A.J. Surin is an environmental, constitutional & human rights lawyer, founder of Humanists Malaysia, and a prominent advocate for freedom of thought, conscience, and belief in Southeast Asia. His work spans law, humanism, climate change & civil resistance, and is driven by a deeper commitment to minimizing existential risks facing humanity—from climate change and environmental collapse to asteroid impact preparedness and the governance of artificial intelligence. Engaging both international human rights mechanisms and global policy forums, A.J. argues that safeguarding human dignity requires not only defending present freedoms, but protecting humanity’s long-term future through reason, science, and ethical responsibility.
Legitimacy is all too frequently treated as something that is given by the state — whether formally (a registration certificate), legally (a legal personality) or simply through the state’s stamp of approval (a formal approval). And without the state’s permission, people are told (either quietly or loudly) that they do not yet exist.
Humanism has consistently rejected this premise throughout history.
From across the world (with particular emphasis on the Global South) and across different cultures and political systems, the protection afforded to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is still significantly uneven. Secular, non-religious, post-theistic, views in such environments face structural obstacles that those of the religious or majority worldview do not face. Waiting endlessly for official authorization to express a view can thus create an environment of quiet exclusion.
Therefore, to speak in advance of formal permission to do so is not an act of impatience. Rather, it is an act of civic duty.
It is here that we see the importance of discursive legitimacy arise. Discursively legitimate voices are not based on the presence of formal authority or institutional legitimacy. Rather, they are formed through the strength of public argumentation — specifically through the qualities of clarity, coherence, evidence and ethical consistency. The references used by these voices — human dignity, constitutional principles and international human rights law — serve to establish a common basis for meaningful public discourse.
As such, voices that have demonstrated discursive legitimacy cannot be easily dismissed. These voices provide a basis for engaging in dialogue. They prompt journalists to pay attention to them. They prompt academics to respond. They prompt authorities to respond (and rebut) instead of ignoring them. Through such means, the process of reasoning itself provides a form of standing.
This is exemplified by the histories of social movements that went on to reshape society — movements for civil rights, women’s rights, freedom of belief and freedom of speech — were all typically initially composed of groups who had no formal standing. The legitimacy of these groups was not provided in advance; it was earned through their persistence in engaging in principled public participation.
Registration does not have to be administrative. In some countries, registration can be held up or refused based on the ideology of the applicant. When that occurs, requiring advocacy to occur after registering means that gatekeepers will decide who is allowed to participate in public dialogue. For those humanists who value rational thinking, ethics, and autonomy, such silencing would contradict their values.
Therefore, operating openly as a humanist organization without being registered could constitute a form of nonviolent civil disobedience. It is not about breaking the law or creating a scene; it is about standing up to the idea that one’s worth as a human being cannot be validated by a bureaucrat. It also sends a message that participating in the public discussion is not predicated on having a permit to do so. Rather, it is about advocating for human rights and using reason to support your views, regardless of whether or not you are recognized as a legitimate participant.
Such a stance is consistent with many of the main tenets of Humanists International’s Minimum Statement on Humanism. Those tenets include respecting human dignity; relying on reason and compassion; and defending universal human rights. The fact that these tenets exist is irrelevant to whether or not they can be implemented. What matters is that they are expressed in a coherent manner and that advocates demonstrate the courage to uphold them.
It should go without saying that such a stance carries responsibility. If humanists do not have the authority of incorporation, then they must exercise care and precision when expressing themselves. Their language must be measured; and their claims must be supported with evidence. However, these limitations often lend greater credibility to humanist advocacy. By ensuring that advocacy is based on merit, not on privilege, humanists can advocate in a manner that demonstrates integrity.
Criticisms might arise in the form of “who do you represent?” The response to that criticism is simple: humanists advocate for ideas that are based upon the commonalities of humanity.
Arguments that are valid do not require permission to be heard.
At the end of the day, legitimacy is revealed through how others respond. That includes when people engage seriously with new ideas. When there is no longer room for silence. When the conversation changes.
Humanism has always been presented in this manner; not by asking for permission to be included in the public debate, but by being clear enough that the world must pay attention.
In a world where freedom of conscience is still under threat, unregistered humanist voices are not an issue to fix. They remind us of a deeper truth: ideas based on reason, dignity, and human rights do not wait for their turn.