Human Rights Ministry: Claims that Free Nutritious Meals Programme Violates Human Rights Are Incorrect
Jakarta (ANTARA) - Munafrizal Manan, Director General of Human Rights Services and Compliance at the Ministry of Human Rights, said claims that the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) programme violates human rights are incorrect.
Speaking in Jakarta on Saturday, Manan said the programme served the national interest by helping ensure that future generations are well nourished, healthy and intelligent, and ready to face global competition.
“Therefore, it is in everyone’s interest for the MBG programme to run well and deliver tangible benefits to the public,” he said.
From a human rights perspective, he said, the MBG programme falls within the scope of economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR). The implementation of similar programmes by a number of countries is an effort to fulfil ESCR, particularly the right to food.
International human rights instruments, he said, base the fulfilment of ESCR on the principle of progressive realisation: human rights can be fulfilled progressively over time.
The principle applies because countries do not all have the same capacity to fulfil ESCR. Meanwhile, fulfilling these rights requires an active role from the state. A country’s lack of capacity or fiscal constraints are often cited as reasons for not fulfilling ESCR.
Manan said that under the principle of progressive realisation, states must not neglect or evade their obligation to fulfil ESCR, even though each country has different capacities.
The principle requires every country to make a good-faith effort to fulfil ESCR, he said, while allowing the pace of fulfilment to reflect the country’s capacity.
“What matters is that efforts to fulfil ESCR must move forward, step by step, over time,” he said.
He stressed that, under the principle of progressive realisation, the fulfilment of ESCR may vary from country to country, depending on each country’s circumstances and capacity, as well as the problems and challenges it faces.
“Therefore, it is not appropriate to conclude that a human rights violation has occurred whenever difficulties arise in implementing the fulfilment of ESCR,” he said.
He added that the way human rights violations are assessed in relation to ESCR differs from the assessment of violations involving civil and political rights.
From the perspective of ESCR, a human rights violation occurs when the state does nothing to fulfil those rights.
Manan emphasised that a state acting in good faith to fulfil ESCR, but facing problems and challenges in implementation, cannot be said to be violating human rights.
He argued that if difficulties in implementing ESCR were treated as human rights violations, this could instead obstruct their fulfilment.
“It is easier for a state to make no policy at all to fulfil ESCR than to implement one and then be accused of violating human rights simply because problems or challenges arise during implementation,” he said.