Sitting on the fence of ‘cultural relativism’

FEB 25 — In Sweden, a Malaysian couple, Azizul Raheem Awalludin and Shalwati Nurshal, is on trial, charged with the abuse of their four children. The case was first brought to light when the couple’s 12-year-old son confessed to his teacher that as punishment for misbehavior (amongst other things, refusing to pray), he and his siblings were allegedly subjected to whippings with a hanger, carpet beater and/or rotan. Swedish authorities swooped in promptly, put the couple on remand, and they now face up to six years in jail if convicted. 

Meanwhile, the reaction back home has, outrageously and predictably, been more concerned with "saving face" than saving the children, all of whom are understandably frightened and confused by this devastating disruption to their lives. 

MP Dr Mujahid Yusof Rawa criticised the Swedish handling of the case, calling the detention and separation of the children from their parents "itself a form of abuse", while Human Rights lawyer and Padang Serai MP N. Surendran unhelpfully offered the opinion that the actions of the couple were "not serious." Journalist Joe Lee started a Twitter campaign — #SwedenLetThemGo — and a Facebook page generating support for the couple’s release has amassed more than 14,000 likes.

Asian values take a beating

In the midst of all this, one word has consistently hovered over the debate. And that word is "culture." A quick glance at the comments on Internet articles shows little condemnation for the couple’s actions. Instead, many excuse the abuse as simply part of "Malaysian culture"; apparently the flip side of the "Muhibbah Spirit" is that it’s OK to beat your kids, so long as it’s for the "right reasons." 

Others, meanwhile, speak almost fondly of the beatings they received from their parents, saying it taught them the merits of "Asian values" and the importance of "religious discipline." The couple’s Swedish lawyer, perhaps grasping at this convenient defence, explained that the situation had arisen due to a "clash of cultures", adding that "many countries have a different view to Sweden when it comes to raising children." While this comment is obviously a truism, it highlights the extent to which the problems of cultural relativism are looming ever larger in a 21^st century globalised society.

Cultural relativism, as an ethical theory, emerged from the academic field of anthropology. The aim, as with many ethical models, is to examine how morality is formed and how actions can be judged or analysed according to their moral "legitimacy." More specifically, cultural relativism argues that there can be no objective or universal standard for judging morality because every society has different moral codes. We live in a rapidly changing globalised world, which is increasingly bringing people of varying races, religions and cultures into contact with each other. Tactics and techniques for navigating this minefield of difference is what cultural relativism hopes to provide.

Growing up in Malaysia but living in the UK, I have always felt very strongly that the world is a huge, interesting and diverse place; and that we need to view other cultures with open-mindedness, without automatically assuming that our preferences are not only natural and unchallengeable, but the best. 

I was lucky in that moving to England wasn’t a total culture shock (apart from that punctuality thing — when an event starts at 8pm, it really does, not 8.45 as it would in Malaysia) but like everything in life, it took some getting used to. 

In both Malaysia and the UK, cultural relativism (and multi-culturalism) is officially championed as the way forward, despite the recent backsliding of some of our more intellectually challenged public figures. 

Meanwhile, the UK’s culture of political correctness and religious diffidence means that some of the more barbaric aspects of "culture", largely directed at women, go unmentioned for fear of the backlash. The parallel with Malaysia lies in the dangers posed to social stability by the "lunatic fringe", especially when that fringe plays their racial or religious cards. 

Whose rules do we live by?

The problem with cultural relativism, of course, is that if all values are relative, then this must mean that there are no universal moral absolutes by which the behaviour of people can be judged. Therefore, if there is no agreed control mechanism transcending all cultures, no eternal book of rules, then right and wrong are simply a matter of opinion or preference and it doesn't matter much what we do. If all morality is relative, what objection can one have to female infanticide, or forced marriage, or execution for "thought crimes", or ethnic cleansing, or, the list goes on? These are extreme examples, but the principle holds. 

Back to the case of our compatriots in Sweden. I must admit I find it complicated. I don’t believe the parents are evil people who deserve jail for their crime, although I leave that up to the Swedish legal system to decide (when in Rome and all that). Certainly, the couple, having lived in Sweden for a number of years, should have been aware of the repercussions – Sweden is one of the most outspoken advocates against child abuse and was the first country to outlaw corporal punishment in 1979. 

But to argue that they only deserve to be punished because they committed the crime in Sweden completely misses the point. If it’s demeaning and abusive in Sweden, it’s demeaning and abusive in Malaysia. There exists a fine line between spanking as a form of discipline and outright physical abuse; and that line is easily blurred. To protect vulnerable children, I support Malaysian children’s rights’ groups calling for corporal punishment in both the public and private sphere to be outlawed. Shouting "culture clash!" at every opportunity does nothing to protect the rights of the children (and hence the future of the nation), the real victims in this whole sorry situation.

I’m all for respecting different cultures, but maybe it’s time to accept that some moral truths – the most obvious being anything that physically harms others – really ought to be universal.

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.