SE Asia is truly a fascinating region of the world with its diverse cultures, languages, religions, and political systems. Modern SE Asia is brimming with potential for becoming a major economic power, at least with the ability to drag its people out of the extreme poverty that has gripped the region for so long.
The cultural variety in the region is a testament to the resilience of the people to maintain their identity despite the efforts of outside powers.
The colonial period is a sad chapter in the history of SE Asia, but one that offers many lessons for those that study the region. The colonial powers had no right to do the things they did in SE Asia and any modern argument that it was for their own good is insulting and glosses over the fact that the European powers systematically exploited the people of SE Asia because they they had the power to do so. Hopefully, modern powers such as the United States will stop meddling in the region.
The aftermath of the anti-colonial movement and the establishment of totalitarian governments should act as a object lesson of what happens in a power vacuum. The region needs stable government that serves the people. They must institute a system that ensures smooth transitions of power and limits or removes the involvement of the military in political affairs.
I hope that SE Asia can heal from the scars of the colonial past and horrible leadership and emerge as an economic powerhouse with a spectacular cultural diversity. All of the pieces are in place, but it is still an uphill battle to overcome their past to enjoy a much more positive future.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Freedom in SE Asia
At times it seems like SE Asia is heading in the right direction with its leadership and freedom. Even Vietnam has made some progress toward capitalism and increased freedom (albeit slight). Then I hear about Thailand and the military coup and instability of the elected government and I have to wonder what is really going on. Can a country where the military can seize control from a legitimate elected government just because they decide that a particular leader is unworthy expect lasting freedom? I would say the answer is a resounding, "no!"
In truly free societies, we have mechanisms that allow for the removal of elected officials. There are impeachment, recalls, and elections. If a leader doesn't do the job, we just vote them out. If a leader is corrupt, they can be impeached or, in some areas, recalled. Our system has its flaws, but it generally assures a peaceful transition of power and the military stays out of it. When the military gets involved, it is a sign of a power vacuum and bad things happen when there are power vacuums. The most despicable, ruthless, and power-hungry dictators-in-waiting thrive in power vacuums and crisis. They take advantage of weaknesses in the system to seize power and then they don't relinquish the power. In a country where the military can seize control whenever they feel like, it is only a matter of time before they don't give it back.
I am concerned that normalized relations between the U.S. and Vietnam will mean that there is more free trade, but no more freedom for the people of Vietnam. Still, free trade and an open economy are strong precursors to overall freedom and is welcome progress.
In truly free societies, we have mechanisms that allow for the removal of elected officials. There are impeachment, recalls, and elections. If a leader doesn't do the job, we just vote them out. If a leader is corrupt, they can be impeached or, in some areas, recalled. Our system has its flaws, but it generally assures a peaceful transition of power and the military stays out of it. When the military gets involved, it is a sign of a power vacuum and bad things happen when there are power vacuums. The most despicable, ruthless, and power-hungry dictators-in-waiting thrive in power vacuums and crisis. They take advantage of weaknesses in the system to seize power and then they don't relinquish the power. In a country where the military can seize control whenever they feel like, it is only a matter of time before they don't give it back.
I am concerned that normalized relations between the U.S. and Vietnam will mean that there is more free trade, but no more freedom for the people of Vietnam. Still, free trade and an open economy are strong precursors to overall freedom and is welcome progress.
The Future of SE Asia
In looking at any region, you have to ask what is best for the people, in general. Once you come up with some answers, you then have to look at what interferes with the people getting what is best for them.
In the past, SE Asian people suffered through tyrants of all variety and then colonial oppression and lack of self-determination. Once they rose up and threw off the bonds of colonialism, they failed to see the enemy within in the form of communist and other authoritarian leaders that committed atrocities, quashed freedom, and instituted policies that benefited themselves, but kept their people in abject poverty.
I think SE Asia needs two things:
First, SE Asia needs for other countries such as the United States, Europe, and China to mind their own business and to stop meddling. The specter of colonial control remains. The United States puts pressure on the region to combat terrorism and drugs at the exclusion of policies that would benefit the people. It is not that combating terrorism is a bad thing, its just that the extreme overreaction and heavy handed policies are not healthy for the region.
Secondly, SE Asia needs leaders that will institute economic policies that will allow the region to emerge from the plague of extreme poverty. They need capitalism free of suffocating bureaucratic regulations. They need leaders who do not treat their country as their own private kingdom. They need to institute policies and create a power structure that prevent brutal dictators from emerging and they need to reign in military control.
Almost all of the nations need to move from an agrarian society to services and manufacturing. They need an educated labor force and for that they need a reliable education system. The governments need to get out of the way of the free market and allow people to start businesses and take advantage of the myriad of economic opportunities around the world.
The region holds much promise. They have they have a large population that could be turned into an asset. They have natural resources and the geographic advantage of sitting between two emerging economic power in India and China. Perhaps this time, SE Asia will get the full benefit of trade with India and China rather than having an unwanted colonial "middleman" take control.
Unfortunately, if SE Asia continues the pattern of bad leadership and fails to change its economic ways, we will be talking about the unfulfilled promise of SE Asia 50 years from now.
In the past, SE Asian people suffered through tyrants of all variety and then colonial oppression and lack of self-determination. Once they rose up and threw off the bonds of colonialism, they failed to see the enemy within in the form of communist and other authoritarian leaders that committed atrocities, quashed freedom, and instituted policies that benefited themselves, but kept their people in abject poverty.
I think SE Asia needs two things:
First, SE Asia needs for other countries such as the United States, Europe, and China to mind their own business and to stop meddling. The specter of colonial control remains. The United States puts pressure on the region to combat terrorism and drugs at the exclusion of policies that would benefit the people. It is not that combating terrorism is a bad thing, its just that the extreme overreaction and heavy handed policies are not healthy for the region.
Secondly, SE Asia needs leaders that will institute economic policies that will allow the region to emerge from the plague of extreme poverty. They need capitalism free of suffocating bureaucratic regulations. They need leaders who do not treat their country as their own private kingdom. They need to institute policies and create a power structure that prevent brutal dictators from emerging and they need to reign in military control.
Almost all of the nations need to move from an agrarian society to services and manufacturing. They need an educated labor force and for that they need a reliable education system. The governments need to get out of the way of the free market and allow people to start businesses and take advantage of the myriad of economic opportunities around the world.
The region holds much promise. They have they have a large population that could be turned into an asset. They have natural resources and the geographic advantage of sitting between two emerging economic power in India and China. Perhaps this time, SE Asia will get the full benefit of trade with India and China rather than having an unwanted colonial "middleman" take control.
Unfortunately, if SE Asia continues the pattern of bad leadership and fails to change its economic ways, we will be talking about the unfulfilled promise of SE Asia 50 years from now.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Nicolaides Publicity Stunt?
As a follow up to the Nicolaides situation:
This story says that a former colleague of Nicolaides claims that he talked to him about gaining fame by breaking the lese majeste law. It seems unlikely to me that he did not know that insulting the king was a big deal in Thailand. Still, I can't imagine someone so desperate for a little fame that they would risk a long prison sentence in a Thai prison.
This story says that a former colleague of Nicolaides claims that he talked to him about gaining fame by breaking the lese majeste law. It seems unlikely to me that he did not know that insulting the king was a big deal in Thailand. Still, I can't imagine someone so desperate for a little fame that they would risk a long prison sentence in a Thai prison.
Forced Repatriation of Hmong in Thailand
We have discussed the Thai handling of refugees from Myanmar and the possible human rights violations. Perhaps an even greater human rights issue is the Thai effort to force Hmong people to return to Laos, a place where the communist regime has carried out a policy of genocide of the Hmong people since they fought against the communists during the Vietnam war.
The Hmong were convinced by the U.S. government (with prompting by the CIA) to fight against the communists in Laos and against the Vietnamese who built the Ho Chi Mihn trail to move supplies and troops from North Vietnam and China across Laos to attack South Vietnam. The only thing that stood between smooth and extensive logistical flow were the Hmong in Laos who acted as the only ground forces to stem the flow of North Vietnamese and Chinese troops, weapons, and supplies along the extensive Ho Chi Mihn trail.
Once the Vietnam War ended, the United States withdrew all support for the Hmong. Where they at least had U.S. air support during the war, they were left to fight a hopeless battle against the brutal communist regimes in Vietnam and in their own country. The brutal Pathet Lao regime carried out a systematic effort to exterminate the over matched Hmong. The Pathet Lao used chemical and biological weapons against the Hmong in their genocidal efforts.
Facing certain genocide, many Hmong fled across the Mekong River into Thailand. A very high percentage of Hmong perished in the exodus. They lived in refugee camps in Thailand (under typically abysmal refugee camp conditions) and those few who could, emigrated to the United States. The Hmong that still live in Laos are considered "terrorists" and live their lives hunted by the Laotian government.
Despite the Hmong sacrifice, the United States government denied any involvement in a "secret" war in Laos. It was not until 1997 that Hmong efforts in fighting against the Vietnamese was formally recognized by a small memorial at Arlington National Cemetary to honor the Hmong and Laotians who fought against the communists. Hmong veterans paid for the memorial.
In 1991, the Thai government began implementing a plan of forced repatriation of Hmong people back to Laos where conditions had not improved and death was all but certain for anyone forced back.
In 2004, the U.S. State Department announced that an estimated 15000 Hmong refugees in Wat Tham Krabok refugee camp would be allowed to come to the United States as described in this State Department article.
To this day, the Hmong in Thailand live in fear of repatriation by the Thai military and there is strong evidence of abuse by the Thai military in Hmong refugee camps. This story from the Asia Times Online covers the recent systematic effort by the Thai military to send the remaining Hmong refugees back to Laos, most likely against their will. Unfortunately, according to the article, the United States is involved in the effort to make the "problem" go away in an effort to improve relations with a brutal communist regime. I shudder to think that our own government is complicit in sending 5000 people back to a regime that wants them dead.
More Hmong Resources:
Building Bridges: Teaching about the Hmong in our Communities - notes from a presentation at the Hmong Cultural Resource Center in St. Paul, MN. This is a great overview of the history and modern plight of the Hmong people.
Hmong Homepage - a large directory of Hmong resources.
Still a Secret War - a short YouTube video on the Hmong plight.
The Hmong were convinced by the U.S. government (with prompting by the CIA) to fight against the communists in Laos and against the Vietnamese who built the Ho Chi Mihn trail to move supplies and troops from North Vietnam and China across Laos to attack South Vietnam. The only thing that stood between smooth and extensive logistical flow were the Hmong in Laos who acted as the only ground forces to stem the flow of North Vietnamese and Chinese troops, weapons, and supplies along the extensive Ho Chi Mihn trail.
Once the Vietnam War ended, the United States withdrew all support for the Hmong. Where they at least had U.S. air support during the war, they were left to fight a hopeless battle against the brutal communist regimes in Vietnam and in their own country. The brutal Pathet Lao regime carried out a systematic effort to exterminate the over matched Hmong. The Pathet Lao used chemical and biological weapons against the Hmong in their genocidal efforts.
Facing certain genocide, many Hmong fled across the Mekong River into Thailand. A very high percentage of Hmong perished in the exodus. They lived in refugee camps in Thailand (under typically abysmal refugee camp conditions) and those few who could, emigrated to the United States. The Hmong that still live in Laos are considered "terrorists" and live their lives hunted by the Laotian government.
Despite the Hmong sacrifice, the United States government denied any involvement in a "secret" war in Laos. It was not until 1997 that Hmong efforts in fighting against the Vietnamese was formally recognized by a small memorial at Arlington National Cemetary to honor the Hmong and Laotians who fought against the communists. Hmong veterans paid for the memorial.
In 1991, the Thai government began implementing a plan of forced repatriation of Hmong people back to Laos where conditions had not improved and death was all but certain for anyone forced back.
In 2004, the U.S. State Department announced that an estimated 15000 Hmong refugees in Wat Tham Krabok refugee camp would be allowed to come to the United States as described in this State Department article.
To this day, the Hmong in Thailand live in fear of repatriation by the Thai military and there is strong evidence of abuse by the Thai military in Hmong refugee camps. This story from the Asia Times Online covers the recent systematic effort by the Thai military to send the remaining Hmong refugees back to Laos, most likely against their will. Unfortunately, according to the article, the United States is involved in the effort to make the "problem" go away in an effort to improve relations with a brutal communist regime. I shudder to think that our own government is complicit in sending 5000 people back to a regime that wants them dead.
More Hmong Resources:
Building Bridges: Teaching about the Hmong in our Communities - notes from a presentation at the Hmong Cultural Resource Center in St. Paul, MN. This is a great overview of the history and modern plight of the Hmong people.
Hmong Homepage - a large directory of Hmong resources.
Still a Secret War - a short YouTube video on the Hmong plight.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Gran Torino
I had the privilege of seeing the Clint Eastwood movie Gran Torino yesterday. Going in, I had no idea that there would be a SE Asian connection in the movie.
The movie centers around Walt Kowalski, an aging Korean War vet and retired Ford autoworker who just lost his wife. Walt is stubborn and refuses to leave his house in a rundown Detroit neighborhood despite the crime, gang activity, and being one of the few remaining Caucasians. He lives next door to an Asian family who we discover are Hmong.
Walt hates Asians and uses a variety of racial epithets to describe them. He does not even attempt to hide his disgust and contempt of living next door to an Asian family.
The movie is about culture clash. The clash between Walt, an old school veteran of a Asian war who does not understand how Asian people ended up surrounding him in the Midwest United States. It is about the culture clash of multiple ethnic groups trying to live together in harsh circumstances. It is about the culture clash of hard working people trying to cope with predatory gangs of young thugs. Without giving too much away, it is about an "old dog" learning new tricks in accepting people with different looks, beliefs, and customs.
The SE Asian connection made it even more interesting. There are a couple of fine "history" moments such as when Sue, the teen Hmong neighbor, explains to Walt that the Hmong people are hill people, not jungle people and that they fought the communists in Laos on the U.S. side until the U.S. "bailed".
The story of the Hmong people and how they ended up in the United States is both fascinating and tragic. They fought against the communists in Laos during the Vietnam War. This was known as the "secret" war as the United States simply refused to admit any part in a war in Laos until recently. The United States left the area to the communists, led by the brutal communist group Pathet Lao. Pathet Lao publicly called for the extermination of the Hmong people which they begun to carry out.
I will probably write more about the Hmong in future posts, but I will finish by saying that I would have missed out on the story had I not gone to see Gran Torino. I highly recommend the movie.
The movie centers around Walt Kowalski, an aging Korean War vet and retired Ford autoworker who just lost his wife. Walt is stubborn and refuses to leave his house in a rundown Detroit neighborhood despite the crime, gang activity, and being one of the few remaining Caucasians. He lives next door to an Asian family who we discover are Hmong.
Walt hates Asians and uses a variety of racial epithets to describe them. He does not even attempt to hide his disgust and contempt of living next door to an Asian family.
The movie is about culture clash. The clash between Walt, an old school veteran of a Asian war who does not understand how Asian people ended up surrounding him in the Midwest United States. It is about the culture clash of multiple ethnic groups trying to live together in harsh circumstances. It is about the culture clash of hard working people trying to cope with predatory gangs of young thugs. Without giving too much away, it is about an "old dog" learning new tricks in accepting people with different looks, beliefs, and customs.
The SE Asian connection made it even more interesting. There are a couple of fine "history" moments such as when Sue, the teen Hmong neighbor, explains to Walt that the Hmong people are hill people, not jungle people and that they fought the communists in Laos on the U.S. side until the U.S. "bailed".
The story of the Hmong people and how they ended up in the United States is both fascinating and tragic. They fought against the communists in Laos during the Vietnam War. This was known as the "secret" war as the United States simply refused to admit any part in a war in Laos until recently. The United States left the area to the communists, led by the brutal communist group Pathet Lao. Pathet Lao publicly called for the extermination of the Hmong people which they begun to carry out.
I will probably write more about the Hmong in future posts, but I will finish by saying that I would have missed out on the story had I not gone to see Gran Torino. I highly recommend the movie.
SE Asian Leaders
Analyzing the effectiveness of SE Asian leaders during the colonial period is difficult. It is easy to argue that the leaders did what they could in the face of overwhelming European military power. They had little choice but to give in to the demands of the Europeans. It would be very easy to give these leaders a free pass for not doing more. When we take a closer look, it is clear that the leaders in SE Asia were also self-serving and frequently used the European powers to maintain their own power. Those capable of getting into power do not relinquish it easily. I think many of the leaders in SE Asia were nothing more than colonial puppets, but to these "leaders" being a colonial puppet with some power was better than having no power at all.
The leaders of the anti-colonial movement fought under the guise of throwing off the bonds of colonial oppressors, but in hindsight, many of them had more sinister plans. Communist revolutionaries had the short term goal of overthrowing an oppressive regime with the support of the people, not to install a democratic and honest system, but to install a new totalitarian regime. The intent was to overthrow the colonial regimes so that the new leaders could rule at their whim without being puppets of the colonial powers. One only has to look at what happened in Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Laos to see how the new regimes treated their own people once they gained power.
Even today, the specter of totalitarian regimes haunts SE Asia. Vietnam, Myanmar, and Laos are still ruled by totalitarian regimes. The remainder of the SE Asian countries enjoy various levels of freedom, but none are close to free.
Ultimately, I judge the leaders of a country by the level of freedom allowed. Did the leaders bring true freedom or did they merely grab power for themselves and brutally oppress their own people? By that criteria, SE Asian leaders have failed their people.
The leaders of the anti-colonial movement fought under the guise of throwing off the bonds of colonial oppressors, but in hindsight, many of them had more sinister plans. Communist revolutionaries had the short term goal of overthrowing an oppressive regime with the support of the people, not to install a democratic and honest system, but to install a new totalitarian regime. The intent was to overthrow the colonial regimes so that the new leaders could rule at their whim without being puppets of the colonial powers. One only has to look at what happened in Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Laos to see how the new regimes treated their own people once they gained power.
Even today, the specter of totalitarian regimes haunts SE Asia. Vietnam, Myanmar, and Laos are still ruled by totalitarian regimes. The remainder of the SE Asian countries enjoy various levels of freedom, but none are close to free.
Ultimately, I judge the leaders of a country by the level of freedom allowed. Did the leaders bring true freedom or did they merely grab power for themselves and brutally oppress their own people? By that criteria, SE Asian leaders have failed their people.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
SE Asia Needs to Lose the Village
Reading the chapter entitled Village Life in Neher got me thinking about urbanization and agriculture. I think it is fascinating to look at urbanization and agricultural trends in a country because they tell you a lot about the quality of life, lifestyle, and where the country is in terms of modernization.
Generally speaking, countries that use a large percentage of their labor force for agriculture are poor, developing countries that have yet to modernize. Because so many people are involved in agriculture, the populations are overwhelmingly rural and farms tend to be very small holdings.
The U.S. went from 5,647,800 farms with an average size of 213 acres in 1950 to 2,075,510 farms with an average of 449 acres in 2000 (1). The farms got bigger as the number of hands needed to run them got smaller. This is a sure sign of modernization. All of that labor was put to other productive uses in the manufacturing and service industries. It is also no surprise that the percentage of urban population increased from 64.2% in 1950 to 79.1% by 2000 (2) as people moved where the jobs are.
Today, only around 0.6% of the U.S. labor force works in farming, forestry, or fishing and agriculture accounts for only 1.2% of the GDP. The United States uses only 0.21% of land for permanent crops. (3)
In Thailand 42.6% of the labor force works in agriculture; Vietnam 55.6% of the labor force works in agriculture; Indonesia the percentage is 42.1 %; and in Laos, a whopping 80% of the labor force works in agriculture. (4) Not surprisingly, SE Asia is still overwhelmingly rural.
Singapore and Brunei have less than 1% of their labor force in agriculture and, respectively, have the fourth and fifth largest per capita GDP in the world (5). The third largest per capita GDP in SE Asia is Malaysia with only 9.7% of the labor force working in agriculture (6). Down the line, the higher percentage of the labor force working in agriculture, the lower the per capita GDP.
Clearly, SE Asia has yet to break free of the agrarian past. The colonial powers exploited SE Asia primarily for agricultural products at the expense of development of manufacturing and service industries. SE Asia must modernize its agricultural system and put its labor force into the manufacturing and service industries or else it will largely remain poor.
1. Land in Farms. US Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service
Washington Field Office. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Washington/Historic_Data/economics/landinfm.pdf (accessed February 18, 2008).
2. Globalis. "United States: Urban Population." http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=30&Country=US (accessed February 18, 2008).3. CIA World Factbook 2008. Central Intelligence Agency, Office of Public Affairs. (accessed February 18, 2008).
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
Generally speaking, countries that use a large percentage of their labor force for agriculture are poor, developing countries that have yet to modernize. Because so many people are involved in agriculture, the populations are overwhelmingly rural and farms tend to be very small holdings.
The U.S. went from 5,647,800 farms with an average size of 213 acres in 1950 to 2,075,510 farms with an average of 449 acres in 2000 (1). The farms got bigger as the number of hands needed to run them got smaller. This is a sure sign of modernization. All of that labor was put to other productive uses in the manufacturing and service industries. It is also no surprise that the percentage of urban population increased from 64.2% in 1950 to 79.1% by 2000 (2) as people moved where the jobs are.
Today, only around 0.6% of the U.S. labor force works in farming, forestry, or fishing and agriculture accounts for only 1.2% of the GDP. The United States uses only 0.21% of land for permanent crops. (3)
In Thailand 42.6% of the labor force works in agriculture; Vietnam 55.6% of the labor force works in agriculture; Indonesia the percentage is 42.1 %; and in Laos, a whopping 80% of the labor force works in agriculture. (4) Not surprisingly, SE Asia is still overwhelmingly rural.
Singapore and Brunei have less than 1% of their labor force in agriculture and, respectively, have the fourth and fifth largest per capita GDP in the world (5). The third largest per capita GDP in SE Asia is Malaysia with only 9.7% of the labor force working in agriculture (6). Down the line, the higher percentage of the labor force working in agriculture, the lower the per capita GDP.
Clearly, SE Asia has yet to break free of the agrarian past. The colonial powers exploited SE Asia primarily for agricultural products at the expense of development of manufacturing and service industries. SE Asia must modernize its agricultural system and put its labor force into the manufacturing and service industries or else it will largely remain poor.
1. Land in Farms. US Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service
Washington Field Office. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Washington/Historic_Data/economics/landinfm.pdf (accessed February 18, 2008).
2. Globalis. "United States: Urban Population." http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=30&Country=US (accessed February 18, 2008).3. CIA World Factbook 2008. Central Intelligence Agency, Office of Public Affairs.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
SE Asia Patron Client Relationship: The Difference in Rural and Urban Areas
I think the patron client relationship is largely a function of a rural society with a decentralized government. The more urbanized the populace and centralized the government, the more the traditional client patron relationship diminishes in relevance.
I have lived in extreme rural areas and large cities. My personal experience is that rural people are more self-sufficient, independent, and suspicious of government interference. While this is a generalization, they also help each other in times of need because they have no one else to turn to. One week a neighbor may help till a field and the next the next week the neighbor who received help the previous week may help roof his neighbor's house. This is the equivalent of the Javanese tradition of gotong rojong ("mutual aid") (Neher, 62). This is a sort of voluntary communism. You are not forced to help anyone, but if you do not you are less likely to receive help when you need it and you will almost certainly need it. When neighbors need help, they turn to their neighbor.
To contrast this with urban culture, people help each other in urban areas, but they usually don't need help from their neighbor for survival. If they need someone to fix their roof, they call a roofing company. If they need food, they go to the grocery. If they can't feed themselves or become homeless, they will almost certainly turn to the government for assistance rather than a neighbor. The central government takes the place of the patron in urban culture. This goes beyond government in that we still use terms like "patron of the arts" when a wealthy person builds a new museum or donates to the symphony, but these are primarily urban activities.
As SE Asia transitions from a rural agrarian society to an urban society, personalism will diminish and the central government will become the predominant patron.
I have lived in extreme rural areas and large cities. My personal experience is that rural people are more self-sufficient, independent, and suspicious of government interference. While this is a generalization, they also help each other in times of need because they have no one else to turn to. One week a neighbor may help till a field and the next the next week the neighbor who received help the previous week may help roof his neighbor's house. This is the equivalent of the Javanese tradition of gotong rojong ("mutual aid") (Neher, 62). This is a sort of voluntary communism. You are not forced to help anyone, but if you do not you are less likely to receive help when you need it and you will almost certainly need it. When neighbors need help, they turn to their neighbor.
To contrast this with urban culture, people help each other in urban areas, but they usually don't need help from their neighbor for survival. If they need someone to fix their roof, they call a roofing company. If they need food, they go to the grocery. If they can't feed themselves or become homeless, they will almost certainly turn to the government for assistance rather than a neighbor. The central government takes the place of the patron in urban culture. This goes beyond government in that we still use terms like "patron of the arts" when a wealthy person builds a new museum or donates to the symphony, but these are primarily urban activities.
As SE Asia transitions from a rural agrarian society to an urban society, personalism will diminish and the central government will become the predominant patron.
Patron Client Relationship in SE Asia
The patron client relationship is at the heart of relationships in Southeast Asian culture. Though, the introduction of nation-states and bureaucratic institutions diminished the importance of the patron client relationship.
The patron client relationship is a form of social safety net where the wealthy and powerful support the poor and weak. While perhaps especially ingrained in Southeast Asian culture, the client patron relationship is hardly exclusive to Southeast Asia. There is a long tradition in Western culture of providing favors in exchange for political support. Our own political system works on the client patron system as well as the "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". The patron client system in the Philippines where poor voters essentially sell their vote to the patron that will give them the most (Neher, 62) is a universal condition in modern politics.
I would argue that the patron client system is a more efficient and just system than those "enjoyed" in modern nation-states with powerful central governments. If I do a favor for someone and they have a sense of indebtedness they will probably repay the debt and perhaps work harder to solve their own problems to avoid going into debt. On the other hand, in a modern nation-state, the central government acts as the social safety net to provide services that (allegedly) the free market cannot provide. This means that people seek favors from the government rather than individuals. I should say that in order to seek favors from individuals in high places of government requires large sums of money for lobbyists, but I digress. Those seeking favors never see the face of the person who actually meets their needs. The central government takes the money in the form of taxes and redistributes it to those in need. This creates a system where the government becomes the patron and gains the servitude of those people receiving favors while doing so with the money from someone else.
I believe that Southeast Asia developed the client patron system in lieu of strong central governments and bureaucratic structures. They have now developed strong central governments that collect taxes and redistribute the wealth in the form of government services. The traditional client patron relationships will dissolve overtime, replaced by a patron government.
The patron client relationship is a form of social safety net where the wealthy and powerful support the poor and weak. While perhaps especially ingrained in Southeast Asian culture, the client patron relationship is hardly exclusive to Southeast Asia. There is a long tradition in Western culture of providing favors in exchange for political support. Our own political system works on the client patron system as well as the "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". The patron client system in the Philippines where poor voters essentially sell their vote to the patron that will give them the most (Neher, 62) is a universal condition in modern politics.
I would argue that the patron client system is a more efficient and just system than those "enjoyed" in modern nation-states with powerful central governments. If I do a favor for someone and they have a sense of indebtedness they will probably repay the debt and perhaps work harder to solve their own problems to avoid going into debt. On the other hand, in a modern nation-state, the central government acts as the social safety net to provide services that (allegedly) the free market cannot provide. This means that people seek favors from the government rather than individuals. I should say that in order to seek favors from individuals in high places of government requires large sums of money for lobbyists, but I digress. Those seeking favors never see the face of the person who actually meets their needs. The central government takes the money in the form of taxes and redistributes it to those in need. This creates a system where the government becomes the patron and gains the servitude of those people receiving favors while doing so with the money from someone else.
I believe that Southeast Asia developed the client patron system in lieu of strong central governments and bureaucratic structures. They have now developed strong central governments that collect taxes and redistribute the wealth in the form of government services. The traditional client patron relationships will dissolve overtime, replaced by a patron government.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Final Thoughts on Colonialism and Change in SE Asia
Ultimately, I think we have a moral question when we look at European colonialism in SE Asia. I do not know how I can answer the question, "by what right did the European powers impose their will on SE Asia?", with any other answer than, "they had no right."
The SE Asians did not need the Europeans. I do not see how we can look at the Europeans as anything but exploitative interlopers. They exploited economic resources, imposed their religious ideologies, meddled in political affairs, and worked to undermine cultures that had existed for thousands of years.
The formation of traditional nation-states and heavy-handed meddling by European powers were major contributing factors in the formation of hard-line communist regimes in the region. The "modern" communist approach to rebellion and revolution proved very successful around the world in toppling unwanted governments and evicting uninvited colonial "guests". Communism is very appealing to oppressed "peasants", especially during times of economic hardship. The events that led to the communist rebellion in Vietnam are textbook examples of the power of organized communists to erode and destabilize the control of a colonial power. Had the Europeans not been so heavy-handed in their approach, the SE Asians might not have taken the drastic approach of turning to communist-style revolution.
Whatever positive change brought about in SE Asia by the colonial powers is overshadowed by the egregious behavior of the European powers in their blatant economic exploitation and apparent disdain for any culture other than their own.
The SE Asians did not need the Europeans. I do not see how we can look at the Europeans as anything but exploitative interlopers. They exploited economic resources, imposed their religious ideologies, meddled in political affairs, and worked to undermine cultures that had existed for thousands of years.
The formation of traditional nation-states and heavy-handed meddling by European powers were major contributing factors in the formation of hard-line communist regimes in the region. The "modern" communist approach to rebellion and revolution proved very successful around the world in toppling unwanted governments and evicting uninvited colonial "guests". Communism is very appealing to oppressed "peasants", especially during times of economic hardship. The events that led to the communist rebellion in Vietnam are textbook examples of the power of organized communists to erode and destabilize the control of a colonial power. Had the Europeans not been so heavy-handed in their approach, the SE Asians might not have taken the drastic approach of turning to communist-style revolution.
Whatever positive change brought about in SE Asia by the colonial powers is overshadowed by the egregious behavior of the European powers in their blatant economic exploitation and apparent disdain for any culture other than their own.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Colonialism and Economic Change in SE Asia
The European colonial powers brought economic change to SE Asia, but that change was detrimental and almost exclusively benefited the Europeans.
The SE Asians already had a sophisticated trade network with China, India, Japan, each other, etc. The SE Asians did not need the "help" of the Europeans to modernize their economic system. Whereas the SE Asians would have invested in business ventures locally and reaped full benefit from their economic activity, they instead had to support the weight of what amounted to European parasites in the form of forced economic cooperation and heavy-handed bureaucratic structures. This is certainly not to say that the local rulers in SE Asia did not exploit the labor of their own people for their own benefit, but nothing on the scale that the European colonial powers achieved.
Left alone, SE Asia could have developed into an economic powerhouse considering the myriad of natural resources and strategic geographic location. I suppose it was these advantages that made them irresistible targets of the European powers.
The SE Asians already had a sophisticated trade network with China, India, Japan, each other, etc. The SE Asians did not need the "help" of the Europeans to modernize their economic system. Whereas the SE Asians would have invested in business ventures locally and reaped full benefit from their economic activity, they instead had to support the weight of what amounted to European parasites in the form of forced economic cooperation and heavy-handed bureaucratic structures. This is certainly not to say that the local rulers in SE Asia did not exploit the labor of their own people for their own benefit, but nothing on the scale that the European colonial powers achieved.
Left alone, SE Asia could have developed into an economic powerhouse considering the myriad of natural resources and strategic geographic location. I suppose it was these advantages that made them irresistible targets of the European powers.
European Nationalism?
Something struck me as I wrote my last post and read deeper into the Tarling text. Tarling implies that the Europeans introduced nationalism to SE Asia (by force) (1). However, I do not think this is a correct assessment. The Thai people had already grouped together into a "nation". Most of modern day Thailand already had set boundaries by the early 1800s. under Rama I, though there were many power centers with semi-independent rulers (2). In fact, the borders of the Thai kingdom of Ayudhya in 1540 look pretty similar to those of modern Thailand (3). Of course, we know that Thailand was the exception in SE Asia in avoiding direct colonial rule, but Tarling emphatically states that ALL of SE Asia went through this period of nationalism. Later, Tarling says that "European" nationalism involves discreet groups distinguishable by differences of language, religion, culture, and physical appearance (4). If this does not describe the Thai, I do not know what does. Thai nationalism, even today, is based on language, ethnicity, and religion.
1. Nicholas Tarling, The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia Volume Two, Part One. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 75.
2. David.Wyatt, Thailand. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984),158.
3. Ibid, 87.
4. Tarling, 250.
1. Nicholas Tarling, The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia Volume Two, Part One. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 75.
2. David.Wyatt, Thailand. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984),158.
3. Ibid, 87.
4. Tarling, 250.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Colonialism and Political Change in SE Asia
Perhaps the biggest change caused by European colonialism in SE Asia was political change. This change largely came about in the form of establishment of European style bureaucratic structures of control and creation of nation-states. By 1870, the colonial powers had divided the region and created the boundaries that we would largely recognize as the modern day nation-state boundaries.
I suppose many would argue that the development of nation-states in SE Asia was progress, but the boundaries of the nation-states were artificial. Rather than set the boundaries based on group affiliations, the boundaries were set to avoid major conflicts between the European powers (1). It is not that the many regions in SE Asia did not already exhibit some forms of nationalism, but this pride was largely based on cultural identity where there was a large population of ethnically and culturally related people (the Thai for example). Where the populations were more diverse, the "European" style of nationalism did not fit (2).
1. Nicholas Tarling, The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia Volume Two, Part One. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 75.
2. Ibid, 250.
I suppose many would argue that the development of nation-states in SE Asia was progress, but the boundaries of the nation-states were artificial. Rather than set the boundaries based on group affiliations, the boundaries were set to avoid major conflicts between the European powers (1). It is not that the many regions in SE Asia did not already exhibit some forms of nationalism, but this pride was largely based on cultural identity where there was a large population of ethnically and culturally related people (the Thai for example). Where the populations were more diverse, the "European" style of nationalism did not fit (2).
1. Nicholas Tarling, The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia Volume Two, Part One. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 75.
2. Ibid, 250.
Colonialism and Religious Change in SE Asia
Of all the cultural changes brought about by European colonialism in SE Asia, religion was perhaps least affected. The Spanish and Portuguese before them tried to convert the SE Asians to Catholicism with mixed and limited success. Catholicism took hold in the Philippines, but failed to gain much of a following in the rest of the region (1). With the notable exception of Islam, the SE Asians would stick to their old beliefs, meaning Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and "indigenous" beliefs such as animism (2).
While the Portuguese, Spanish, and French showed great interest in converting the locals to Catholicism, the Dutch and Great Britain almost exclusively concerned themselves with economic control and did not interfere with the religious practices of the locals.
SE Asia became a center of religious rivalry between Christianity and Islam (3). While the Dutch did not consider religious conversion a goal (4), religion and conquest went hand in hand. The Dutch celebrated their colonial conquest victories as signs of the power of their Christian God (5). The Dutch had as a secondary mission the goal to stifle the spread of Islam and instead. The heavy-handed tactics of the Spanish in Sulu in the 1870s helped inspire Islamic groups to unite against the Europeans (6).
Ultimately, with the exception of the Philippines, European religions failed to catch on in SE Asia, though the presence of the Europeans set up religious conflict with Islam that resonates today.
I am sure that the believers in Christianity in SE Asia would argue that the colonial influence on religion was a positive one, but conversion at the point of a sword is anything but positive. Where the people had more of a choice, Christianity failed to spread. It was, perhaps, because of the very Un-Christian like brutal behavior of the European powers that led to a backlash against the natural adoption of Christianity in the region.
1. Clark D. Neher, Southeast Asia: Crossroads of the World (DeKalb, Illinois: Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Northern Illinois University, 2004), 21.
2. Ibid.
3. Nicholas Tarling, The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia Volume One, Part Two. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 198.
4. Ibid, 185.
5. Ibid, 198.
6. Nicholas Tarling, The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia Volume Two, Part One. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 55.
While the Portuguese, Spanish, and French showed great interest in converting the locals to Catholicism, the Dutch and Great Britain almost exclusively concerned themselves with economic control and did not interfere with the religious practices of the locals.
SE Asia became a center of religious rivalry between Christianity and Islam (3). While the Dutch did not consider religious conversion a goal (4), religion and conquest went hand in hand. The Dutch celebrated their colonial conquest victories as signs of the power of their Christian God (5). The Dutch had as a secondary mission the goal to stifle the spread of Islam and instead. The heavy-handed tactics of the Spanish in Sulu in the 1870s helped inspire Islamic groups to unite against the Europeans (6).
Ultimately, with the exception of the Philippines, European religions failed to catch on in SE Asia, though the presence of the Europeans set up religious conflict with Islam that resonates today.
I am sure that the believers in Christianity in SE Asia would argue that the colonial influence on religion was a positive one, but conversion at the point of a sword is anything but positive. Where the people had more of a choice, Christianity failed to spread. It was, perhaps, because of the very Un-Christian like brutal behavior of the European powers that led to a backlash against the natural adoption of Christianity in the region.
1. Clark D. Neher, Southeast Asia: Crossroads of the World (DeKalb, Illinois: Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Northern Illinois University, 2004), 21.
2. Ibid.
3. Nicholas Tarling, The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia Volume One, Part Two. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 198.
4. Ibid, 185.
5. Ibid, 198.
6. Nicholas Tarling, The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia Volume Two, Part One. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 55.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Harry Nicolaides Pardon
I read that it was likely that Harry Nicolaides would be pardoned by the Thai royal family as others convicted of lese majeste have also been pardoned by the royal family. I hope Nicolaides didn't do this as a publicity stunt thinking he would be pardoned because it has not turned out well for him. As I understand it, he's in prison with hardcore prisoners. I just hope he gets his pardon before something happens to him in prison.
The real issue is why they have the law on the books. The harsh tactics in getting foreign citizens (who have no allegiance to the royal family) to confess to the "crime" could not have a positive effect on foreign relations.
I wonder what laws they have on the books against criticizing government leaders and officials?
The real issue is why they have the law on the books. The harsh tactics in getting foreign citizens (who have no allegiance to the royal family) to confess to the "crime" could not have a positive effect on foreign relations.
I wonder what laws they have on the books against criticizing government leaders and officials?
Change During European Colonialism
For better or worse, European colonialism had a dramatic impact on SE Asia. The Europeans brought unprecedented economic, technological, religious, and social change. On one hand, this change was largely uninvited and forced upon the SE Asian people. On the other hand, many of the changes were progressive and beneficial.
In my next few posts, I will look at the various categories of change that I listed above and offer my opinion on whether these changes were positive or negative. Some will no doubt be both as few things in history come out as black and white. If they did, what would we have to argue?
In my next few posts, I will look at the various categories of change that I listed above and offer my opinion on whether these changes were positive or negative. Some will no doubt be both as few things in history come out as black and white. If they did, what would we have to argue?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)