human existence
and its rights. In the Equality of What? (Sen 1980), the Nobel prize economist
stressed the importance of assessing peoples capabilities that is, the effectively
possible or the real opportunities that are open to individuals in order to pursue
the quality of life and to maintain the human dignity (Nussbaum 2000).
Whereas the beings and doings, which Sen calls functionings are an important
aspect in the Capabilities Approach, capabilities are the crucial elements (Sen

2004). Due to the fact that Capability theorists are aware of internal and external
conversion factors, they acknowledge that human diversity exists and base their
entire approach on the assumption that individuals have different means to
convert a certain amount of resources into valuable functionings (Sen and
Nussbaum 1993).
As a result of its normative nature, the Capabilities Approach provides a concept
to evaluate pressing issues surrounding social inequality, rather than merely
explaining the root of the cause. Despite the fact that critics have claimed the
Capabilities Approach to be too individualistic, Martha Nussbaums list of
central capabilities (Nussbaum 2011:33) provides a non-paternalistic guideline
that enables policymakers and human rights advocates putting theory into
practice. In addition, Sen defends his approach by claiming that cultural and
political elements are fragments of an individuals conception of a good life, as
it is influential in a persons life (Sen 2004). The more crucial part for Sen is the
choice that human beings should be granted with (ibid). Should cultural and
political elements turn out to be incompatible with what is regarded as a
valuable life, then states ought to respond by making attitudinal adjustments.

In conclusion, this research paper assumes that a universal standard needs to be
implemented under the condition that elements of the relativist perspective,
particularly cultural compatibility, needs to be taken into consideration. In
return, this would prevent any imperialist attempts from the West.
The case study of Singapores capital punishment exemplifies the need for a
universal standard that protects the human dignity, particularly in cases where
the death sentence is mandatory for drug abuse. To ask whether the death
sentence should be abolished or preserved is a rather rhetorical question. Yet,
particularly in terms of drug abuse, capital punishment seems to be an

exaggerated violation of human rights and dignity. The Capabilities Approach

offers a truly essentialist and universal standard, as a result of its multifaceted
and open-ended nature and is thus applicable to tackle the social injustices of
different cultures. At the same time, it provides a guidepost for international
institutions to put forward universal human rights.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adar, K (1998), The Wilsonian Conception of Democracy and Human Rights: A
Retrospective and Prospective, African Studies Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 33-44
Amin, S (2004), The Liberal Virus: Permanent War and the Americanization of the
World, New York: Monthly Review Press
Ammam, D. & Brunner, S. (2014) Inside Singapores Success in The Financialist
by Credit Suisse. Retrieved on 4th April 2014. Available at:
http://www.thefinancialist.com/inside-singapores-success-qa-with-finance-
minister-shanmugaratnam/
Amnesty International (2004) Singapore: The death penalty A hidden toll of
executions. London: Amnesty International Publishing
Amnesty International (2014) Death Sentences and Executions 2013. London:
Amnesty International Publishing
Armitage, D. (2007) Hobbes and the foundations of modern international
thought in Rethinking the Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.Badescu (2010)
Bell, D. (1997) A Communitarian Critique of Authoritarianism: The Case of Singapore.
Political Theory 25:1.
Berger, Mark T. & Weber, H. (2009) War, Peace and Progress: Conflict,
Development (in) Security and Violence in the 21st Century in Third World
Quarterly, 30(1)
Bentham, J. (1907) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Chor, H. & Campante, F. R. (2010) Obedience, Schooling and Political Participation.
Singapore:Research Collection School of Economics

Coyne, C. & Ryan, M (2009), With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?
Aiding the Worlds Worst Dictators, The Independent Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.
26-44

10

Donnelly, J (1984), Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights, Human

Rights Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 400-419
Donnelly, J (2003), Universal Human Rights in Theory & Practise, New York:
Cornell University Press
Freeman, M (2008) Human Rights in Burnell, P. & Randall, V., ed. (2008), Politics
in the Developing World, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch. 18

Hood, S. J. (1998) The Myth of Asian-Style Democracy in Asian Survey, Vol.38,
No.9, University of California Press

International Bar Association (2008) The Death Penalty under International Law.
London: International Bar Association.

Kausikan (1997) Governance That Works in Journal of Democracy Vol 8.2,
pp.24-34

Langlois, A. (2001) The Politics of Justice and Human Rights Southeast Asia and
Universalist Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ch.1

Langlois, A. (2009) Normative and Theoretical Foundations of Human Rights in
Goodhart,M. ed. (2009), Human Rights: Politics and Practise, Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Ch. 1

Luban, D. (2005) Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb. Georgetown University Law
Faculty Publications, 91 Va.L.Rev. 1425-1461

Nussbaum, M. (2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nussbaum, M. (2011) Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach.
Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press

OByrne, D (2003), Human Rights: An Introduction, Harlow: Pearson Education

Phillips, A (2001), Multiculturalism, Universalism and the Claims of Democracy,
Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development

11

Phimister, I. & Raftopoulos, B (2004), Mugabe, Mbeki & the Politics of Anti-
imperialism in Review of African Political Economy, Vol. 31, No. 101, pp. 385-400

Ramcharan, B (2008), Contemporary Human Rights Ideas, Abingdon: Taylor &
Francis

Roy, D. (1994) Singapore, China and the Soft-Authoritarian Challenge in Asian
Survey, Vol XXXIV, No.3
Sen, A. (1980) Equality of What? in McMurrin (ed.) in Tanner Lectures on Human
Values, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sen, A. (1987) The Standard of Living, in The Tanner Lectures on Human Values.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Sen, A (1999), Development as Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Sen, A. (2004) Capabilities, Lists and Public Reasons: Continuing the
Conversation in Feminist Economics, Vol. 10: pp.7780, New York: Routledge
Sen, A. & Nussbaum, M. (1993) The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clerendon Press
Tharoor, Shashi. 1999/2000. Are Human Rights Universal? In World Policy
Journal, 16:4
The Misuse of Drugs Act (1973) Act 5. Singapore: Attorney-Generals Chambers
of the Singapore Government. Retrieved on 2nd May 2014. Available at:
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=0;query=DocId%3A
c13adadb-7d1b-45f8-a3bb-
92175f83f4f5%20Depth%3A0%20Status%3Ainforce;rec=0
Zakaria, F. (1994) A Conversation with Lee Kuan Yew. Foreign Affairs, Issue
March/April. The Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved on 2nd May 2014.
Available at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/49691/fareed-zakaria/a-
conversation-with-lee-kuan-yew

12