East meets West
Written by ED on May 29, 2008 – 12:48 pm - Posted in Current Affairs, Singapore, Society, World |The Western society probably find it hard to comprehend and embrace the rise of Asia in modern days, to the point where we are seen as a threat to their “stability”. Singapore’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Kishore Mahbubani, was grilled on BBC’s Hardtalk recently which led to the bombardment of the Singapore’s system. (You can view Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 here.)
After watching the full show more than 3 times, I can’t exactly agree with everything Kishore said. Yet, I can’t also agree with what the host, Stephen Sackur, was trying to point out. In that sense, Stephen seemed to consider Singapore the “culprit” in Asia when there are many more countries that should be credited with the Asia boom.
The Western society had always seek to project themselves as more superior than the rest of the world, and that their way is the way of the world. It’s a big mistake I think, to blatantly position themselves in that manner when Mother Earth is inhibited by all. Whenever someone comes up to flag their integrity and trustworthiness, one question you would have read from me is… who is considered impartial enough to judge? In this case, Aliens maybe?
With the economic achievement of Asian countries, it is a natural progression that our voices grow bigger in a world dominated by the West. This is something that the West find it hard to accept, for at the top they think they belong. Jeremiah talked about the power shift from companies to consumers in Social Media some time back, and I believed that this is happening between the West and the East. The West simply cannot handle the fast uprising of Asian voices that are spurred on by the economic success.
I am not sure if I should say, Singapore became a victim of her own success, when singled out and grilled. For the entire Part 2, it was more like Singapore vs The World. This is precisely why I reserve doubts on what projection was Stephen trying to create.
A matter of fact, Singapore is not the only powerhouse in Asia. China is a fast-growing nation, picking up on trade and the new generation. The same can be seen in India, with their surprising talent in technology. In Vietnam, life is picking up and we’re looking at the country building up ever since they were invaded by The US military. South Korea and Japan are also modern countries, that has appealed to worldwide tourists. A lot of new technologies are found in Japan too. Singapore, a money center in the region attracting business establishments from all over the world. My personal thought is, how do these make Asia inferior?
No doubt the West had been economically leading the world for eons, that does not mean the rest of the world beyond the West can’t grow. Take a look at United States for example, armed with economic power comes the lack of morals in some. Even some Americans suggested a degrading of social values in their younger generations. Is this what democracy is all about? Is democracy allowing citizens to ruin their own lives?
Even if Singapore’s political system is not one of the most favorable, some Western law systems were also found to be full of loopholes too. Who is to say, a perfect system?
I think I prefer a better option of merging the two, if equality is really what the West preaches. How about merging the economic powers of the West and the social values of the East? In that sense, the West can benefit more from the trade opportunities in Asia, while Asia provides the balance in social values or morals as some calls it. Each will provide what the other is lacking in. The question now, is the Western society ready to be scrutinized the same way they have been scrutinizing Asian countries?
The ideals of a more superior community is never far from reach, and we’re looking at it again and again in very subtle delivery. Are Asians really any less inferior than Westerners? The truth hurts, for some.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Er I think, you need to watch the programme more to understand. It looks like you seemed to have misunderstood the point about the questions/counterpoint posed by the host.
(a) First, Kishore Mahbubani’s thesis is that economic development must come first before “democratic” development. So basically, to test this thesis, what the host had done was like any rigorous academic exercise was to present a counter-point. In this case, Singapore, to test whether Kishore’s thesis actually hold up. But as you can see from Kishore’s answer he was evasive and unable to reply point blank.
(b) Second, Kishore’s argument that given the rise of Asia, should the west not recognise it. So the host, again rightly had to test Kishore’s argument, which was if he expected the West, which is used to concept of Free Speech, etc., to embrace the East, would he be able to name an Asian characteristics that would make the West embrace it? The host simply use a concrete example like Singapore, which if representative of Asian supremency, as a point to validate Kishore’s argument. Yet Kishore could only give an evasive answer.
(c) Kishore argue that Asian rapid development put the West to shame because the West took longer to achieved economic developed status than Asian countries. Yet when the host tried to point out if Asian could develop economically so rapidly, why does it always argue that it needs longer time to develop democracy. Again Singapore was brought up as an example. Singapore has now reached a level of economic development and yet why democracy has not arrived? Again Kishore was unable to respond.
(d) Finally, Kishore boast about how excellent ASEAN was and by implication should be seen as a model of inter-country collaboration. Again to test this idea the host use a concrete of comparing the EU and ASEAN to explain his case, Kishore could not respond.
So as you can see from the interview it was Kishore who brought up the Asian Supremecy angle. All the host did was to get Kishore to explain his argument through a series of challenging questions. Yet Kishore failed miserably.
[Reply]
May 29th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I don’t think Stephen was bring out Western Supremacy either. All he did was to bring a counter point to the argument that Kishore made. It’s a simple case of you said something prove it!
Note it was Kishore himself that:
(a) When the counterpoint about EU vs ASEAN, it was he would noted that EU was score better, I think the praise he heap was the “pinnacle of human civilisation”. So he himself was benchmarking against western values.
(b) It was Kishore himself was noted that “free market” was a Western inventions. Again benchmarking using Western values.
On your question:
It brings out the question in me, what if the Western countries are wrong, in their manner of establishing their supremacy above the rest of the world?
Now let me understand what you mean.
When you said “their manner” do you mean you don’t like the way they speak about Western values or do you reject Western values?
What do you mean by “Western”? Do you mean the Franco, Anglo-Saxon, etc?
[Reply]
May 29th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
On this point:
Like you have said, it was discussed why Singapore has arrived with economic success but lapse on democracy. Stephen has based his reasonings taking reference from the Western society in general, regardless of US or EU.
I think you need to hear the interview again. The point was that Kishore, himself, bought out the case that Democracy will ultimately win. Not Stephen. But Kishore qualify by saying that Asian country needs to develop the economy first. Ok what Stephen did was if that was your argument, let us look at the case of Singapore and test it against your argument.
All Stephen did was basically no different from what Martin See did when Kishore claim that there was no poverty in Singapore. What Martin See did was to provide a video showing the counter point.
The rest is up to Kishore to explain but he couldn’t do it convincingly.
This led me to question, why does the Western society feels that Asia has to keep in pace with the West’s speed of democratic movement? Too fast? Too slow? So fundamentally, the basis was made upon using the West as the benchmark of what is acceptable and what is not.
Again let’s get the context correct. Kishore himself boast that the East was developing at a faster paced than West ever did. And that the West was failing to keep up. So basically, the code word was look we, “Asian”, are able to develop faster than you stupid “West”. Kishore than went on to justify that the West should learn to embrace the East.
Now if I was in Stephen’s shoe, I would have put the same question to Kishore to test his argument, namely, if you boast that on the economic front you can develop faster than us, then why you can’t do it on the democratic front. After all you have seen the mistake, we in the West had made in democratic development how come you can’t better us ?
Oh the point about the West should embrace the East, the point is clear. As far as the West is concerned democracy means, freedom of speech, transparencies, etc. So basically, what Stephen asked of Kishore how would the east convinced the West to give up these values. Again using the case of Singapore, what are the values that will make the West give up. Simple analogy.
On the point:
When I asked what if the West is wrong, I meant what if the degrading of social values (as an example among the many factors) in the West is a result of them opening up too fast and too widely?
What do you mean by degrading social values?
Now let me guess, I suspect you mean by Gay rights, divorce, etc.
Again this is a strange argument. I often many so called people who championing Asian values, what they mean is evangelical Christian (anti-gay) values. Again import from the West. So why is the East so eager to learn about these Western values?
Let me use a concrete example to contrast between the East and the West social values.
I live in London, and if you go to Kings Cross Railway station, you will see that newspapers seller just leave their papers with a box and if you are in a hurry, all you need to do is drop your money in. Do you see that in Kia Su and Kia Si Singapore?
Hey even Lee Kuan Yew saw that when he was a student.
On this point:
For a long time, Asia is expected to perform up to what the West has achieved, and according to the manner the West is managed.
Who is expecting Asia to perform up to the West?
Yeah maybe some Western commentators. But how much different is that to Singaporean expecting Malaysia to “catch up”.
More to the point won’t you say it is Asian themselves that want to catch up with the West?
For example, why are so many Singaporean wanting to emigrate to the “West” and not the “East”?
But my personal opinions is that, it need not necessarily meant that the West’s management is any better. So what baseline are we using here?
You are perfectly in your right to have your own opinion — oops I am being too Western by giving people the right to their own opinion :-). I should be more Asian and tell you the “right” way to think
Anyway, seriously, it might come as a shock. Even people in the West are not certain that what they’ve got is right. Hence, this is constant re-assessment. If you live in London you will see this constant re-assessment of their own history. For example, question about Slavery. Can you say that is something that happens in Singapore?
Oh yes, unlike Kishore’s view of the West, there are continuous soul searching in the West about how to engage the East. There is one segment that say engagement is good. There is another that say engagement is bad.
In the West there is tension between the Anglo Saxon and the Franco view of the world.
You see the West is not a homogeneous blob as you and Kishore would like to make it out. Likewise, neither is there a homogeneous Asian view, which Kishore seemed so arrogantly believe he is the embodiment of one.
[Reply]
May 29th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
On this point:
Granted, that Stephen does indeed have every Rights to question.
Hun? Who do you mean Stephen has the rights to question?
You mean Stephen must ask for permission to ask question in his own talk show?
Have you forgotten it was Kishore who volunteered to go to the programme knowing full well what the format was?
Remember this is a devil’s advocate style of talk show.
Beside Kishore has appeared in other “less confrontational” style show that let Kishore babble on and on about how great the east is without a single challenge from the host. So why do you think that just from this one show that you can draw it as representative of east and west race for domination?
On this point:
What’s the benchmark used in this comparison? The West or the East? Evidently, the basis was compared using the West as the baseline, in the speed of democracy being adopted quickly after the economic success. If the West wasn’t used as benchmark, what are we comparing with then?
Er I think your obsession with East being put down and West being strong seemed to be getting in the way of see the context of the who argument.
Now the argument was comparison between East and West, so should the counterpoint (i.e. alternative view) not be on the basis of these two references?
This is not about East compared to North (if there is one), South (if there is one) or timbaktu Kapish? So what are you expecting?
On this point:
This is basically it! Asian countries have always been expected to convince why the West should adopt something from the East. My argument is, why does it always have to be the East trying to convince the West? Why not, the West try and convince the East why we should adopt some of those Western policies?
Er. Aren’t you contradicting yourself here. First you are complaining that the West are trying to dictate or convince the East on what to do? Now you are saying that the West are not convincing (or dictating) enough to the East?
It’s a very one-way traffic regarding the West and the East, and that’s the part where the West has to recognize this Earth doesn’t consist of Western countries alone.
Who says things is one-way street. The West is now into Joga, Chinese Food, Fung Shui, etc. Hey the national UK dish is now Chicken Tikka Masla!
And certainly, we cannot change the East to live like the West.
Who says the East cannot live like the West. The East is wearing western style clothes, singing hip hop, use the Internet, speak English.
So what do you mean?
Like yourself, if I were in Kishore’s shoes I would question Stephen on what benchmark is he comparing the speed of change in Asia. What is the “minimum standard” and who determines this “minimum standard”?
Again, it was Kishore himself who spoke of the speed of change. He kept boasting about how much exponential growth here and there.
Again it was Kishore himself who use the glib phrase that “Democracy would win” but when pressed for specific examples of minimum standard all he could was complain about western hypocrisies! So he himself was unable to articulate what the minimum “Eastern” standard was.
I don’t think it’s an issue of being too westernized towards your opinions. What’s less, when the Western society has been telling the rest of the world how to live, that’s the same exact scenario as well. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have placed itself as a global standard for so many generations.
Well if the East feel peeve about the West, then why don’t they form their own version of United Nations?
Why not just withdraw from Western institutions like the IMF, etc. And form their own.
The eventual rise of Asia is definitely causing some discomfort for some in the West, for it threatens the very propaganda they have been living by.
Hmm, I have heard this so-call rise of Asia before. Frankly, this so-called raise is likely to be a MYTH. I remember once about Japan is going to takeover the world because of their industrial prowess. What happens? Japan is still depend on the West for its exports. I suspect China too!
That does not mean the West is so powerful that it can do what it wants. Just look at US it may be militarily powerful that they can do whatever it wants. Look at Vietnam, it wanted to get rid of the US it was still able to do so. Hey even China had problem invading Vietnam too!
[Reply]