Rights related to education, employment, freedom of opinion and expression, voting, health care, privacy, religion and culture, and many others, are constantly being discussed in public forums and private circles. There is an endless flow of Western academic research exploring, describing and defending people’s rights.

Western governments present themselves as the ultimate protectors of rights of all kinds and frequently introduce new policies and laws aimed at shaping society to reflect them.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights allows only for limitations on human rights prescribed by law and “solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society”.

There is, however, almost complete silence about human obligations in Western education and political and social lives.
Unconditionally defending freedoms and rights cannot be wrong, can it?

It is surprising, if not worrying, that there is no Universal Declaration of Human Obligations, despite the fact that it is the efforts needed to fulfil such obligations that provide the foundations on which an individual can grow and a society can flourish. The establishment of most rights is only viable and sustainable if human obligations are fulfilled first.

For example, the West and, more recently, Hong Kong champion universal suffrage. However, for citizens to make valuable contributions to society with their votes, they must have prepared themselves to do so. Meaningfully exercising their voting rights requires fulfilling a number of obligations first, most importantly being sufficiently informed about and understanding the issues that one has to vote on.

A poorly informed voter cannot make a valuable contribution to society. A poorly informed mass of voters will weaken and fracture society, and push it towards short-term goals that will suffocate its growth.

Hence, society, the education system and governments should emphasise the obligation to be sufficiently informed and to grasp the relevant issues before voting rights can be enjoyed. Voting should not be a right by default, but rather a right that people gain after fulfilling their obligation as voters.

A more generalised example of a right that is unconditionally offered in most societies is the right to education. While I agree that every individual should be granted the right to access educational facilities that provide the necessary environment for the individual to study, the purpose of education is not just to study, but rather to learn.

Learning involves obligations, such as being disciplined in one’s study habits, adopting an ethically robust attitude, and making the necessary effort to develop critical thinking. After all, education rights only supplement the obligations that learning entails.

Societies and governments should ensure that these obligations are made explicit and are accepted by those who want to benefit from their education rights. Again, the focus should be on the obligations that learning entails, rather than education rights, which only depend on the provision of the necessary facilities.

By overemphasising individual rights and forgeting about obligations, individualistic societies grow fragile and prone to fractures related to self-serving, short-term values and objectives. Western societies seem to have forgotten that most progress happens when people focus on fulfilling their obligations and that rights are a consequence of this process.

In collectivistic societies, where the interests of the community come before those of the individual, such as Chinese and Korean ones, the individual’s obligations are emphasised, perhaps even overemphasised at times.

From a very young age, children are taught that they have obligations towards family and society, and that they sometimes need to forego their personal interests and gains for the sake of the greater social good. People are taught that they have the obligation to learn rather than the right to study and that they have the obligation to work hard rather that the right to work.

This focus on obligations also results in people perceiving legitimate authority as something positive and being more inclined to follow its directives. Accepting authority and following its directives, even if one does not fully agree with its purpose, is fundamental to managing societies effectively and leading them to a better future.

This does not imply that individuals should not be granted their rights, but rather that these rights are contingent on and the result of a series of obligations being fulfilled.

Yes, Hongkongers should be granted the right to express their opinions and the right to protest if their opinions are ignored by the authorities. However, to build these opinions, they have an obligation to be fully informed about all the relevant issues and to accept that they are not the only ones whose voices should be heard.

Impulsively confronting the status quo without fully understanding this and the consequences of one’s actions might bring the temporary illusion that one is doing something significant to improve a situation. After these illusions fade, a stark reality might emerge.

Western societies and Hongkongers should see the rights illusion for what it is and re-emphasise the important role that an individual’s obligations play in personal growth and societies’ well-being. In this case, the West should learn from societies that prioritise the community over the individual.

After all, individual and social rights are some of the numerous benefits enjoyed after obligations are fulfilled by the members of a society. Underestimating the importance of obligations can only lead to the decay of society.

Patrik K. Meyer holds a PhD in politics and international studies from the University of Cambridge and is currently a visiting scholar at Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Indonesia