Customer Reviews

Can Asians think?

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I picked up this book in the Singapore airport for the chuckles elicited by the highly politically incorrect title. Paging through, I recognized that the author is of a very rare breed for english language authors: a man who tells the undiluted truth. Most english language writers on public policy or international relations matters are completely worthless; they are mere liturgical recitations of the prevailing wisdom as published in the New York Times editorial page. Mr. Mahbubani, on the other hand, clearly demonstrates that Asian writers on these matters (unlike their white counterparts) are more than capable of rational and original thought. In all seriousness, even though I rarely agree with his views, writers like this could get me to read a newspaper, as they are actual thoughts, rather than rearrangements of prejudices. There are no mainstream American writers producing this caliber of essay, with the possible exception of "Spengler" (aka David P. Goldman) who has had to publish in an Asian newspaper himself.

This is a great irony: in the allegedly freewheeling West, it is impossible to write such things in a mainstream publication. So what if Asian nations don't have a free press? We don't have anything remotely resembling a free press in the West either. While our lack of freedom is not codified in law, it is far more oppressive of clear and rational thinking than whatever press unfreedoms may occur in a country like Singapore. I'd even argue it is impossible for most Western intellectuals to have such thoughts, so great is our internal colonization by politically correct insanity. What kind of thoughts am I talking about? Besides the title essay, Mr. Mahbubani argues the obvious point that "democracy" is not the cure-all that Western policy makers make it out to be. He also argues that a "free" press often do more harm than good, and don't even accomplish the social goods they claim to bring to humanity. He argues that people may, in fact, be inherently different (again; a truth I find obvious, but which is thought crime in the West). He also points out the obvious fact that the recent "freedoms" which Western civilization has awarded itself; unlimited social welfare, freewheeling sexuality, destruction of the family unit, free access to "illegal" drugs, the madness of radical individualism, "humane" laws which allow criminals to torment innocent citizens -these might be a bad idea, even for the West. He also argues that the West needs to listen to thinkers from the East, and that modern welfare states are not some kind of utopia: I am in abundant agreement with his views on this subject, as Asian nations are very obviously doing much better than the West in producing pleasant societies for decent people to live in. I've had this thought myself apropos my own visits to Asian nations, and hope more thinkers from the East stand up and give us decadent Westerners the truth medicine we so desperately need. I think he needs to go further: Asian nations like Singapore do not need to defend themselves from morons in the West who lecture them on their "human rights violations." Asian nations like Singapore need to lecture us on our human rights violations: the violation of the basic human right to live a decent life, free of the social cancers which do not afflict Singapore. The Asian way is superior in many ways, and a country which has built itself from a malarial colonial backwater into an economic superpower and pleasant place to live in such a short period of time need not feel embarrassed about the system and techniques which accomplished this: the Asian way should be a source of pride and patriotism for Asian people. His clear thinking carries over to his ideas on international relations. While some of the essays dealing with this subject are out of date, they are clear and well thought out. The only real issues I might take with them are his tendency to anthropomorphize countries. I suppose this is a typical Western criticism, since Westerners see ourselves as collections of autonomous individuals, but I mention it anyway. The last couple are the sort of defense of the UN you'd expect from a former Ambassador from a small country to the talking club in NYC. I do not particularly agree with them at all, though they are spirited enough I enjoyed reading them anyway. A typical Western defense of the UN is not unlike a religious or moral lecture. Mr. Mahbubani makes arguments based on the concept of Western self-interest, which are far more convincing to me than some holy roller argument.

The uncomfortable fact of the matter is, Westerners need to hear arguments from Asian thinkers like Mr. Mahbubani far more than Asians need to hear from Westerners trying to impose their values on Asians. Western civilizations have far more social problems than Asian nations do, and the answers that Asian thinkers provide are not incompatible with Western civilization.