Can Asians Think ? 1

Basil Fernando

(Ed. Note: The following is a review of CAN ASIANS THINK? by Kishore Mahbuhani, published by Times Book International-1998. The author criticises the so -called Asian Values upheld by leaders of authoritarian regimes as the major obstacles of independent thinking.)

Though the book merely repeats the common views expressed from the point of view of "Asian Values", still the authors call for a debate on the question posed by the title of the book, is worth pursuing.

The author is a Singaporean diplomat and his views are couched within the framework of Lee Kuan-yew dogmas. However, if the Singaporeans were posed the question, Can you think?, three answers are likely to emerge. The hard-core group who according Lee Kuan-yew ruled Singapore will answer, "Yes we can and further we must." The supporters of ruling PAP is likely to answer, "No, we do not need. Our leaders are supposed to do that." The rest are likely to answer, "No. We should not. It is very dangerous to think." So long as Suharto ruled, Indonesians may have answered in the same way. Same can be said of South Koreans during the military regimes, with the exception that a considerable number said, "it is dangerous to think but still we shall do so." That thinking finally brought the two South Korean presidents to trial. In Burma (Myanmar) thinking is regarded as dangerous and leading to serious trouble. Look at the trouble Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters are having!

Dalit’s and Asian Values

Regarding India, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar tried to answer this question already in 1937 in a speech that was published as a booklet, titled Annihilation of Caste. Ambedkar, took for granted a negative answer to the question under consideration as far as Hindu India was concerned and concentrated in answering as to why there was paralysis in the Indian mind. He found it in the system of internal division of the society on the basis of caste which made it impossible for the Indian mind to accept equality of all. Without acceptance of equality as a concept, thinking only increased the divisions. Thus, the issue was not whether Asians can think, but whether it was possible for them to think through negative attitudes implanted in them by their own cultures to positive ones. In other words, can they think out of the system of authority which they have inherited?

This is the very question Mahbuhani tries to avoid. According to him, like to all spokesman of "Asian values", respect for authority is a great Asian value. History of freedom of thought is one against the systems of authority. Asians who have broken with systems of authority at some periods of history, once again fell back before new systems of even more harsher forms of authority and thus lost capacity for creative thought.

The Makings of the Western Mind

Mahbuhani, sees the change in the Western mind during last five hundred years as magical. However, history shows it was not magic, but fight against faith and magic, with sweat and sacrifice that made the change in Western mind. It was not magicians but "heretics" who helped to form the Western mind. Western mind is a mind that rebels against every form of authority, except those forms which are mutually agreed, including the agreed limits of authority. If one can speak of Western mind in general terms, the most common aspect of that mind is the rebellion against every from of super-imposed authority. If Western people can think, it means, they can think for themselves and do not have to depend on some authorities to the thinking for them. If the Asian mind cannot think, it can only mean it still depends on some authorities. Friedrich Nietzche, might say, that even the Western mind cannot yet fully think, as it has not yet fully broken away from the need of authority and still unable to think fully for themselves.

Mahbuhani’s plea for Asians to think and his defence of authority as an Asian value are two contradictory positions. This contradiction may be the explanation for the question he has raised. If Asian uniqueness depends on their respect of authority, then to give up that would be to give up the uniqueness; This may be seen as imitation of the West.

Obviously an absurdity is involved in this. Western mind thinks; Asian mind also now thinks; Therefore Asian mind is imitating the Western one! So, if Asian mind want to think in a unique way, it must think with respect to authority which means, it must not think at all. The uniqueness of various different groups within humanity does not get obliterated when they think. Though Mahbuhani has put all Western people as one, among each nation and group there are many peculiarities. The way Scandinavian countries think of many questions is different to others; and the French, everyone knows, are not like the English.

Thus the respect for authority need not be a great unique feature of the Asians. It is only a unique feature of the mentally paralyzed. Buddha, the best known Asian personality opposed authority as much as any rationalist in the West. Yet, the uniqueness of Buddha’s teachings will not denied by any one. No one will say, he is imitator of the West or the West has imitated him. The question of uniqueness does not lie in unique values, but in the way those values are formed and expressed. Uniqueness is not the way we differentiate ourselves from others, but how we show our commonness in our own different ways. A Danish person’s Western mind shows as different to other Western people not by how it is different from the rest, but how it shares a commonness while still been very Danish.

People's respect of Authority and Authority’s Respect for the People- Which is Better?

Mahbuhani like other spokespersons for Asian values, speaks of respect of authority as an Asian value. In the West, Ever since Luther’s attack on Papacy and French revolution, what is held as a value is the obligation of the rulers to respect the people. What is the better value? What is special about Asian rulers that they deserve more respect? What is wrong with Asian people that they do not deserve the respect of their rulers? Is it exaggeration to suggest that basically the rhetoric in favour of Asian values is hypocritical.

During last 1000 years or so extreme forms of repression made Asians Into a Demoralised People: How Can Demoralized People Think Creatively?

That Asia, particularly India and China once had great civilizations in the past and that they have lost it, is common ground. The question really is how? Was it not the internal authoritarian systems that killed these civilizations but creating demoralisation among the people? The process of internal repression, when it loses all control, kills the very soul and the spirit of the people. It is the sprit of the people that gives rise to creative thoughts and ideas. If the Asians cannot think, it is these internal systems of repression that have strangulated them. The depth of internal repression has turned Asians into demoralised people; That made it easy for them to be subjugated by foreign powers. The subjugation by foreign powers have further increased the repression and made them even more demoralised. The rulers who have succeeded the colonial masters, have tried to benefit from this demoralisation and established their own authoritarian systems. They have created ideologies to justify such authoritarianism and so-called promotion of "Asian Values" is part of this ideology. Under the pretext of respect for authority it upgrades, willing subjugation to authoritarianism into a value. Such subjugation which should be treated as a vice is made a virtue.

Was "Asian Miracle" a Unique Historical Experience? Where Is It Any Way?

Mahbuhani's arguments rest mostly on the "Asian Miracle", sudden economic output of East Asian economies, which he thinks as a unique historical experience. However, this is not historically accurate. Russia, in the twenties and early thirties saw such an unprecedented growth. It also was even able to show itself as a superpower. It’s space programmes showed better results initially than those of others. Was it due to some uniqueness of Russian mind or Socialist mind? The truth is that authoritarianism can produce remarkable results in the short run. However, it does so at the risk of great disasters in the long run. Asian value arguments are not new. Such arguments have been in favour of other forms of authoritarianism before.

Modern Asian disasters comes from the submission of Asian minds to various forms of authoritarianism, which took over different countries in different times in history. It was the paralysis of minds and subsequent divisions that made it easy for colonial powers to subjugate Asia. It was the grip of caste system that made it possible for British to take over and rule India. Other forms of status systems griped other countries. It is these very status systems that are upheld by the so called Asian value of respect for authority. The cause of paralysis of Asian mind is upheld as its cure. That surely, is absurd.

Mahbuhani gives reasons in favour of three possible answers to the question, Can Asians Think?- They Can not, They Can, May Be. We can give different reasons for each of these answers;

They CanNot?

The fact that quite a lot of Asian intellectuals slavishly accept the deeper processes of internal repression in their societies show, they cannot still think. They are mere ideologues, with a new rhetoric, defending systems having age old traits of brutal repression as those which existed in medieval Europe or in 20^th Stalinism; whether system of repression is Internal Security Acts as in Malaysia or Singapore, or Caste System of India and other South Asian Countries, The Sakdina system of Thailand, other status based systems in other countries or Communist systems in several others, these are all deep systems of repression.

A further reason for a negative answer is that, creative and positive thought requires genuine ability on the part of intellectuals, including those who work for government work in genuine cooperation with ordinary people. To do so, they need to undergo change of values and understand the value of respecting people. However, most are incapable of psychological and spiritual transformation. A paralysis of a civilization cannot be cured without participation of everyone, for civilisation belongs to everyone. The concept of the rule by core-group as it exists in Singapore is anti-civilisation mode of thought.

The Reasons for a "Can" Answer: In all countries in Asia, there is a rebellion against authoritarian systems; Ambedkar and Dalit movement in India, democratic movements in Thailand, Anwar and the democratic protests in Malaysia, struggle for reform in China are some examples. The end of the Cold War has created the possibility of mobilising protest for democratic change instead of taking destructive paths as the Cambodian one under Khmer Rouge. The most hopeful factor is newly educated people in Asia, who comes from the "Bottom," as they comes from generations that have been subjected to internal repression, they can also show the way out of it. However, there is long way to go.

The Reasons for a "May be" Answer: The Singapore government publications - Singapore-21, shows the realisation that old ways may have to be given way for the future. East Asian crisis has opened the eyes of many as to the sustainability of some of the model developments pursued in resent decades. A whole young generation exposed to better communication are likely also to challenge the old ways. May be the very survival will push the Asians to recreate their society in a less repressive manner.

1 A review of CAN ASIANS THINK? by Kishore Mahbuhani, published by Times Book International-1998. The author criticises the so -called Asian Values upheld by leaders of authoritarian regimes as the major obstacles of independent thinking.