Sample

1.  The East and West of Politics and Economics

 

There was a bronze-age culture in the Mekong River Valley previous to 3,000 BC, which was before the Middle East and one thousand years before China. Archaeologists believe they were a migratory people, who moved north into what is now Southwest China, and then began to migrate back again and settle around the tenth century BC. Later, this migration became the seeds of the Bamboo Wars, which raged from Burma to Vietnam, lasting for almost a millennium. The Sulu Archipelago, stretching five thousand kilometres from Sumatra to Irian Jaya, was variously under the influence of the Majapahit and Sriwijaya Kingdoms of what is now Indonesia. Many of their rulers encouraged piracy, keeping sailors in the South China Sea in a constant state of terror. Chinese pirates also patrolled these waters, and China has had an enormous influence throughout the region’s history, occupying Vietnam and other parts of East and Southeast Asia. Like Mediaeval Europe, warring was a near constant at this time.
The colonial incursions that followed were interrupted by Japanese imperialism and during the second half of the twentieth century the region became a battleground for communism versus capitalism. These issues are highly emotive, and quite reasonably provoke a knee-jerk reaction. Whilst the European colonial powers were never innocents abroad, their forays into Southeast Asia were a symptom of the times and it is unhelpful to judge them with the retrospection of a more enlightened age. As any attempt to balance the arguments may lead to accusations of pro-Western bias, I must clearly state that I am very aware of the many colonial ills committed in the region, and hope that my occasional attempts to explain them are not misconstrued as trying to excuse them. 
If you compare the region with Africa, which underwent a similar experience of colonialism, and in some places Marxist revolt, most of the region has outperformed it in every department. Malaysia in Southeast Asia and Ghana in West Africa got independence from Britain over half a century ago; both had relatively democratic governments at the time of independence. Oil palm seedlings were taken from Ghana, a major player in palm oil at the time, and planted in Malaysia. The Malaysian operation thrived, whilst the Ghanaian operation atrophied. Ghana was the world’s leading producer of cacao, it is now sixth.
Much of the post colonial fighting in Africa was encouraged by the USSR, in its bid for world communism, and it poured Kalashnikov rifles into the region like the floodwaters of the Nile. In Southeast Asia, with the added connivance of China, weapons flowed in like the floodwaters of the Mekong. To redress the balance, the West also poured in arms until the place was awash with guns and landmines. So far East and Southeast Asia have avoided the worst excesses of internecine fighting amongst the various ethnic groups. Nevertheless, when the lid comes off the pressure cooker, as the people gain genuine suffrage, countries such as Burma, China, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia and Vietnam will either build bridges across their cultural divides or risk facing a bleak future. A long hard look at Africa, where political leaders have been blaming the colonials for all their ills, whilst at the same time whipping up intertribal hatred to consolidate their power, should help the people of the region to make the right decisions. Regrettably, the only thing we appear to learn from history, is that we do not learn from history. The next big challenge for the region is to produce statespersons with the vision of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew, and the democratic principles of Burma’s Aung San Suu Kyi and China’s Sun Yat-sen.
In China there is a massive population of subsistence farmers, providing what is in effect an enormous pool of cheap labour for industry. The malleability of this workforce and the economy of scale are making the government increasingly rich, and it is spending profligately to achieve its dream of becoming a military superpower. With the poor track record of all communist governments, you would have to wonder what sort of justice China will offer the world. Having visited the country many times, I am not without sympathy for the difficulties of ruling such a vast and highly populated land, with its essentially agrarian population. Nevertheless, there is no timetable for suffrage, and the stain on humanity from human rights abuses is extremely worrying.
Few politicians in the whole region truly see the condition of the common man as being an area for concern; or if they do they view it patronisingly from an elitist perspective. China’s government consists of 350 ruling elite, who dare not brook the party line of a few very powerful people at the centre. 2,000 delegates from around the country gather every year to rubber stamp the decisions of the central committee, and 1.3 billion puppets have their strings jerked. Southeast Asia and China are exercising more and more influence in world affairs, and yet many of the governments in the region do not value individual liberties, nor do many of their leaders respect the rule of law.
The consequences of totalitarian governments, communist or otherwise, have been on display long enough now to allow a reasoned opinion as to how they impinge on the economy and culture of a country. For the most part, the tighter the stranglehold on the people, the less creative they are. As the West forges ahead with its free markets, there is a growing tendency in developing countries for people to blame their poverty on capitalism. This argument is not supported by the facts, as too many disparate countries have risen from the misery of wars and poverty by using the capitalist model, for this simplistic view to have much currency. Furthermore, whilst the existence of a rich capitalist West is undoubtedly galling, for those who feel that by accident of birth alone they are disadvantaged, there is no evidence to suggest that a poorer West would result in the rest of the world being any richer. On the contrary, wealth can be seen to create wealth. Where countries have corrupt governments, they need to look closer to home for the solution to their political and economic problems.
As people become increasingly paranoid about capitalism and globalisation, they overlook the evidence that free markets chase cheap labour, and this at least spreads some of the wealth around. Too often there is an abuse of labour involved in this practice, and there does need to be a mechanism to prevent the worst excesses of the exploitation of workers in developing countries. Nevertheless, developing countries are having their production facilities and know-how developed by new business, which can be of immense value. Singapore started its independent life as a nation of traders and jobbing assemblers. With the help of the Dutch economist, Albert Winsemius, it achieved the status of one of the world’s leading electronics manufacturers, largely by moving up the production ladder, with the wise use of education and training. Once it had gained a reputation for cheap manufacturing, it started to make demands on foreign investors to fast track its workforce, sometimes in skill areas unrelated to the current production.
Many of the sweatshops in Southeast Asia and China, which were blindly assembling goods for the West, are now manufacturing in their own right, using the expertise gained from Western investment. As a result the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of these countries is soaring. Ultimately, this must improve the standard of living for everyone. As countries around the world develop their manufacturing capabilities, there is probably more danger for the West from this aspect of globalisation than there is for developing countries. The burgeoning manufacturing base of some of these countries is financing governments, several of which hold none of the West’s espoused democratic values.
The exchange of know-how for cheap labour should be a positive thing, and yet the equation is not so simple. With its booming economy, China is the dominant player in the region, and its political influence is increasing. China has an autocratic government, as have several Southeast Asian countries. The tacit agreement, amongst the majority of their rulers, is that even if democracy was desirable the people are not yet ready for it. Whilst there is some evidence to support this contention, it was the argument put forward by Western rulers before the people gained suffrage from their lords and masters. Autocratic rulers and their governments rarely consider the people to be ready for self-determination, principally because the current leaders seldom have the skills to lead a democratic government.
There is a strong belief in the West that it will be enriched by trade with China. This may be true in the short term, but at what price? The eagerness of the West to do business with China is clouding the judgement of many investors. The ‘miracle’ of Asia, identified by Jim Rohwer in his book ‘Asia Rising’, collapsed in 1997. The situation in China is very similar, with massive speculative investment. The fear the West has of not being in the game is overshadowing the dangers inherent in it. Without the effective rule of law which is the present situation in China, corruption is a given, resulting in foreign investors and businesses being vulnerable. With the 2008 collapse it could all go very wrong.
The newfound wealth in China, Vietnam and Laos, is the result of their conversion to neo-communism. It is not really communism at all, but a hybrid created by grafting capitalism onto the communist vine. The system accepts the inevitability of capitalism as a means of achieving a buoyant economy, but clings to communism to preserve the politburo’s power. This philosophy of capitalist-communism -an oxymoron if ever there was one- has a finite life. With one foot on the capitalist stool and the other on the communist stool, as the stools get further apart the inevitable will happen. China has a new middle class which has got used to having money in its pocket. It will not readily give up its newfound wealth. The internal turmoil created by this incongruence could threaten democracies worldwide. China would not be the first totalitarian state to try and distract its people from unrest at home, by directing their energies towards an imagined adversary abroad. In order to cling on to power, Chairman Mao was quite happy to attack even his own people in The Cultural Revolution.
By moving its manufacturing base into China, and equipping its industries, the West is selling its technology cheaply. Some Western organisations are still failing to realise just what is happening. The West provides the finance and technology, and China builds the factories and provides the labour. It sounds like a neat arrangement. However, there is a fifth component. Once the industry is functioning, China clones the factory and takes the business. Furthermore, it is producing cheap goods -particularly in the clothing industry- from workers toiling in conditions the West would not tolerate for its own workforce. China is becoming rich through what is virtually a pool of slave labour. Neo-communism is putting workers into the very chains Marx and Engels wanted to free them from.
The sharing of technology per se is not the concern here, indeed this is one of the positive aspects of globalisation, it is the failure of Beijing -and other totalitarian governments- to realise that the technology they are benefiting from is the fruit of democratic societies. Quite implausibly, China benefits greatly from the West, and yet it is hostile towards it. To compound matters, the West is losing billions of Dollars to pirating and copyright fraud. Although the Chinese government makes noises about rectifying this, it appears to be impotent. It has even tacitly admitted that it is struggling to control corrupt cadres in the provinces. The global community, which most reasonable people believe must come about in order to bring peace and prosperity for all, will not happen as long as China believes it can get its own way from outside of it.
There is a school of thought in America which suggests that a cold war with China would pose a great threat to the West. However, the West successfully confronted the expansionist policies of the USSR, by refusing to do business with it on its terms. For some unfathomable reason, it now assumes that China is somehow different. The Beijing government would not conscience a serious recession brought about by a cold war, as it probably would not survive it. With its people so obsessed with their growing wealth, the communist hardliners have never been as vulnerable as they are at present.
When poorer nations look at richer nations, and reasonably want what they have got, they often fail to realise that the road to achieving these things was long and hard. During the early days of the industrial revolution in England, children as young as eight years of age were working in iron foundries, potteries, mills and many other industries throughout the country, in appalling conditions. Twelve year olds were sent down the mines to push coal trucks. More than half the people buried in London in the nineteenth century were children under the age of ten. Whilst Japan did achieve a modern industrial society without this iniquity, several governments in the region appear not to care.
It took the West almost two hundred years to get from the labour abuses of the early industrial revolution, to a point where workers received reasonable compensation for their labours. Not unlike present day China, Britain’s world power was built on the almost slave labour of its own people. Many aspiring nations now demand their lot be improved within a generation, an unrealistic demand. By the same measure, it is also unreasonable to expect developing countries to become paragons of democratic societies overnight. However, it is not unreasonable to demand they show some understanding of humanitarian principles. Perhaps of greater importance for developing countries, is the realisation that Westerners in general do not have all the trappings which appear on television screens around the world; and that for most people the utopia portrayed by the marketing media is a fiction. It is also highly questionable as to whether the physical world could support the level of consumerism being recommended by the advertisers.
Whilst it is not helpful for developing nations to make unreasonable demands, it is essential for world peace that poor people should be able to see some improvement in their situation, and not be condemned to hopelessness. The developed world will either help to create an improvement in poorer nations or, by ignoring them, suffer the consequences. Poor neighbours make poor neighbours. This is not primarily altruistic; it is an imperative for securing world peace. Conversely, countries with political or religious systems which limit their ability to compete fairly will have to change or suffer the economic consequences. To demand the modern technology and wealth of the West, whilst being hostile to the egalitarian principles that created it, is illogical.
The wealth gap in Singapore is enormous. It has not resulted in civil disturbances because poorer people can identify an almost continuous improvement in their circumstances. Singapore has had its autocratic government legitimised by an almost constant increase in the standard of living for the whole of the population. Because the people’s aspirations have never risen above that criterion, the system has worked. The political stability in Singapore suggests that what people really need is hope for the future. Where this system clashes with China’s economic model, is that in China the gap between rich and poor is widening at an alarming rate with many people still living in dire poverty.
Despite its success, Singapore is not necessarily to be recommended as a model economy. It has gone beyond the Keynesian economics of government controlling money supply and taxes to become what Professor David Ashton called a ‘developmental state’, in which government controls all the systems of politics, money, commerce, education and training. The vacuum this creates probably would not survive an economic collapse.
For the first time in its history there have been rumblings from Singaporeans over the City State’s strict laws. This has resulted in government considering repealing the chewing-gum act, which bans the chewing of gum, keeping the streets and shopping malls free from the open sores of discarded gum. The Singapore government needs to be extremely careful. There have been many instances throughout history where, because of the underlying issues, seemingly trivial matters have caused great social upheaval. It is unlikely that chewing-gum figures large in the lives of Singaporeans.
The real concern amongst many young Singaporeans is the lack of genuine political freedom. The government is in danger of missing a signal here, and insulting the intelligence of its people. There are major problems with any authoritarian government. First there is the unrest created in people by a feeling of impotence when things are not going well. Then there is the question of whether future leaders will be paternalistic or predacious. Autocracies often give rise to leaders of the low stature of Indonesia’s Soekarno and Soeharto, Philippine’s Marcos, Cambodia’s Pol Pot, or Burma’s Ne Win, who did nothing but suck the blood of the people. One thing becomes clear as you travel round East and Southeast Asia - with perhaps the exception of Singapore - autocratic governments, communist or otherwise, provide a poor quality of life for their people.
Malaysia too has escaped the worst excesses of corrupt government, largely because of the country’s natural wealth, and partly because ex-Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad showed more restraint than some of his greedier Southeast Asian counterparts. Even so, there are more poor people in Malaysia than there should be, and the government has blamed every external influence possible, particularly the latent effects of colonialism, rather than addressing the real issue of its own inequitable management of the economy.
Anwar Ibrahim, Mahathir Mohamad’s once number two, was released from gaol after six years of imprisonment. The sodomy charges were thrown out, although the charges of corruption still stand. It would be interesting to see how Mahathir, his family and his political cronies would stand up to a serious investigation into their financial affairs. The attack on Anwar was a cruel plot to destroy him politically for demanding greater democracy for the Malaysian people.
The ex-Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, studied law at the University of Cambridge, England. Having honed his skills in those halls of democratic debate, he returned to Singapore to become one of the most autocratic rulers in the world. He eviscerated the body politic of Singapore by using the law to destroy his opponents, not only politically but financially as well. Amnesty International examined several of the cases he brought against his enemies and found no substance in law for their success.
The Philippines is an enigma. After colonialism it had perhaps as stable a platform for government as any of the countries in the region. Long before the struggle between the Muslim south and the Catholic north arose, its government was run by a series of careless lightweights, some of whom demonstrated a level of irresponsibility and greed seldom seen before in the political world. Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos set up a dynasty lasting twenty years, and all they bequeathed to the nation on their downfall was hundreds of pairs of Imelda’s designer label shoes. This irresponsibility of government is hard to reconcile with a people who are some of the most warm-hearted in the region. The country is the living evidence that there has to be a mechanism in all societies to monitor the behaviour of those in authority, and effectively punish any wrongdoing.
To their shame, Indonesian politicians have also demonstrated an incredible level of greed, proving to be inept at establishing an honest government of the people. Soekarno and Soeharto, who between them ruled for half a century, demonstrated the worst aspects of Southeast Asian politics, by becoming the epitome of nepotism, cronyism and corruption. After Soeharto departed, the government appointed a blind Muslim cleric for its head of state. He too became embroiled in the mire of corruption. Indonesia has an advantage over the Philippines in as much as it is a potentially wealthy country with oil and gas revenues, substantial other mineral resources and rich agricultural land. Much of the aggravation, in places such as Banda Aceh, is the result of government neglect as much as ethnic strife.
As I bumped over the potholed roads of northern Sumatra on my first visit to the island, before the troubles in Aceh Province had exploded, the driver suggested that the roads were in such a bad condition because the government stole the money intended for the mending of them. When Soeharto fell these accusations were borne out by his numbered bank accounts overseas. I had another experience of the Indonesian government on this trip. When we were stopped at an army checkpoint all the men, without bidding, got off the bus and, in a squatting position, with their hands on their heads, waddled over to the guard-post like so many ducks; and this was before serious conflict had broken out. At the time I knew little about the precise nature of the freedom movement in Aceh. What this experience suggested was that the level of subservience demanded from the people by the army was that of a totalitarian state and not a democracy.
In Bali, rich Javanese Muslims have taken over much of the business. The indigenous Balinese, who are predominantly Hindu, are far from happy with this situation. A decade ago I drove up into the village of Sawan in the northern hills, to watch them making gamelan gongs, the melodic chimes which form the basis of Indonesian music. The army had swamped the upper reaches of the valley with vehicles and troops. It was a massive show of strength in what were no more than tiny villages. This same army was to demonstrate its savagery a few years later in East Timor. Without a reasonable degree of political accountability, countries cannot have an equitable society; and lasting stability does not come from an army of bullyboys.
Perhaps the biggest success story in Southeast Asia is Thailand. It has a constitutional monarchy, although few Western political commentators would recognise it as such. On several occasions, when the country has been lurching towards chaos, the King of Thailand has made a timely intervention. Unfortunately, the monarchy has also been linked with coups and whilst this has often been provoked by government malpractice, the army is not the way to change a democratic government. Again, the problem is the lack of a mechanism to monitor the behaviour of politicians, which leads to corruption. The confusion as to what constitutes democracy was demonstrated in the 2008 riots. The people in the countryside wanted Thaksin Shinawatra back, despite evidence suggesting he is corrupt; and the so called People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) wanted thirty percent of the population banned from voting, because they believe they are not capable voters. Neither of these two paths will lead to democracy and a stable economy.
In the nineteen nineties the Thai economy became driven by greed. With rampant speculation being the norm, circumspection in banking and finance went out of the window, culminating in the economic collapse of 1997. Before this Thailand was prospering, and the standard of living was rising across almost the whole of the population. It is questionable whether or not the Thai Baht and the economy overall would have fallen quite so far, without attacks on it by currency speculators. However, as the likes of George Soros -arguably poacher turned philanthropist and sage- are always keen to point out, they keep the global economy healthy. Regrettably, like hyenas and other scavengers, they do not always cull only the weak and sick.
When I arrived in Hong Kong in 1993, groups of people were huddled round banks and finance houses, watching television screens to see how their stocks and shares were doing. They were builders, bakers, office workers and housewives, all playing the market. The perception was that you bought shares in anything and they just went up and up. The finance houses did at least have knowledge of the markets, but they too could not resist the urge to gamble, for gambling it was. All these people got their fingers burnt when the overheated market crashed in 1997. Remarkably, the same thing had happened just before the great crash of 1929 in America, with granny drawing out her life savings to put into a booming stock market. Perhaps the finance houses were not so remiss. As one Thai investment manager said after the crash, ‘How do you tell customers that you are not getting them the high yields everyone else is enjoying, because you do not trust the market?’ Investment houses around the world face a constant problem; if you have a surfeit of cash on your books you have to invest somewhere to grow the capital. When all the safe bets have gone, the banks move into high-risk investments. This has been admirably illustrated by ‘sub-prime’ mortgages in America, a euphemism for high-risk.
The positive aspect of the Thai economy, post 1997, was reflected in the words of the Thai businesswoman with whom I shared a minibus from Chiang Mai to the Golden Triangle. She stated clearly that if something was not done to curb the worst excesses of greed and corruption in her country, and to improve the lot of the poorest people, there would be serious problems in the future. This does at least indicate that there is an awareness of the issues beyond simply making money.
Many of Southeast Asia’s financial ills in the late nineteen nineties were blamed on the West, and yet the West lost money too. Whilst there is great inequity between the West and the world in general, the gap is slowly closing. Tellingly, some of those who now consider themselves to be disadvantaged were once a part of great empires. Despotic rulers regularly mismanaged their economies and led them to ruin. There is no evidence to suggest that these dominions were in any way philanthropic, and there is much to suggest that they were brutal predators. There is something decidedly unconvincing when politicians from these countries point an accusing finger at the West and cry foul. The image they conjure up for home consumption - of their people being exploited by a fabulously rich West - is damaging, as it gives rise to dissatisfaction. Furthermore, the opportunity to get rich quick, at the expense of their own people, is viewed by many Southeast Asian politicians and businessmen as being their right; and civil servants see their appointment as being a sinecure. Social stability is essential for prolonged economic growth and you cannot have either without a degree of equity.
As already suggested, the success of a country depends on the success of its people. Anything that subjugates them, stifles their aspirations, or stultifies their creative powers, inevitably damages the possibility of success. As far back as 1943, the psychologist Abraham Maslow suggested that people need motivation to achieve their full potential. Whilst subsequent psychologists have identified many different things which motivate us, no one has denied the importance of motivation itself. Adam Smith’s ‘economic man’ suggests people will not give beyond their minimum efforts without reasonable reward for their labours - be it the intrinsic reward of fulfilment or the extrinsic reward of money.
Reward of some sort is the key to advancement, both for individuals and countries. In countries with totalitarian governments there are rarely any intrinsic rewards for honest endeavour. Before Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and China dumped their collectivist agrarian policy, rice production had stagnated and even fallen back. Under neo-communism, farmers are now allowed to keep and sell their produce over a certain level, and production has boomed. Extraordinarily, none of these countries have acknowledged this fundamental change in their political doctrine and it appears to have gone almost un-remarked around the world, that the collectivist farming policy, which was the backbone of the communist agrarian revolt, has been unceremoniously dumped.
The people of East and Southeast Asia are resilient, resourceful and energetic. Despite starting from some way back, they are having an increasing influence on, and share of, world economics. Privilege has always existed, and in historical terms it is a fleeting thing. There is obscene wealth in parts of the world, and it is held by a relatively few people. In the East some of that wealth is held by corrupt politicians and businessmen.
The world has got to get away from the faulted thinking that wealth and possessions are an essential component of happiness. Certainly poverty and misery are often inseparable, but that is a completely different issue. The majority of the world’s population will never experience the trappings of real wealth, regardless of who holds the balance of world power. Nor do the majority of people in the West have these things. America has been one of the richest nations on earth for over a century, and yet many of its people spend a great deal of time on the psychiatrist’s couch. This suggests that the demands of modern life, coupled with rampant consumerism, do not make for a healthy lifestyle. Professor Andrew Oswald of Warwick University argues that once the basics have been satisfied, happiness does not noticeably increase with greater wealth. The biggest enemy of all societies is the perennial weed of longing.
Whilst workers in industrialised economies do not spend ten hours a day in the fields, their lives are generally more pressured than those in a mostly agrarian economy. Because industrialisation in developing economies is equated with greater wealth, this newfound pressure is often accepted, which was also true in the West at the beginning of the industrial revolution. As remarked, whether or not greater prosperity brings greater happiness - whatever that indefinable state of mind may be - remains highly questionable. One thing is certain, you cannot stop young people craving the latest whatever, and that costs money. The East might have to sacrifice a relatively simple and stress free life if it really wants a major share of the cake, which could be a high price to pay.
Eric Ezechieli noted that Bhutan in the Himalayas was toying with the concept of achieving a high level of gross national happiness (GNH), rather than gross national product (GNP). It is hard to know whether this was a gimmick of the government to pacify the people of an undoubtedly poor country, or a genuine attempt to address the problem identified above - that not all the world’s people can be wealthy. The West is obsessed with the desire to have more, and the East eclipses even this obsession. It is highly debatable as to whether or not this fixation is either achievable or desirable. Perhaps Bhutan can lead the way where the West has failed to find the path.
The concept that a strong work ethic is somehow a noble pursuit is increasingly being brought into question, as it demands more and more resources from an already stretched world. Mahathir Mohamad regularly bemoaned the lack of drive amongst his Malay majority, which allowed Chinese and South Asian immigrants to outperform them in business. Following the 1969 race riots, Mahathir wrote his book ‘The Malay Dilemma’, advocating preferential treatment for Malays and calling them bumiputra (sons of the soil). There was some irony in this, as the real bumiputra are the indigenous aboriginal Orang Asli. They are a much-neglected people within Peninsula Malaysia, as are the indigenous tribes on nearby Malaysian Borneo. Another bone of contention is that Malays have only a narrow majority, and many of the so-called immigrants have been in the country for generations. In view of the strife that materialism causes, and the demands it makes on shrinking resources, perhaps little Bhutan really has got the answer.
Management gurus increasingly talk about a social conscience, although not usually before they have gone through the reactionary conditioning of aging. Charles Handy has expressed concern over the relentless pursuit of wealth and possessions in society, and the obsession commerce has for continual expansion. It is becoming increasingly evident that the relentless pursuit of wealth will not create a viable global economy. There has to be a social element in national and global economics. However, in order to avoid the worst excesses of previous socialist policies, it will have to include reward for individual endeavour. Religious leaders have also criticised rampant consumerism. Unfortunately, this confuses sensibility with morality; an issue discussed later in this book.
Combining a social conscience with laissez-faire capitalism could be the next big challenge for the world economy. We know that neo-communism does not work, as the absence of real monitoring encourages corruption. A social conscience really could be the key as it suggests a system geared to people’s needs. However, these needs will have to be realistic. There will also have to be a curb on the hegemonic tendencies of big business within the capitalist system. Otherwise we will see the inevitable amalgamation of business into one big global company. The obsession with expansion encourages dubious business practices, and increasingly, in the West, there is a means justifying the end mentality. This has led to dishonesty in business, which has largely been exposed by bankruptcy; suggesting that this is the inevitable outcome of malpractice. We need to decide what standard of behaviour we will accept from our captains of industry and commerce. We have a clear example in Russia of what happens when tycoons become too powerful, and particularly when they form an oligarchy with government.
The great strength of Western business practices is its free market and fair competition. Several countries around the world are guilty of regularly subverting this system, and the West itself occasionally strays from the letter of its own ethos. By comparing East with West, it becomes clear that the free market is ultimately the most productive, particularly if you include research and development. It also leads to a more equitable society, as there are more opportunities for new business ventures in a society not controlled by businessmen-politicians. This is supported by the many new business successes in Hong Kong, where the few tycoons who dominate business usually do not have the power to close the door on start up businesses; other than through the inevitable competitive edge afforded them by their financial standing.
In terms of the exploitation of workers in East and Southeast Asia, the parallel with the industrial revolution in the West is an interesting one. Eastern politicians can and do argue that as the West exploited its workers, it is hypocritical to now point an accusing finger at the East. There has to be an end to this kind of faulted thinking. Bad behaviour from history does not justify bad behaviour in the present day. The main priority, for politicians and businessmen, must be to improve the quality of life right across society and give people hope for the future.
This short review of the culture of politics and economics in East and Southeast Asia, and the degree to which they contrast with the West, is necessarily simplistic. It would take at least one dedicated book to explore the subject in depth. However, the economic and political issues of both regions do not need complicating in order to understand them; if anything they need stripping down to their basics. The danger inherent in having business controlled by politicians, and politics controlled by businessmen, without any accountability, is not hard to identify. It is correcting this behaviour that is problematic. Neither is it difficult to see the danger inherent in not closely monitoring CEOs. There are lessons to be learned for both East and West from the dangers of closed door politics and secretive commercial practices. Without monitoring, too many politicians put expediency before morality, and businessmen put profit before good practice.

View Synopsis View Information Purchase Options