OPINION: There’s a Little Bit of the Burmese General in All of Us

Lita Davidson; May 23, 2008

While the western world looks with disgust at Burma’s military, who pride themselves more on their self imposed isolation than on saving the lives of their people, the response of citizens and governments in Asia to the crisis unfolding in their region has been modest. There is very little in the way of a sense of urgency in the Asian media or in regional political bodies responding to the cyclone, nor of comment on Burma’s intransigence. Compared to reactions in the west, by Asian standards, the cyclone is a small matter indeed.

On the surface, Asia’s citizens do not appear to exhibit the same intensity of compassion on what approach to take in their media as we do in the west. In the west there is an outpouring of discourse on Burma; in Asia, this subject is fleeting. With the exception of the Burmese in exile, Thai English language news and anomalies, such as an unidentified Singaporean millionaire who on a whim donated 50,000 then quickly donated another 50,000 to the cyclone relief effort, comments from the Asian international community and general interest about the situation in Burma is meek. Stories which are printed about the situation tend to be only descriptive and come across as an everyday occurrence.

In Asia, any Asian nation that undergoes conflict, human tragedy, poverty, war or humanitarian crisis, such as the ongoing civil war in Sri Lanka and the murderous political transition in Nepal and East Timor among others, does not garner much attention or bring on much collective spirit as would be expected from among the most powerful players, including the more advanced countries of South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, and Japan, who potentially could change the dire situation given their massive economic clout.

With the exception of the Thai English language newspapers that generate lively debate among mostly ‘farang’ or western foreigners in Thailand, protests or critical analysis on situations or even knowledge about what is going on in other countries are mostly submissive and inward looking, rarely directed outward at the international level toward other countries. With the exception of individual scholars, such as, among others, Korea’s Kim Dae Jung and Basil Fernando from the Asian Human Rights Commission in Hong Kong, people within Asia, don’t really care or even know about what is going on.

Upon closer scrutiny however, individual people in Asia do feel deep compassion when they see starving and dead children just as we do in the west, but tend to keep their thoughts private and are rarely given the chance to take action or voice their opinions in a robust way on international affairs. This writer has witnessed intense debate on how to tackle poverty and conflict, but like us, feel powerless to do anything about it. Generally, people in Asia come under close scrutiny by their governments and society; group and worker meetings take place every week in most Asian societies, their behavior is monitored by coworkers and their superiors and they are exhausted after working long hours. On average, most people in Asia work longer hours than people in the west. Freedom to do as you please is not encouraged in Asia; they are socialized to succeed at all costs.

One is also humbled on learning how Asia’s political scene for many decades was shaped by western influence in which leaders were advised to do away with agitators wanting equal rights and higher wages during the Cold War, a situation repeating itself with respect to China who wants to keep their doors open to western and Asian companies and who are reluctant to reform their exploitative wage labour system so as to suit the business interests of foreign investment.

In truth, the mild response in Asian media is due to the propensity of Asian leaders to refrain from judging each other too closely, fearing that each will be held accountable for their own weaknesses, which is inconceivable, if not an uncomfortable situation for most Asian leaders. Democratic will is further weakened by the educational system in which children are brought up to not question their instructor or an authority figure, they are taught to obey, listen and produce, and applying critical thinking or a different point of view on a subject is not part of their culture, not yet anyway.

A student expressing his or her opinion may be punished severely, although this situation may be changing as governments realize that critical and imaginative analysis are the basics of innovation needed to further develop their economies. While opening up and building relationships based on cooperation with neigbhours, as demonstrated recently when China visited Japan last week, is a step in the right direction to working collectively as a group, rather than against each other.

Burma and other similar countries might as well be on another planet or in a different part of the world. People in Asia may comment they have undergone much worse catastrophes. Why should we help them? We pulled ourselves out of poverty, why should we go to their aid? Even though many have achieved a modern standard of living, there is still a great fear that one day they will fall back on hard times and staying ahead of the game is foremost on their minds.

Most are concerned about their own country’s economy and compete with each other fiercely to maintain an edge over the other, being second place to another Asian country is unthinkable, like losing a soccer match. In South Korea the outbreak of Avian bird flu has been on the front page for over 3 weeks amid rising inflation and fuel prices, and the slowing down of the economy is more of a concern. Scant mention is made of Burma and the damage inflicted by the cyclone is not as vigorously pursued in the press as it is in the west.
The Association of Southeast Nations does not appear to take as seriously the massive operation that is needed to deal with the catastrophe and shows little sign of collective will on the implication of thousands of Burmese facing starvation and disease due to the Burmese generals’ paranoia to let in foreign workers. The cyclone is mentioned briefly in small paragraphs on their website, whereas in the west, it is seen on all government and regional websites with explicit detail and moral analysis; in most Asian newspapers, very little detail about the situation is reported.

The western press and many western citizens learn about Burma including its people, the environment, and the ongoing aid effort through their local newspapers that generates a lot of public opinion among the editorial boards. It’s a shame that Asian governments do not promote more moral discourse on what goes on in other Asian countries and compete more on democratic and humanitarian principles, not just economic ones; perhaps it is their history and their leaders, but their educational system can also explain some of their silence.

As commented by a Korean in the Korean Times, “Why should we criticize Burma when we fail to even criticize atrocities committed in North Korea?” Asian media is vigorously censored and does not encourage moral discourse; however, people can wholeheartedly think and are very opinionated about their governments and what happens in other parts of the world, surprisingly even more so than us in the west, but the term ‘constructive criticism’ is a concept not quite accepted by Asian governments who do not encourage it in any positive way.

Are Asian people morally inferior? Disasters and large scale humanitarian crises have occurred in recent living memory over local and international wars in Asia in which people were powerless against dictators and roving bands of invading armies bent on rape, pillage and murder. Each Asian country has endured untold miseries while the slaughter of millions across Asia such as in South Korea, China, Indonesia, Cambodia, and Vietnam; for much of the 20th century these countries faced enormous upheaval which occurred right under our noses for many years while we in turn remained silent and culpable in their destruction.

In comparing the west and the east as most Asian and Western diplomats tend to do nowadays when it comes to the rapid pace of economic modernization in Asia, in particular, Singaporean and Malaysia diplomats, one can cite western atrocities committed in the name of religion, progress and nation. There are several horrific examples, many of which are untold; much of the 20th century was a nightmare for people in Asia, crimes and wars committed by western nations, no one is innocent.

In a recent BBC interview, Singaporean diplomat Kishore Mahbubani commented that the west can learn a lot from the east in competing, as being a model for growth. Yes, that’s true, but the east can learn from the west in promoting discourse on moral values in ensuring protection of people who can also contribute. Governments in Asia, especially from the more developed countries, need to exercise more leadership and to work collectively to address serious problems that affect the economic performance of Asian countries. Have not these diplomats realized the potential of Burma’s people who can contribute to Asia?

Kaowao News