Inklings of A Vision for ASEAN (Part 1 - The Cultures)
I quote from Brunei's Foreign Affairs & Trade Minister, Prince Mohamed Bolkiah from his inaugural Southeast Asian lecture in Singapore on Tuesday with reference to real action to realise ASEAN plans, "It won't be easy of course. We are 10 members with 10 different ways of life, different faiths and at least half a dozen systems of government. But I hope that ASEAN will find the way. To do this, I think that somehow we have to discover what I would like to call the common ground which any community shares. It will need a vision like the one ASEAN's founders had over 40 years ago. But if we can find out how to do it, I believe we have a very good future indeed".
s
I think he sums up the situation in ASEAN very well, as well as the need for a common vision built on common ground which the entire community can share. But obviously, the main issue to deal with then is, what vision can ASEAN share? After the losing the common political ground of post-colonial independance and nationalism, and experiecing competely different economic development paths, what is there left for us to hold to as a grouping of nations?
s
I wouldnt claim to have a well thought-off vision because I simply do not have the fundamental cultural, political or social awareness which such a vision will require in its drafting. By culture, I refer to the "different ways of life, different faiths", by politics, the "half a dozen systems of government" and by social, I mean the varying standards of living and economic situation in the different countries. However, with my limited knowledge, and drawing on much more general themes of understanding, respect and trust, I will try to present my inlkings of a vision for ASEAN, a vision that is built on the common grounds of culture, economics and politics.
s
My feel is that culturally, ASEAN is a very strong rooted society where cultural traditions, customs and languages are very dominant. The continents of South America, Africa & the regions of SEA have all been colonized by the various European states in the past 200 years. The dominant language in S. America now is either Spanish or Portuguese (Brazil), in Africa, the dominant language is English, or French, or Portuguese, depending on which was the colonial master. But in SEA, the dominant language in Indonesia is Bahasa Indonesia, in Malaysia Melayu, in Thailand Thai, in Phillipines Tagalog, in Vietnam Vietnamese, in Laos Laotian, in Burma Burmese, in Cambodia Cambodian and so on and forth. Perhaps the only exception would be Singapore, where English is the dominant language. Now, this may be a hindrance to forming a common cultural identity, especially when the native languages are so dominant that a large percentage of the local population are only able to converse fluently in their native language. But I see this as an inherent strength, a phenomenon rivaled only in Europe. And I would argue, that the only solution to finding a cultural common ground amongst such a mulplitude of languages would be the language of understanding and respect.
s
Rather than seeing this 'language of understanding and respect' as something airey-fairy, I think they are very tangible realisations of it. To start with, a determination to respect another culture and language would go hand-in-hand with steeled endeavour to learn about the other cultures and languages. I would propose that the linguitically able, pursue other SEA languages, rather than French, or German, or Spanish. I would propose that cultures and traditions that seem out-dated, 'irrational' or even repressive to the individual quest for science and reason; be respected instead in their humble pursuit of identity and home. Before modern-day globalists are quick to whitewash my thoughts as an 'nostalgic romantic harking back to past glory days', let it be clear that unlike Greece, or Egypt or Rome; Southeast Asia does not need to hark back to days gone and lost. The culture that still runs strongly in SEA is one that never lost its way, and continues to touch the raw nerves and souls of many local south-east asians. These are cultures that have seen glory days of ancient empires, witnessed systematic ideological and political attacks under colonial imperialism, and shone through the darkness of post-nationalist economic and social unrest. These are cultures that have retained their relevance through the passage of time.
s
Therefore, if Southeast-asians are not able to come together and truly respect and admire the rich cultures of each other, then there will never be a greater Southeast-asian identity. If there is to be a leading nation to spearhead this drive for a greater identity, then it must be a leadership founded first and foremost, on the respect for the various local ways-of-lives, on the respect for the various local faiths. After that, then can we talk economics, urbanisation or development. (which will be the subject of the next part in this essay)
posted by xiangZ @ 5:29 PM
9 Comments:
haha i am not so optimistic. my take is that the common ground between south east asian nations is basically only 2 things: economic development and security.
it is very difficult to find common ground culturally. i'll just use one point to illustrate: europeans all belong to the same civilisation despite their difference in languages and ways of life. SEA people come from at least 4 different ancient civilisations: maritime southeast asia, han china, india, and siam (probably it's even more complicated than that). which civilisation you come from will determine how you think and where you get your values from - other than we are both singaporeans, how similar do you think it is between my malay neighbour and me?
on the same note, even within the EU, citizens of individual countries are already very apprehensive of their countries getting more tied up with EU affairs - and when within malaysia itself they cannot handle differences between the minority indians and the ruling malays properly - i don't think we can expect anything more than a loose union with close economic cooperation.
it is one thing to live together and understand and accept each other's ways of life (as in the case between different races in singapore), but it is very much something different when you have to sit together and make common decisions. it might be possible with a relatively passive (cooperative) population and a strong and capable leadership - but do you see that in the countries around us?
(the same things apply when we are looking for a wife?)
what would you think if singapore were to open its borders to allow borderless travel between singapore and other SEA countries, just like the countries that signed the schengen agreement? haha i would be quite scared personally :P though even that cannot be achieved, what is the meaning of talking about a common constitution? it would simply just be something like the united nations charter...
but maybe i shouldn't be too pessimistic. the EU started as a small economic cooperation on steel and coal only too... :P
On the question of Singapore opening up its borders, I am of the firm opinion that in the medium-run (10-20years), if Singapore does not integrate itself into the greater Malaysian Peninsula or SEA, it will be a very different climate for the local Singaporeans. I think what is needed is a mindset change in Singaporeans, to realise that we need SEA more than SEA needs us in the medium-run. If that change does not occur in the normal Singaporean, then it will not be long when the normal Singaporean feels the impact of a completely cut-off metropolis and still live naively thinking that life is still better in Singapore than anywhere else in SEA.
Frustration with progress in SEA can stem from 2 things: firstly, the superficial level of judging indicators, political situations; secondly, the brash dismissal of another state as lagging far behind. While the senior members of government I think have their grievances rooted far more in the former, I think that most Singaporeans and the younger generation alike are firmly in the latter category. Ironically, this might be the impact of the government's drive to instill national pride and identity in terms of highlighting the country's fast progress compared to our neighbours.
I purposely put culture as the first of mine areas to cover because I feel that it is the most basic requisite. There will never be an economic common ground nor a political common ground if the SEA nations are all distrustful and disrespectful of each other, and this stems all the way from the top leadership to the normal citizen.
The EU before anything else, is an organization founded on economic principles, and I do not think that model would be enough in SEA. But of course, the economic and political aspects are of crucial importance as well in a vision, and I'll cover that soon. =p
I agree with Hiu Yeung that economic development and security are the two main areas that ASEAN can agree on. Bear in mind that ASEAN was founded on the principle of non intervention (which explains why no country intervenes in the military crackdown in Burma for it can lead to a dangerous precedent of intervention). Given the harsh political realities, I don't see how and why existing ASEAN countries will get rid of that principle, for it implies a surrender of some degree of self-determination and national sovereignty, loss of which would impair the nation's ability to formulate populist policies. A substantive marcoeconomic policy or supra-national organizations, modelled like Europe is very far off to say the least...
At least in Europe, they had a common Greek heritage, a Roman Empire, a Holy Roman Empire, a common Judeo-Christian tradition, Renaissance, and an Enlightement, some sort of loose association and common experience. The only common experience that ASEAN has is probably colonialism and maybe a bit of common nationalistic aspirations... I don't see how the cultural plurality that you so respect becoming a unifying force, unless you believe in some crap about Asian values...Have you ever watched a pan-ASEAN show? An ASEAN pop idol? No what...
I don't think Singapore is the country that doesn't want to see a closer and more economically-connected ASEAN. It is in our interests to see a more economically-integrated ASEAN. In any case, I don't think nations interact with one another based on respect, only based on self-interests. Any form of cultural respect is useless if you think you are going to lose your job to that Malaysian or Vietnamese plumber. It is mainly the other countries that don't want to see that happen. in the 1990s, Singapore went for bilateral free trade agreements with other countries, because there wasn't enough political consensus and momentum to form a common ASEAN common market in the near future. Anyway, just imagine the nightmare of illegal immigrants all over Singapore if we have something like the Schnegan agreement... I know it sounds cruel, but a poor citizen in another country is it's problem, but when it comes to Singapore, it becomes our problem.
Welcome Goh Chin to the discussion! Your main line of thought if I intepret correctly, is that ASEAN does not have the innate circumstances be it a common historical culture, or political willingness to form a supranational economic organization. Your basis of reference is the current EU.
But I think my vision for ASEAN for one isnt founded on any basis in the existing world, definitely not the EU. Nor is its ultimate aim economic unity, a common market, or more economic integration even. As you correctly mentioned, that is precisely what Singapore has pursued previously, and again as you noted, to little avail.
However, I believe your point on self-interests is a powerful one. I concur that currently, all the states cooperate on self-interests and little more. And that is exactly the basis of the vision, to change that. A vision need not be something that already exists, it is something that we are thought to believe will create a better place for us to live in.
The Enlightenment was a vision, the US Declaration of rights was a vision, for example. A vision in which the advantage existing groups had over other groups were challenged. A vision in which the self-interest motivations of the priveleged classes were challenged.
You state that relationships cant be formed on respect, and I question that. Relationships can only be formed on respect. Take for example, this conversation. Now, you and HY disagree with my point of view, but instead of swiping it off as complete crap coming from someone out of touch with the world, you bother to type a long response listing examples and a whole different range of arguments. Likewise for me, under attack on believes that I hold dearly to, I read your comments clearly, aiming not to rebute nor to point out its logical flaws or nitpicking linguistic weaknesses, but to truly understand your different viewpoints and try to explain our divergence in opinions.
What is this conversation built on then? What is the crucial element that allows this extended dialogue that allows us to sharpen our thoughts and express our opinions more lucidly? It is mutual respect, aint it. All one needs to do, is to assume what would have happened if there were no respect in our relationship. I mean, besides the fact that you probably wouldnt be reading this blog. But you probably wouldnt have bothered to give a balanced argument against me, and just wiped it off, similarly, instead of replying, I would have wiped you off, deleted your post, or point out point by point where your argument flaws are. Therein lies the importance of respect, there can be no conversation, or understanding without respect. And that is the basis of the vision.
Ok, I suppose you are advocating a more effective dialogue among the nations in ASEAN? But I think this is already being done. I know that respect and understanding are important, but I don't see how they lead to a functional ASEAN union...
You mentioned the US Declaration of Rights... Now, if you read John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government more closely (from which the Founding Fathers drew inspiration) and the considerations of the Founding Fathers, it is not hard to see that the vision itself is largely a justification of the self interests of the white, middle-class. The political treatise which places property rights at its core allows the concept of slaves as property to stand side by side with the notion of free and equal men.
I agree with you that a vision has the ability to inspire, but you go on to claim that it is not "airey-fairy" and that there are "tangible realizations." While a vision is never meant to be realized, the reality (think subjugated afro-american slaves before the American civil war) can be so diametrically opposed to reality to make a mockery of the vision. So a vision must be rooted in reality and must be deemed practically achievable. Now, you are telling me that your vision rooted in respect will lead to a functional ASEAN… I guess you have to spell it out further…
I guess I will be more comfortable if ASEAN is based on the principle of self-interest. Maybe I will change the word to “mutual benefits” for self-interest as a word has been given uncalled for negative connotations. In any case, I quote Adam Smith:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
The paradox of self-interest is that everyone seeking to further his self-interest can lead to the social good. I think a sustainable, integrated ASEAN must be rooted in self-interest. A closer, more integrated ASEAN can only come about because people see that their lives are enriched and more comfortable. If this is not the case, ASEAN would not come about anyway. People come to form a union because their interests are better served by cooperation. The hard part is to create a set of incentives such that every nation seeking to further its own self-interest would further the collective good. In addition, the creation of an ASEAN identity would be impossible with only respect and understanding. No one would want to be associated with an identity with connotations of poverty and backwardness. While I agree that “respect” and “understanding” are important in facilitating this process, I don’t think they are necessary. It may be more difficult but it is possible to just have a professional working relationship.
For that matter, my relationship with you has respect and understanding because we are good friends. I don't think you can use our friendship as an analogy for nation states. Among nation states, there are no permanent friends, only permanent interests. Moreover, we have a common history as our basis of understanding and communication. As HY and I pointed out, there is very little if any common history, culture among the various nation states in SEA. I think this is a key problem that you have to address.
I must say this is evolving into a really good discussion and I am enjoying it. I think we all agree that for integration to work, there are a few key factors, of which mutual interests and mutual respect have been brought up. I think we shldnt let this discussion become one which makes interests and respect mutually exlcusive because there is nothing to suggest that they are, or must be. If anything, successful integration can only be formed when both exist together. My point of contention however has been that before there is a common willingness to form a common interest, there must be a common respect.
'Everyman for himself' theoretically works out as a brilliant proposition if there is a basis in which every party, or a majority of the parties have the ability and opportunities to further their own self-interests. That is, if I the businessman have the money, and him the butcher has the meat, and we can exchange it. But if I have the money and the meat, then obviously, no exchange can take place. Unless, the butcher than goes along to find something else to produce which I may then want. What is worse however, is the scenario where the butcher has the meat and I have the money but the butcher is not willing to sell the meat to me. Because, he has other people to sell it to, but more crucially, he is emotionally angry that he feels that I look down on him since he is a butcher. The pursuit of common interests bringing about 'the invisible hand'rests on the assumption of people being rational! And that is why I feel that common respect is absolutely crucial. Because if others perceive you as not being respectful of them,they may simply throw rationality to the wind, and let raw emotions take over especially when they move into a position of power. That is why, it is only after there is an atmosphere of mutual respect, then can ASEAN truly embark on an economic thrust for integration in pursuit of mutual interests. Instead of being naive, it is precisely being rooted in the practicalities of how people operate that highlights the importance of respect in societies. To expect people to be professional and leave emotions completely out is paradoxically, a naive view to take.
Finally, to a point I have not addressed at all so far. The argument that unlike Europe, SEA have little culture in common. That might apparently be so, if you are talking about historical culture, for example being part of the same empire, or sharing a common linguistic background. However, there is another crucial aspect of culture that is often forgotten. That is the culture to do with 'ways of life', these are influenced by the kind of spaces and places people live in. I will argue that there are far more similarities in ASEAN as a result of this common spaces we share, than might exist on the surface. (We can discuss and argue on this further in another post.)
But my main vision in the original post about culture was not about finding a common culture in ASEAN, it was about finding a common respect for the different cultures. And importantly, there were practical suggestions on how this respect could be inculcated, ie. through the schools, through the civil service, through the languages. It is precisely because we have different historical cultures, therefore the need arises for respect and understanding.
But to take my vision into the long term, then yes, I believe that the final end product of ASEAN integration will be a common culture. Again though, this is not a culture in the historical or artistic sense, but culture in terms of ways of living and aspirations. That however, relies on the important component of economic mutual interests and the direction in which economic development in the region heads towards. And again, that is to be covered in the next section of the vision.
Chin Siong recognizes the realities and practicalities of a workable situation, whereas Cexiang has this idea that a common SEA union is not working out because countries/leaders are using the wrong approach in dealing with each other from the outset. In a way, both of you are talking at cross-purposes. This really reminds me of college days, where you both engage each other in similar discussions and I think to myself: these two friends of mine approach things differently =) Some things never change. Heh. But I understand where both of you are coming from.
Cexiang believes that once a good, harmonious, workable relationship is in place (with ingredients of respect, trust, etc, individual difficulties can be better managed and embraced because of mutual understanding and hence steps towards a union can be achieved. At the domestic level of family and relationships, this is perhaps true. But at the level of national cooperation, it is almost unworkable. I fully concur with Chin Siong's point of view, which has taken into account the factors of mutual trust and respect, and honestly recognized the self-interest that each nation state has to take care of.
Even if two friendly states are respectful of one another as a fundamental approach, ultimately each country will have problems that the other country doesn't. It is laudable to bear in mind respect and trust as an approach, at the first level. But it only gets so far. That is a fact we have to face. Approaching matters and how matters eventually pan out are two different things altogether.
YET, idealism is a good motivating force in today's cold, hard world and one should never lose sight of it. My feel of what has been blogged so far, is that Cexiang is concerned that Singapore's advancement in the region would prove to be a double-edged sword in its interactions with SEA neighbours. This danger is very real, and is perhaps manifesting at a subconscious level in the psyche of Singaporeans. So as Cexiang rightly pointed out, initiatives have to start at the governmental level to retain a sense of humility in our people and leaders.
So Cexiang, when you become Minister Foo for National Development (after relegating your qing sheng and lao zi status), I believe you can make a speech and inspire that call in all Singaporeans to embrace our SEA neighbours, no matter the difference in political, economic or social advancement =)
This, I believe, is the Asean CULTURAL vision that you're looking for, and one that is definitely workable.
hahaha thanks bernia for that! but i aint too sure abt the bit abt becoming minister foo. hahaha. definitely not when the ideas are so preliminary, and there is much more to be discussed and debated about.
i'll continue posting the next sections, and we can all take the arguments another step forward from there. cheers to all!
Haha I am really glad that my incoherent comment had inspired so much insightful discussion while I was away hibernating for the week!
Allow me to say a little bit more:
I agree that mutual respect is certainly essential for functional relationships to develop between countries. A sufficient amount of respect already exists between countries in ASEAN - to move the organisation forward we need something more than just mutual respect.
ASEAN countries have to create an entirely new common identity on top of everyone's original identity in order for cultural integration to work. Citizens from different ASEAN nations must all believe in this new common identity and integrate it into their lives before this vision can be achieved. Honestly I do not think that assimilation of the different cultures in SEA is ever going to happen, at least not on a short- or medium-run. Note Singapore didn't even try - within our country we are merely promoting understanding and acceptance, and attempting to build a common Singaporean identity among Singaporeans. This can actually serve as a model for ASEAN.
I agree with GCS on most parts. My exsitence in Singapore is a live example of self-interest taking precedence over other considerations. HK's history can tell us a lot about issues that are associated with the integration of different cultural environments - though we have to bear in mind that mainland China and HK both have the same cultural heritage; people from the two places are different mostly in terms of values and ways of life only. HK is slowly integrating with mainland China - though this happened only when China became much stronger economically and HK has no choice but to open themselves up to China. Note China also did not try to persuade HK to open up to them using cultural means - what the central government did was to generously provide HK with financial resources when HK needed them, allowed Guangdong to sign free trade agreements with HK which created a lot of career and investment opportunities for Hongkongers in Guangdong, and various other economic measures that made Hongkongers benefit. I think GCS should know quite a bit of the details... and this is how people in HK came to accept mainland China.
Post a Comment
<< Home