Contradiction, competition and complementarity: freedom of religion in Malaysia as an example of changing human rights discourse

Abstract

This paper reflects upon the criticism of Malaysian human rights activists brought forward by Nazish Ansari, a practising lawyer and graduate of Georgetown University Law School. Nazish's critique is based on David Kennedy's, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, provocative question as to whether the human rights movement is not part of the problem rather than its solution. Nazish argues that due to a wrong focus on personal and political rights rather than on economic redistribution, the Malaysian human rights movement is unable to implement meaningful change in society. This paper brings to mind that human rights are indivisible. Thus, the claim of a wrong prioritisation is not valid for the normative and general idea of human. The criticism of such a focus is only valid in relation to the practices of human rights campaigners.