I've been reading this book with this mighty shocking title. The author (a Singaporean) talks about Asia as.... everything. I expected the book would be more about education, but it centers mostly around economics and politics.
He talks about the west being somewhat hypocritical in their methods of approaching other nations. They believe so much in democracy, so they force it onto countries without the economic stability to reinforce or take ownership for. They forget that their method doesn't work everywhere for everyone. They forget that their method barely works in their own country. They forgo involvement and moral concerns when they aren't threatened.
Some interesting pieces:
(57-64)
Good government doesn't necessarily mean democracy. In many Asian nations (including the one I currently live in), the nature of the government is very different. There is a King who is encouraging development and the health and wealth of his people. Thailand has come a long way under this King. The government, while not without issues, is pretty darn good, and it is considerably different than the US.
He mentions that the West often is putting the ideals of democracy prior to the goal of economic development. It's difficult to live up to; without every person having a stake in their economic development, neither will succeed in the way the West hopes. He goes on to say that Japan is a good example: they underwent a huge transformation after the war because of reforms imposed by MacArthur. No democratic leader could have instituted those reforms and (therefore) the growth that they created.
I think he has a point. Cambodia has "democracy" that the West implemented with the early 1990s... and look what has happened. It is corrupt and unable to stand on its own two feet. It's neighbors have had so much more economic growth with their varied political structures.
(87)
In Singapore, criminal behavior is dealt with fairly harshly. As he puts it, the common interest in safety rises above the ideas of due process. Singapore made this choice and lives with this choice. The West prefers to wax poetic about their democracy as they allow the sale of drugs on their street corners, which is another choice. However, they have no right to judge others for their choices and the consequences that are faced. In this, he gives an example. He visited the newspaper offices of four great American newspapers, and realized that if he left at night and walked 3 blocks in the wrong direction, he could find himself in a great deal of trouble. In Singapore, crime near the newspaper office in nonexistent. The West goes to other countries to try to instill their morals, despite not being aware of the hypocrisy inherent in their judgments. The US is far from perfect; education and health care, just to name a few, could be vastly improved. It would help if the US learned from other places and peoples... and listened and changed... but instead they try so often to walk into other countries and say how things should be done.
(99)
Speaking of which, the US cannot continue on this trend. The US is facing enormous fiscal issues, and turning its back on solving the problems. Mahburani calls it "massive social decay," the fact that violence, single parent homes, and divorce rates have risen at an alarming rate. And yet, still, they parade into other countries, especially the East, where social institutions and families are a backbone of society, to preach democracy. There are huge troubles in the future of the States, and they seem unprepared to deal with them.
(178-192)
Cambodia.
The chaotic era of the Khmer Rouge is directly related to the West and their business in SE Asia. This essay is called "Pol Pot: the Paradox of Moral Correctness." He begins by talking about meetings between Churchill and Stalin, and the fact that Churchill's dealings with a genocidal ruler have not tarnished his reputation. However, Thatcher never met with Pol Pot, because the west 'didn't deal with genocidal rulers.' Even though the actions that took so much from the Cambodian people were condemned by those in power, no steps were taken to try to come to a peace agreement. He talks about the Paris Peace Conference in 1989; the Khmer Rouge weren't invited to come to a peace meeting because they were condemned by so many leaders, but by not coming to the conference, no peace was to be found. Instead, the Vietnam invasion was accepted.
There were power plays that the West was blind to; Vietnam and their invasion was seen as a rescue of Cambodians, though that wasn't the case. They refused to deal with the Khmer Rouge and it led to a greater evil. The prime minister (who is still in power) tried to start riots and confused the Western media (most of them, at least). The UN was brought in to hold elections, which appeared to be a nice decision, though rumor has it that the UN brought more disease than stability. This essay places a lot of blame on the West, for appearing so distraught, then refusing to help where and when it counted. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, as well as Hun Sen, were (and are) well funded through various channels in the country. The non-communist parties couldn't raise enough foreign investments to become viable candidates. The UN couldn't gather the appropriate funds, even as the tragedy was all over the Western media. It says something about the appearance of morality.
I'm no expert on this, not at all. This was a painful read, though. I think of how the West is operating in Cambodia. They give millions of dollars in aid, a bulk of which lines the coffers of the wealthy and powerful. They are running a tribunal which wasn't instituted by Cambodia, spending millions on prosecuting those who are almost too old to be on trial. The country is visibly corrupt, and it is shocking to me as I live here in Thailand, how much more apparent it is for me.
I've heard that before Singapore gained their independence and began planning their city, they came to Phnom Penh to see one of the best cities in Asia. Cambodia had a golden era, full of art and music and film, and it was all destroyed. Between Vietnam, and the West, and the forces that were taking hold of the country, that golden era didn't stand a chance. And look at them now... I am crushed at what once was and what it has become.
fin
The book is wonderful. It is an enthralling read for anyone in development, especially in Asia. There are pieces about the UN as well that I found interesting. Money, economics, influence, power... these things are all in here, and they are well written and thoughtful. I highly recommend this book (considering I just wrote an essay for fun about it).
No comments:
Post a Comment