‘Human Rights…But for the Majority’: The Appropriation and Subversion of the Human Rights Agenda by Right-Wing NGOs in Malaysia

Nicholas Chan
{"title":"‘Human Rights…But for the Majority’: The Appropriation and Subversion of the Human Rights Agenda by Right-Wing NGOs in Malaysia","authors":"Nicholas Chan","doi":"10.1017/trn.2023.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Scholarly treatments of the human rights agenda tend to posit civil society organisations (CSOs) as its defender and the state and mainstream political actors as its violators. Even when raising the problem of an ‘uncivil society’, the literature labels these CSOs as reactive and hostile to the human rights agenda they perceive as ‘Western’ and ‘foreign’. I argue that these treatments of the issue overlook another phenomenon: the emergence of CSOs that adopted the language of human rights and participated in its formal processes yet subtly redefined, subverted, and undermined the core commitments of the human rights agenda. This paper discusses such developments by referencing right-wing non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Malaysia that redefined the parameters of the human rights agenda to undercut state commitments to protect religious freedom, sexuality rights, and gender minorities. Through actor and discourse tracing, this paper illustrates how right-wing Islamist NGOs employed a novel two-pronged strategy that no longer openly repudiated the human rights agenda but continued to erode, eviscerate, and reformulate its contents and principles. The first prong involved institutional measures of ‘getting in’ to gain legitimacy by participating as a stakeholder within local and international human rights processes. The second prong encompassed social strategies of ‘pushing out’, whereby actors and their networks mobilised populist pressure to expose, ostracise, and subvert established human rights norms, institutions, and actors.","PeriodicalId":23341,"journal":{"name":"TRaNS: Trans -Regional and -National Studies of Southeast Asia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TRaNS: Trans -Regional and -National Studies of Southeast Asia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/trn.2023.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Scholarly treatments of the human rights agenda tend to posit civil society organisations (CSOs) as its defender and the state and mainstream political actors as its violators. Even when raising the problem of an ‘uncivil society’, the literature labels these CSOs as reactive and hostile to the human rights agenda they perceive as ‘Western’ and ‘foreign’. I argue that these treatments of the issue overlook another phenomenon: the emergence of CSOs that adopted the language of human rights and participated in its formal processes yet subtly redefined, subverted, and undermined the core commitments of the human rights agenda. This paper discusses such developments by referencing right-wing non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Malaysia that redefined the parameters of the human rights agenda to undercut state commitments to protect religious freedom, sexuality rights, and gender minorities. Through actor and discourse tracing, this paper illustrates how right-wing Islamist NGOs employed a novel two-pronged strategy that no longer openly repudiated the human rights agenda but continued to erode, eviscerate, and reformulate its contents and principles. The first prong involved institutional measures of ‘getting in’ to gain legitimacy by participating as a stakeholder within local and international human rights processes. The second prong encompassed social strategies of ‘pushing out’, whereby actors and their networks mobilised populist pressure to expose, ostracise, and subvert established human rights norms, institutions, and actors.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“人权…但属于多数人”:马来西亚右翼非政府组织对人权议程的挪用与颠覆
对人权议程的学术研究倾向于将公民社会组织(cso)视为人权议程的捍卫者,而将国家和主流政治行为者视为人权议程的违法者。即使在提出“不文明社会”的问题时,文献也给这些民间社会组织贴上了消极和敌视人权议程的标签,他们认为人权议程是“西方的”和“外国的”。我认为,这些问题的处理忽视了另一种现象:民间社会组织的出现,它们采用人权的语言并参与其正式程序,但却巧妙地重新定义、颠覆和破坏了人权议程的核心承诺。本文通过引用马来西亚的右翼非政府组织(ngo)来讨论这些发展,这些组织重新定义了人权议程的参数,以削弱国家对保护宗教自由、性权利和性别少数群体的承诺。通过行动者和话语追踪,本文说明了右翼伊斯兰非政府组织如何采用一种新的双管齐下的策略,不再公开否定人权议程,而是继续侵蚀、剔除和重新制定其内容和原则。第一个方面涉及通过作为利益相关者参与地方和国际人权进程来获得合法性的制度措施。第二个方面包括“排挤”的社会策略,即行动者及其网络动员民粹主义压力,揭露、排斥和颠覆已建立的人权规范、机构和行动者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: TRaNS approaches the study of Southeast Asia by looking at the region as a place that is defined by its diverse and rapidly-changing social context, and as a place that challenges scholars to move beyond conventional ideas of borders and boundedness. TRaNS invites studies of broadly defined trans-national, trans-regional and comparative perspectives. Case studies spanning more than two countries of Southeast Asia and its neighbouring countries/regions are particularly welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Transgenderism, Othering and Third Way Buddhist Monasticism in Chiang Mai, Thailand Transgenderism, Othering and Third Way Buddhist Monasticism in Chiang Mai, Thailand Waria, Worship, and Welfare: Exploring Trans Women's Conditions of Precarity Amidst COVID-19 in Yogyakarta, Indonesia From Bad Student to Transnational Activist: Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal and Transnational Activism in Northeast and Southeast Asia International Perception and Local Pride in Smart City Development: The Case of Hong Kong
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1