THERE is renewed interest in contemporary discussions with regards to setting higher ethical standards for leaders especially those occupying positions of responsibility in public, private and even civil society organisations.

The main reason for this is the failure of leaders to live up to the expectations of the people they lead and serve.

Leadership training gurus and resource materials including books and articles they produce is giving more emphasis to ethical behaviour of leaders. Much more is expected and the general public is more aware of their expectations.

The general public has high expectations of their leaders especially on those who are entrusted with positions of power in decision making. These leaders are entrusted with political power by the people as in the case of politicians or to make decisions of an economic nature as in the case of business bosses by the investors. People are therefore expecting responsible and ethical behaviour in the light of public trust.

Human rights framework

The discourse of human rights provides a fresh outlook and framework to the theme of ethical leadership. Using the benchmark of human rights the character and performance of leaders can be measured.

The human rights framework is based on universal principles and statues. It is applicable as a minimum global standard to govern human behaviour and action especially officials of the state. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its articles provide comprehensive, foundational principles.

Of these, two articles of the declaration are central. Article 1 states: "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". Article 2 states: "everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status"

Therefore because all people are human they share the same dignity and rights. Based on this foundational universal principle, leaders must conduct their affairs in a fair and just manner in the political arena, the market place, the community and home.

Leaders must consistently check their thoughts, speech and conduct to access if they are enhancing the rights of all people and are consistent with the noble intensions of the Human Rights Declaration. The specific conventions of the UN further provide a deeper benchmark for thought and practice.

The rights framework does not just subscribe to civil and political rights but also the economic, social and cultural rights of all people on the land. It is therefore wholistic, comprehensive and universal.

Complexities in applying the framework

Very often leaders whether in politics or business face many ethical dilemmas in decision making. Their decisions might not be seen as violating the national laws of their country or even the dominant thought or popular understanding or even the expectation of a majority of local people.

However, using the human rights benchmark, the decision taken might be in direct conflict with basic principles of human rights. This is because 'many a decision' is justified as being consistent with the local context. Three actual examples from the Malaysian context can illustrate this dilemma and local rationalization.

The first is a situation where a native indigenous group has been living on a land which dates back through oral tradition to pre colonial and pre independence however due to a legislation their claim to their ancestral lands have been denied. Politicians and businessmen use the existing laws to secure the land for logging or plantation development ignoring the native claims to their land. The leaders from public and private sector do not see their act as being unethical. They rationalize their action as being consistent with the local laws. There is little public outcry at this violation. The leaders carry on their behavior without much restrain.

The second is detaining an individual in custody without trial. Malaysia has detained individuals under the Internal Security Act and there are over 4,000 individuals under various other preventive legislation which is used to detain drug pushers, individuals involved in gang violence, illegal gambling and vice activities. The Emergence Ordinance has been widely used in these cases. These individuals are not brought before a court for trial but detained after Police investigation through Ministerial endorsement. Government officials and political leaders accept this situation and do not see these arrests as wrong. However using the benchmark of human rights they are unacceptable. As long as the national law provides for such arrests and detentions it will be used. Denial of the right to a fair trial is not seen as an unethical behavior.

The third is a situation in which an administrative officer at the district office or local authority who due to his personal religious convictions does not want to approve the building of a place of worship of a religious group that he does not subscribe to. Therefore to avoid any conflict he delays the process or loses the file or makes it difficult to the applicant to fulfill the requirements. The civil servant has failed to distinguish his personal conviction with that of his public role as a government official to execute his duty in a fair and just manner. Often his colleagues or even his superiors close an eye on this matter. They do not see it as an ethical problem.

In all three examples, the human rights bench mark which is relevant and applicable must be used as it provides greater protection to the poor, disadvantaged, marginalized and minorities. It is more inclusive and therefore leaders in political office must develop political ideologies based on universal values and concerns.

The way forward

What is critical and urgent is for leaders to understand the human rights framework which can serve as an effective benchmark in ensuing all sections of a community have access to equal opportunities. Efficient, effective or even ethical stands in isolation to human rights will not ensure justice and fairness for all. A human rights framework is of utmost importance.

It is therefore imperative for us to nurture, groom and mould a breed of national and global leaders who will subscribe to a human rights bench mark of ethnical leadership. This theme is endorsed by all the major religions and philosophies however at the operational, practical and application levels there seems to be weakness.

Four thoughts can be helpful is the realization of a human rights framework for ethical leadership.

First, we must foster within our young people a deep sense of self confidence in who they are and what they stand for. This notion is not to make them superior in outlook but only through self confident can one not feel inferior or threaten by others. Our basis problem is many leaders are not really confident in themselves and therefore they seem to utilize racial and religious sentiments to keep themselves above others. Orientation to a human rights framework and benchmark is imperative from a very early stage in life.

Second, we must empower leaders to see all people as human beings first. This is the human rights lens. Many leaders especially in the business sectors see profits first and therefore selfishness and greed dominates outlook. Ensuring the most vulnerable sections of our society as assisted is essential.

Third, we must ensure that all public policies, procedures and legislations are consistent with universal standard and principles. We can no longer hide in the shadows of local specific laws which justify violations of human rights and those which are in conflict with internationally accepted universal standard. Leaders must be oriented to reason out from a universal point of view rather than a sectarian one.

Fourth, we must foster institutions which can deliver and monitor leadership performance from a human rights point of view. Many of these institutions are in existence in Malaysia, however many of the local laws prohibit independent thought or position due to many restrictions to fundamental freedom of thought and speech. Ensuring all legislations and public policies to be in consistency with universal declarations and convention is a must for Malaysia especially for the ratification of all the UN status that promotes human rights and ethical leadership.

DR DENISON JAYASOORIA is president of Yayasan Strategik Sosial, the social service arm of the MIC. The above were his thoughts presented at the World Ethics and Transparency Forum earlier this month organised by Asli, TI and the Malaysian Institute of Integrity.