"Asian values" is not code for "development," but a short-hand, almost politically-correct way of saying "get your nose out of our government, but keep it in our business." From a realpolitik perspective, this makes perfect sense as a political strategy for developing Asian nations. But it completely ignores any and all issues of basic human rights, much less freedoms like suffrage and speech that Asians, whenever given the opportunity, take with alacrity -- the Philippines in 1986, South Korea in 1987, Myanmar in 1990, Cambodia in 1993.
We can't discount the possibility that some Asian leaders honestly believe that Asian values are different, that some sort of Confucian ethic of discipline, deferred pleasure and societal precedence over the individual exists in a discernibly different way than any sort of "Western value." But if leaders such as Mohamad, Lee, Jiang and Suharto truly believe Asian values to be unique and genuine and not just code for political independence through statism, they must do more to articulate their philosophies explicitly. If they fail to define what they mean by "Asian value," the rest of the world will continue to believe that it is nothing more than a smokescreen justification for the continued abuse of power. This would be a tragedy for those in an emerging Asia who are genuinely trying to define the values of an emergent Asia to a still-learning world.
Perhaps subtle evasiveness in order to maintain political fiction is yet another feature of "Asian value" that Westerners cannot possibly understand. But I seriously doubt it.
[Editor's note, June 29, 1998: this article was referenced in an edition of the Christian Science Monitor. The article, titled Cracking Asia's Cozy Ways, is an interesting discussion of this very issue.]
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Jason Gottlieb's East Asian Politics topic, please visit the Discussions page.