Critically examine the notion of “Asian Values” in the context of the on-going debates on human rights. (2018, 20 Marks)
“Asian values” was the most politically consequential form of cultural relativism in the 1990s. Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore and Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia advanced it, and it was formalised in the Bangkok Declaration (1993) before the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights. At Vienna, Singapore’s foreign minister Wong Kan Seng cautioned that universalism becomes harmful when it is used to hide the real diversity of societies.
The thesis
- Community over individual. Asian societies are said to value order, discipline, harmony, family, consensus and respect for authority above individual civil and political claims.
- Development first. Political liberties are presented as a luxury that follows growth, and authoritarian rule is credited with East Asia’s success: what Amartya Sen (Development as Freedom, 1999) calls the “Lee thesis”.
- Anti-imperialism. The UDHR is presented as a product of Western liberal individualism imposed through aid conditionality. In a 1994 Foreign Affairs conversation with Fareed Zakaria, Lee contrasted Asian order with an America where the individual may “behave or misbehave as he pleases”.
- The Bangkok formula. Rights are accepted as universal but must be read against “national and regional particularities”, with non-interference and the right to development given priority.
The case for it
The argument has real insights. Rights language has been used selectively by powerful states. Institutions must fit the societies they govern. Joseph Chan argues that rights declarations are general enough to allow a distinctively Confucian interpretation without rejecting them. Communitarians such as Daniel A. Bell add that the sense of duty and obligation found in Asian traditions can enrich, not undermine, a culture of rights.
The critique
- No single “Asia”. Sen (Human Rights and Asian Values, 1997) shows that a continent holding over half of humanity contains every position. Ashoka’s edicts on tolerance and Akbar’s freedom of religion are as Asian as any authoritarian text, and Confucius advised telling a ruler the truth even if it offends. Treating Asia as one bloc reproduces the Eurocentric gaze it claims to resist.
- No authoritarian growth premium. Sen finds no statistical support for the Lee thesis. His famine argument is that no substantial famine has occurred in a democracy with a free press. The 1997 Asian financial crisis, rooted in cronyism and opacity, damaged the claim.
- Who speaks for culture? Governments, not citizens, advanced the thesis. Kim Dae-jung’s reply to Lee, “Is Culture Destiny?” (1994), found democratic resources in Asian thought, and South Korea and Taiwan democratised without losing their identity.
- Cultures change. Western societies themselves became secular and extended equal rights to women and minorities only over time, so a value should be judged by what it does for human flourishing, not by its origin.
- Consent. The states concerned adopted the Vienna Declaration (1993), which holds all rights to be “universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated”. Jack Donnelly’s “relative universality” places cultural variation in interpretation, not in exemption.
The on-going debate
The argument now comes from China rather than Singapore. Beijing treats subsistence and development as the primary rights, rejects “naming and shaming”, and promotes a Global Civilization Initiative (2023) stressing diversity, winning Global South votes at the Human Rights Council. Particularity now presses from inside Europe too: the Council of Europe’s Chişinău Declaration (15 May 2026) asks Strasbourg for more deference to states on migration. India stands between the camps: a democracy defending universal rights but rejecting intrusive scrutiny.
Conclusion
“Asian values” rightly warns against civilisational arrogance and selective enforcement, but as a justification for authoritarianism it fails on its evidence, its history and its spokesmen. The defensible position is Vienna’s: universal rights, applied with sensitivity to context, and never used as a cover for power.