A Final Narrative
Since I seem to have some time on my hands, I thought I might end up writing my wrap-up blog post. I might decide to do an epiloque or something shorter, but being that I will see many of you and my travel really has come to an end, I thought I might just try sitting down and starting this (and hopefully finishing it too).
General Insights
I traveled originally to Singapore, then moved onward to Jakarta, Saigon, and finally Hong Kong. I managed a day and a half in Singapore without my school program, and almost an entire week in Hong Kong on my own. That meant I spent about 12 days in Singapore, 6 in Jakarta, 6 in Saigon, and something like 17 in Hong Kong. In terms of getting out an "fully" exploring the culture, I only really got my toes wet, but through company visits, personal walks, forced interactions, and even going out and meeting people in clubs, I did attempt and manage some degree of cultural immersion. As such, certain things I say or assume will be based on incomplete data, others will be combined with theoretical knowledge that I either enhanced or already obtained. Now is not the time for an epistemic treatise, but I note this at the beginning as an early disclaimer.
Southeast Asia and ASEAN are terms that are used to describe a certain geographical region. And let there be no mistake, this is only a certain geographical region. The cultures there are varied, great, and you have an immense intersection of social norms, religions, and even partial philosophies. Singapore is primarily Chinese and Buddhist, Malaysia is ethnically Malay and Muslim. Indonesia contains more Muslims than any other nation in the world. Interestingly, Indonesia may be one of the only countries where Islam spread primarily due to evangelism rather than by war. The Philippines and East Timor are predominately Catholic, and probably some of the best looking people on the planet. Also, the languages here go from the multi-syllabic non-tonal, to uni-syllabic and tonal. Most use the Latin script and can be picked up quite quickly from road signs and what not. Chinese, of course, uses the most annoying logogramic script.
Yes, I know Chinese is beautiful. I know its the most "widely" used script by certain metrics. But it's horrifically obtuse. There are no rules for "sounding out" things, and, so, learning any words of Chinese is an almost impossible task. Vietnamese is uni-syllabic and tonal and THEY use the Latin script with cute squiggles to tell you where the tones are. That way, when I go into a restaurant, I can try my hand at pronouncing, and do a not too shabby job. Chinese, on the other hand, totally can't do it. So, whatever nice things there are to say about Chinese (and there are plenty), the squiggle-stick writing system is not one of them.
Anyway, my point here is that SE Asia is varied, split along several lines, exists in different "stages of development" (read: some were smart and chose to be capitalist, some were stupid and thought "socialism" was somehow "less Western", and all suffered from a history of European (and to certain extent Japanese and Chinese) imperialism).
Singapore
I'd like to say something like, "No one can deny what Singapore managed to accomplish in 43 years", so I'll just leave it in quotes and hope that the message comes through. In 43 years, they went from a $500 per capita GDP to an amazing over $30,000 per capita GDP. They have no natural resources other than a decent harbor (which in many ways actually had to be artificially constructed). It's hard to think about that. That means that there are people alive today that recall when Singapore had no air-conditioning, had no amenities, no doctors, no sky-scrapers, nothing, and can now see it as a major international metropolis.
What caused it? Well, there's the Singaporean narrative about what caused it, and that gets happily written down in the history books, and then there is what caused it according to sound economic theory.
According to the Singaporean narrative, the great leader Lee Kwan Yew and his side-kick Goh Kwen Swee set about to modernize Singapore. Originally, they attempted to become part of Malaysia since it was more resource rich, but disputes eventually ended the relationship. Mr. Lee then knuckled-down and set about to create a rich city. In doing so, he set up several State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) that helped direct investment into industries. Rather than go the route of Mahatir in Malaysia and so many other SE Asian dictators, Mr. Lee realized that socialism was not the way to go, and allowed the free movement of the price system, and a generally free market. Singapore went from cheap labor, to oil refinement, to industrial add-value, to manufacturing, to service sector, finance, and is now attempting to move upward into the "knowledge" economy.
So you see, according to the Singaporean government's narrative, the intelligent investment of the government in a few key industries and the general "allowance" of a free market helped to produce one of the world's leading economies. Of course, there's nothing in economic theory to support this narrative, and history is always interpreted through a theoretical lens (contrary to the notion that history ought to inform what our theory should be). If this narrative were really true, then it would support the Keynesian concept of the socialization of investment while leaving some prices generally free to move.
The real story is a great one of the power of the free-market. Singapore did leave the market free to move, and its prices were free to allocate capital. Although the existence of SOEs is conspicuous, the government often looks to partially privatize these industries through IPOs. Furthermore, the government might set up the initial capital of many of these SOEs, but it does not provide them additional funding for bailouts. Therefore, the moral hazard seen in many countries is greatly lessened here in Singapore. There is no minimum wage in Singapore, and the union does not have the same power as it does in many other countries. Therefore, there is almost no unemployment, and other than frictional unemployment from economic shifts, there is really no (or little) involuntary unemployment. Finally, for the most part, property is protected, the government has very little corruption and serves out many of the basic functions. Obviously, greater privatization and the eventual elimination of government altogether would bring about the greatest improvement, but as far as systems go, Singapore does pretty well there.
Before moving on, I should mention that people in Singapore do not speak about politics openly. There are controls that seem ridiculous and there is a strange, almost self-imposed, curtailment of freedom of speech. In some ways, I think this is about maintaining the Singaporean narrative and keeping the People's Action Party in power. Nonetheless, what Singapore managed to accomplish ought to be seen as a result of where it embraced the free market and in spite of the areas where it embraced socialism.
Indonesia
Jakarta is almost a joke. I'm not sure how to say "the infrastructure is terrible" in a way that actually makes sense to people. The roads are organized by giant roundabouts; however, unlike the efficient roundabouts that you find in places like England, these things are horrible monstrocities. You often have to go up a road, make a dangerous U-turn, just to get back on the roundabout and go back up the road that you started on. I really can't describe it. Not to mention, there are 20 million people "living" in Jakarta, and the roads are constantly clogged by traffic of every sort. (If you think about it, it's like having the entire population of Australia in one city).
Most of the city lacks a sewage system. You don't realize how important this is until you lack a sewage system. People throw everything into the river that "runs" through the city. By "runs", I mean that the river is largely stagnant and human filth accumulates to a point where the acrid stench literally produces a burning sensation in your lungs. This water then comes out into the city's bay, which has turned the ugliest shade of green that you have ever seen. Lacking any kind of basic education, there are children from the local slums that then plunge themselves into this water. The slums also scoop up the water and drink it.
There is no efficient garbage collection system, so the poor just burn their garbage. I wondered why the city was covered in a thick film that blocked out the sun perpetually. People tried originally to tell me it was the cars, but that didn't make any sense. Cars don't produce pollution like that. The internal combustion engine, along with carburetors, cause a burn that produces pretty much only CO2 (also known as plant food) and water. However, the burning of plastics and all a manner of other garbage lumped together produces a toxic filth. Many people came down with horrible stomach ailments and you could often feel your kidneys scream under the pollution (legitimate pollution, not "I'm crying over another spotted owl dying" pollution).
Indonesia has a per capita GDP of about $2,200 and a population of anywhere between 240 million to 270 million (give or take the population of Canada basically). It's the fourth most populous nation on Earth, has over 300 registered ethnicities and over 700 registered languages. I say registered because in actuality there are many more, but the government prefers not to look at that. In fact, the government in Indonesia really is seen as governments ought to be seen, a group of bandits writ large. The ethnic hatred toward the successful Indo-Chinese causes them to leave most of their money in hiding or in Singapore as a tax haven. The ethnic aboriginal are prevented from accumulating capital and access to any kind of financing is non-existent. The government is often in turmoil and just 13 years ago, there was a massive riot that caused almost all wealth to flee the country. Two dictatorships also passed with a new "democracy" coming through. Everyone in government there (including the US State Department) gives you the same lines about how great a place Indonesia is and how it really has turned a new leaf.
In truth, I hope so, but I don't have much hope. Labor laws are restrictive, capital formation is poor, and the wage and price system are not very free to move. Things have gotten better recently, but inflation looks as though it will totally destroy any real gains. A good sign comes in that the poor neighborhoods largely police themselves. They do not look to the government to adjudicate disputes; however, without a systematic means of carrying out justice, businesses can't develop. There are tiny businesses that escape the eyes of regulators, and there are large businesses with connections or that can go into hiding, but there are no mid-sized businesses, which are characteristic of a healthy economy.
The people of Indonesia are amazing though. Everyone is multi-lingual, and they really do go out of your way to help you. Except for government violence, you're probably safer in Jakarta than Detroit (okay, that's not saying much, let's say DC, although that's not much of an improvement). Never before have I so eagerly wished that I could call down manna from heaven. These people are the victims of a post-imperialist ideology that champions socialism rather than capitalism under the guise that socialism is somehow less "imperialistic".
(Aside: I really don't get it. The basic moral defenses of both socialism and capitalism have been generated throughout the ages by numerous mystics and philosophers. Essentially, it's choosing your favorite Catholics and Jews. People get so caught up in attempting to be "non-Western" or something of the such that they completely ignore the idea of being right or wrong.)
Vietnam
Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam! This is the poorest country that we went to, although you wouldn't believe it. Wealth is more evenly distributed here than in Jakarta, although there are always disparities. Also, being in Saigon kept us away from the worst of the poverty. The GDP per capita is about $1,000, and the population is around 89 million (which makes calculating total GDP really easy).
This has got to be one of the most nationalistic people that we have met, without a hint of the typical xenophobia that that tends to engender. The Vietnamese are very proud of themselves, generally want to be left alone to conduct their own affairs, and love to trade and do business with other people. There is still a disgusting level of affection for General Ho Chi Min (largely referred to as Uncle Ho). They love him for unifying the country, despite that his policies would murder hundreds of thousands.
Anyway, the Vietnamese harbor no ill-will toward the Americans or the French. They do not trust the Chinese, but for political rather than racial reasons. Interestingly enough, two years after the conclusion of the American War, Vietnamese policies led to an inflow of Chinese refugees from Vietnam into China. China decided to enter a "War of Education" to punish the Vietnamese. The President of the United States pretended to protest, while secretly encouraging the Chinese. In a single month of war (it may have been a single week), the Chinese lost a number of men equal to half the total lost by the Americans during the entire duration of the American War. KEY LESSON: Be friendly with Vietnam, don't mess with them.
The Vietnamese are extremely entrepreneurial, they have huge amounts of energy. They also have a young population. 70% are under the age of 35 (so many don't even recollect the American War). Their government is again horribly inept, and while they are posting great growth to their GDP, inflation is almost equal in size. Furthermore, the government is engaged in all kinds of investment boondoggles. Right now, they are creating a bullet train from Hanoi to Saigon; however, this train will not carry much freight, but instead will be a passenger liner. Problem, in order to even break-even, the ticket on the train will have to be several multiples higher than the cheap 2-hour plane ride from Hanoi to Saigon.
A funny story though about my Vietnamese experience. We had a tour guide that took us to the Kuichi tunnels where many of the Vietnamese guerillas fought. He spoke of the war to unify Vietnam and spoke about the North as being communist and the South as being capitalist (hardly). However, now that Vietnam is opening its economy, the communists are too proud to call the openings "capitalist", so they are simply renaming capitalism "socialism", and have renamed Vietnam a "Socialist Republic". You have to love linguistic trickery.
Coming out of Vietnam though, I didn't feel the same level of pity that I do for Jakarta. Indonesia almost seems insoluble (though it can't persist the way it is forever). The people of Vietnam, though, are simply energizing to be around.
Hong Kong
Hong Kong was ceded to the British during the Opium Wars, and expanded during the Second Opium War. Living under a system of clear common law and being made a freeport, investment capital flowed inward. The relative allowance of free movement of prices and goods, of capital and labor, made it one of the most successful economies in history.
It's hard for the government to construct a narrative like the one found in Singapore. It's hard to believe that anything other than freedom has been at work here in Hong Kong. However, the government does attempt to chip away where it can, and live as a parasite, as it always does. The greatest threats to Hong Kong today come from mainland China. Truthfully, mainland China looks like an uncouth barbarian horde seeking to overwhelm the riches of Hong Kong.
While many policy wonks claim that China does not want to harm Hong Kong because it is a money-maker, I think they fail to understand what their logic leads them to in other instances. I ask them why China cares so much about retaking Taiwan, and they explain that it is "just the way they think". The Chinese see Taiwan and all these territories are rightfully theirs because some previous emperor managed to conquer them before. Chinese imperialism may be limited, but it certainly exists.
I think Hong Kong represents an affront to the Communist Party of China. Recall, this is the same party that produced the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. This is the same party that killed between 80 million and 120 million. They are desperate to stay in power, and need a Singaporean narrative for themselves. They have been attempting to control growth to maintain power, but anyone who has been to mainland China will tell you, that power is tenuous at best. Right now, China is developing a port at Shenzhen and attempting to make Shanghai a world financial center. It's hard to see how that will happen right now with the horrific ways of enforcing contracts in China right now. Those two things are developed very close to Hong Kong. I think it is a clear sign of China's attempt to minimize Hong Kong's importance.
China won't succeed though. The people of Hong Kong are industrious, intelligent, and know how to operate in a civilized world. They are extremely adaptive. Ports in America managed to co-exist peacefully as trade boomed throughout the country, and Hong Kong will manage to maintain that position even with Shenzhen possibly being a hostile port.
Conclusions
Theoretically, you can argue and come to see much about the truth of things. That is the glory of a priori reasoning; however, experience does have a wonderful ability to put things concretely. I believe Ayn Rand often said that high reasoning was practically useless unless it could be "brought down to the concrete" (I'm not quoting that perfectly, she put it very well). In the end, freedom works, socialism fails.
From the another complimentary perspective, seeing the varieties of people living and working together is another great view. Also, seeing the spread of Catholicism to these opening countries is warming. However, Asia needs philosophy.
I thought about this too late in the arguments that I would have with people. Many said that Asia is producing so many engineers and business people because that is the stage of development that it is in, and that philosophy and other liberal arts are for "rich" nations. However, I think many nations advocate engineers and business (and only certain types of business) because these people don't think outside the box. Think about high level engineering and mathematics for example. You don't see Asian represented highly there. Except in theoretical positions where "discovery" is quite rote, Asians fail to develop a dynamic mind capable of expanding into new territory. The liberal arts provide this, but just as the term liberal derives from the Latin root "liber" meaning "free", the liberal arts have a freeing tendency in the mind. They can claim that the liberal arts are a wealthy man's mode, but don't forget that the liberal arts flourished during the Middle Ages, a period where Europe was relatively poorer than much of the rest of the world. Considering how many wealthy people now do exist in Asia, you would expect them to start contributing to central issues in philosophy, theology, economics, sociology (if this were a legitimate area of inquiry of course), music, etc, but they do not.
So, I conclude with my final insight and a task for myself. Asians need philosophy, and I'm going to bring it to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment