Post-Confucian Development beyond the Asian Values Debate

Keyword(s):  
2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Byung Sook de Vries ◽  
Anna Meijknecht

AbstractSoutheast Asia is one of the most culturally diverse regions in the world. Nevertheless, unlike minorities and indigenous peoples in Western states, minorities and indigenous peoples in Asia have never received much attention from politicians or legal scholars. The level of minority protection varies from state to state, but can, in general, be called insufficient. At the regional level, for instance, within the context of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), there are no mechanisms devoted specifically to the protection of minorities and indigenous peoples. In December 2008, the ASEAN Charter entered into force. In July 2009 the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights were adopted. Both the Charter and the ToR refer to human rights and to cultural diversity, but omit to refer explicitly to minorities or indigenous peoples. In this article, the extent to which this reticence with regard to the protection of minorities and indigenous peoples is dictated by the concept of Asian values and ASEAN values is explored. Further, it is analysed how, instead, ASEAN seeks to accommodate the enormous cultural diversity of this region of the world within its system. Finally, the tenability of ASEAN's policy towards minorities and indigenous peoples in the light of, on the one hand, the requirements of international legal instruments concerning the protection of minorities and indigenous peoples and, on the other hand, the policies of the national states that are members of ASEAN is determined.


1998 ◽  
Vol 77 (6) ◽  
pp. 135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucian W. Pye ◽  
Christopher Patten
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 467-483
Author(s):  
Daniel P.S. Goh

Abstract In recent years, Singapore made significant reforms towards the establishment of a dedicated family justice system, setting up the Family Justice Courts and enacting new laws to better manage the divorce process and the protection of children. Related policy changes have also been implemented to provide and support families that were previously considered non-traditional and even deviant. Rhetorically, the state, led by the long-ruling People’s Action Party, continues to champion the modern nuclear family with heterosexual marriage at its core as the normal “traditional” form of the family and the bedrock of conservative “Asian values” defining society and politics in Singapore. However, what the judiciary espouse as the new family justice paradigm and the related family justice practices, together with the shifts in social policy towards different family types, are changing the texture of the dominant conservatism rallied by “Asian values” discourse. This article locates and analyses the incipient paradigm shift in the rising pluralism of family forms and the influence of international legal developments in protecting the rights of the child and interventionist family law. By attempting to bridge the Weberian chasm of doing sociology as a vocation and doing politics as a vocation (as an opposition Member of Parliament), I show that the family justice paradigm has opened up the discursive field on the family and produce the politics of ambivalence caught between family justice and Asian family values. I argue for a relational family justice paradigm as a way to move beyond the politics of ambivalence.


1998 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 337-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. J. Stockwell

It is a commonplace that European rule contributed both to the consolidation of the nation-states of Southeast Asia and to the aggravation of disputes within them. Since their independence, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam have all faced the upheavals of secessionism or irredentism or communalism. Governments have responded to threats of fragmentation by appeals to national ideologies like Sukarno's pancasila (five principles) or Ne Win's ‘Burmese way to socialism’. In attempting to realise unity in diversity, they have paraded a common experience of the struggle for independence from colonial rule as well as a shared commitment to post-colonial modernisation. They have also ruthlessly repressed internal opposition or blamed their problems upon the foreign forces of neocolonialism, world communism, western materialism, and other threats to Asian values. Yet, because its effects were uneven and inconsistent while the reactions to it were varied and frequently equivocal, the part played by colonialism in shaping the affiliations and identities of Southeast Asian peoples was by no means clear-cut.


2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wm. Theodore de Bary
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document