BLOGS   WRITE NEW BLOG   EDIT BLOGS  
 
RSS
Getting Rich First?
Posted On 01/16/2008 18:19:46 by Cambodia

In my first few columns, I deplored the fact that, in Cambodia, many people are driven by greed and that people have become more and more money-minded. This seems to have accelerated in the last few years as land speculation was becoming widespread.

I never asked question (1) : is this necessarily a bad thing?

I also deplored the fact that most people are Buddhists in name only. Likewise, I never asked question (2) : what is the big deal about Buddhism, anyway?

I recently read Duncan Hewitt’s book "Getting rich first: life in a changing China" and noted the similarities between what has happened in China since Deng Xiaoping’s first said that “it’s glorious to be rich” in 1978 and what has happened in Cambodia since 1993. In both countries, “ while some (Duncan Hewitt wrote ‘many’ in the case of China) have benefited under the new aspiration nation, many (my choice of words) others are struggling to keep up with what is now one of the most divided societies on earth”.

Notwithstanding the increasing inequality between the haves and the have-nots, Deng Xiaoping’s additional rationalization that the country would have to “let some of the people get rich first” could also be used to foster the hope that, in Cambodia, once rich, many Cambodians would turn to philanthropy and religion, i.e. real faith-based religion.

We observed this phenomenon in many nouveau-rich societies, e.g. in Singapore where many middle-class young professionals combine material and professional success with strong and genuine Christian beliefs. Likewise, in Cambodia, many nouveau rich people also donate generously to Buddhist temples during Kathin festivals.

Some people may argue that Buddhism is really only a philosophy of life and, unlike Christianity, is not a faith-based religion. Therefore, a change in attitude toward the world and life would only be possible if people were to see the Light and convert to Christianity. This is what happened to Kang Khek Ieu (alias Deuch), the head of S-21 or Tuol Sleng.

More and more Cambodians are converting to Christianity and, while some are doing it for partly or mostly mercenary reasons, some are doing it because they have truly embraced Christian faith and values. Unlike Buddhism which, inherently, preaches renunciation, Protestantism, in particular, makes the practice of one’s faith and wealth accumulation compatible and possibly synergistic.

Given the two columns immediately preceding this one, is it any wonder that some Cambodians have become skeptical with such pessimistic concepts as karma and converted to a more optimistic religion, e.g. Christianity?

Potentially life-changing projects like the CIST
http://www.myp1t.com/forum/posts/id_1033/
are a drop in the ocean, compared with the evangelical potential of well-heeled missionaries from many Western and Asian (e.g. South-Korean) churches.

Instead of passing implicit value judgments in my first few columns, should I have been asking questions (1) and (2) instead?

This column has taken some time to write, not only because of the festive season and my workload but also because I have been unable to come up with non-clichéd ideas on how the Cambodians’ current obsession with money could be curbed or possibly reversed.

This is the reason why I am posing two soul-searching and controversial questions (1) and (2). I look forward to reading your comments. Thank you.


Bookmark:



Viewing 81 - 85 out of 85 Comments


<< First  < Previous | Page:  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |

From: gnome
01/17/2008 23:14:00

oops, sorry for the long response below, i didn't realize how long it was when writing it in a small comment box until submitted. as for the later, question number two, buddhism is not the problem.

in reference to maslow's hierarchy, it's difficult for any society to strive for higher realization and to follow the thin line of morality when it's drowning in poverty. i know this sounds like an excuse and we always expect people to act morally no matter how dire the circumstances are. the truth is, or should i say the reality is, cambodia is no exception even when the majority of the population is buddhism. people will always be people and according to maslow people need to be able to fill their stomach, have heating and shelter, and some level of security first before they can achieve higher level of conscience.

why are cambodians so greedy and money minded? but who isn't? in fact, i think everyone is greedy in some ways. the world is driven by greed. most americans are greedy. the only difference between americans and cambodians is that most cambodians live in poverty and all they want to be able to escape it and to never become poor again. this perhaps reinforced the inhumane behaviors inside of people and to do whatever it takes to become rich.

i don't think religion is the contributing factor behind all the problems in cambodia, especially such peaceful religion as buddhism.



From: gnome
01/17/2008 22:49:18

this may seem a bit redundant and unnecessary, i apologize if it turns out that way. in an effort to answer your question one and two, especially the former, i want to discuss about the globalization.

the closing of the 20th century was the end of post cold war. no more isolation and no more sidelines between the two super nation states. as we approach the new century we enter a new era, an era of integration, defining technologies, free trade, and the web. as thomas friedman puts it, a new era of globalization. in this new world, speed and innovation critical, competition fierce, people connected online, and those who are not prepared will be left in the dust. 

in the dust it certainly has been for the small country of cambodia with no real industry and specialization in global economy. the country was crippled by the civil war and now lead by an incompetent group of people with no real qualification. it cannot compete with the rest of the world who are far better prepared with more advanced political governance, educated populace, and more natural resources. for decades it has relied on foreign aids to maintain its government. with no trade specialty, the country so far has been feeding on crumbs of the international community with few garment factories and rubber plantation here and there.

so what else can cambodia offer? nothing at the moment, except for exploiting its people, culture and history. thus, the only source of income is tourism. horde of investors sees this as an opportunity and they come and buy all the properties they see fit for hotels or restaurants forcing the price of land in cambodia to skyrocket and sell it to foreigners making huge profits. as a result you have a huge division between the rich and the poor with no real middle class.

so you see, the rich people of cambodia are not the same rich people in other countries who have made their wealth the good old fashion way by working their butts off and created a business where the invisible hand has helped the economy and society some way. these nouvo-rich of cambodia only knows how to grab land and sell land. they are not sympathetic and compassionate who may one day become philanthropists like the gates foundation. in fact, cambodians nouvo-rich are quite the opposite, they perceive themselves as masters and the poor as slaves. they treat the people like dirt.

nouvo-rich of cambodia are not the same as the rest of the world. unfortunately, i don't think there will be any philanthropy foundation from the rich any time soon until they themselves can understand life is more than just about money.

cambodia has a long way to go and it's being pulled along by globalizaton. the development so far in cambodia is not made by the cpp government but actually by the world. unfortunately, it's not enough to keep cambodia from becoming one of the poorest countries in the world and one of the most corrupted nations. 

 



From: pka1thong
01/17/2008 22:30:41
question 1) is this necessarily a bad thing?

Not at all a bad thing wanting to be rich, richer or richest.  It's the actions of what one did maybe considered bad, if it's unethical or moral.  Take for example: the rich people in America vs Cambodia.  Many rich people here have given back to the community by giving away scholarships,  restore/reconstruct homes that have been wiped out by nature or charitable funds.  On the opposite end, Cambodian riches have done very little to improve or provide for her people. 

question 2) what is the big deal about Buddhism, anyway?

With a country that is predominatly buddhist, it's a big deal.  This religion greatly influence worshippers to act as good samaritans in this life in order to get rewarded for the next life. 



From: KSaron
01/17/2008 10:31:48

shall we do this in the forum as well?



From: pyralis
01/17/2008 07:33:25
Pertaining to Choice (2) :People enjoy being in "dinstinguished social circles"  even if they don't admit it. It's not so much of being in a "clique" but it's an excuse for a social gathering and to find some common ground. This sucks I want to say more, but I have to run to class. Will respond more to this and the other thread later. Lohk Bong thanks for your insightful posts as always take care!


--
<< First  < Previous | Page:  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |