and culture of developing nation-states has created endless debates and opinions that both support and oppose globalisation (Castells, 2004; Martin, 2001; Mahathir, 2002). Among them, a narrative by DeSoya and O’neal (1999) assert that the high level of trade and investments from developed capitalist countries could stimulate economic growth of developed and developing countries and in turn improve the countries’ welfare and benefit its masses. This argument supports the notion that globalisation offers long-term benefits to the population. On the contrary, Hirst and Thompson (1996:170) note that the present system of economic globalisation has reduced the significance and capacities of the developing nation-states for national governance and economic management.
In consideration of today’s context of globalisation, Jomo (2004:37-51) maintains that the era of globalisation in Asia, in particular the developing Southeast Asian region, began in the late nineteenth century. This was the period most popularly referred to as Western imperialism where Western Europeans were actively establishing their political and economic interests in the developing nations of Africa and Asia. It must be mentioned that besides being a major period in the globalisation process, the nineteenth century was also associated with technological developments which continue until the twentieth century where economic liberalisation became the catch phrase. This section looks at an overall picture of the implications of globalisation on the developing societies in Southeast Asia with a particular focus on Malaysia.
a. Economic consequences
It is generally accepted by many scholars on globalisation that the global integration of goods and capital markets has by and large benefited the economy of the developing countries of the world. In the case of Southeast Asia, because of its pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial pasts, globalisation has become part of the region’s inheritance. In fact, Abdul Rahman (2004) affirms that the idea of modernity in Southeast Asia is very much due to the rather unrestrictive flows of capital and labour into the region. It therefore explains the milieu of the culturally and socially pluralized societies of Southeast Asia.
On the same note, the spread of neo-liberal globalisation in the Asian nations in the late twentieth century has provided these countries with little or no alternative except to embrace the American capitalist system of free market. This complex interplay of the global economy has produced a wide income disparity among the upper and lower levels of society. Castells (2004) indicates that, just like in the advanced capitalist societies of the United States and Western Europe, this situation is unavoidable mainly because of the shift in occupational structure of the labour force either through market sectors or occupational composition.
These inequalities have been more evident amongst the developing Asian countries particularly after the 1997 Southeast Asian financial crisis. The 1997 global impact of the destabilising effects of free capital and currency movements had caused the suddenness of the economic crash suffered by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand (Rajah Rasiah, 2004). A likely reason for the economic instability is the liberalisation of economic institutions across the world and the global political framework which are dominated by powerful interests in capital and currency markets. As revealed by McGrew (1992), the compelling dynamism of globalisation brings along with it the gradual change in executive power to international institutions such as the non-governmental World Trade Organisation (WTO) which is responsible for enforcing rules and regulations resulting in the continuous reduction of power among the nation-states. It is an economic fact that the deregulation pressures faced by Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand in the 1990s was for the most part due to the financial liberalisation processes of WTO and other non-governmental agencies such as the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and lately, the Association of Southeast Asian Nation or ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA). Taking the formation of AFTA as an example, although it was created to provide access to the ASEAN countries to venture into bigger markets, it has been argued that it would only benefit the established entrepreneurs with large enterprises. This is because only these companies are prepared to face competition from other producers whilst the small and medium producers which form the bulk of business establishments in these countries are not able to compete with the bigger establishments.
Discussing the Malaysian situation, Rajah Rasiah (2004) in her analysis of the
the Malaysian government’s effort at eradicating poverty and narrowing income inequality among the population. This is because with globalisation, the government’s role in economic development is reduced while the private sector’s role is increased. As such, costs of the basic welfare and labour rights of the population had to be scaled down at the expense of attracting foreign direct investments which is meant to improve competitiveness. At the same time, the government is also pressured to reduce the progressive and corporate tax rates which provide various incentives to the foreign companies. This means that there is less resource to be spent on national redistribution, that is, on social expenditure including education, health and housing.
While the arguments thus far seem inclined to support the view that globalisation is a Western imperialist plot to exploit the less-developed nation-states, Sklair (2001) offers a different perspective. Although he accepts that Western countries still dominate the global economy, he stresses that the move today has shifted towards forging a globalizing alliance capitalism such that new technologies of production, financing and marketing can be transferred to the nation-states. While it cannot be refuted that the intensification of TNCs is instrumental in the creation of a globalised capitalist economy resulting in a new division of labour (Ohmae, 1999), Sklair (2001) notes that the global system theory is not just confined to the TNCs alone but also involves the transnational capitalist class and the culture-ideology of consumerism which is very much creased with capitalist globalization.
Nevertheless, by and large the TNCs which are headquartered mostly in America or Europe are recognized as major change agents for the developing country.
Furthermore, the exceptional advance in communication technologies today acts as an important catalyst for these corporations to relocate or setup their base in the rapidly changing markets of the developing countries where the labour costs are comparatively cheaper, and consequently making the production revenues bigger. In her celebrated book, “No Logo”, Naomi Klein (2002) offers an account of labour exploitation of American companies in the developing nations. For instance, her mention of the indiscriminate abuse of cheap child labour in Indonesia to manufacture Nike, a sport shoe product from an American company is proof of the
impact of the American capitalist system. According to her, the workers were paid a pittance compared to the profits reaped from the sale of every pair of Nike sneakers.
It seems obvious that once the TNCs have established their foothold in the developing nations, what follows will be the globalisation of the socio-economic and political state of affairs of the nation. In recent years, the TNCs have become huge companies and many of them are based in the United States of America (Giddens, 1994). For instance, the last two decades saw the establishments of very large TNCs like AT & T, Sony, Universal and Disney that dominate the global market for entertainment, news, television and film (Steger, 2003). Some others have grown to become conglomerates.
One of them is the American based cigarette company RJ Reynolds which expanded its business to include non-tobacco business interests including Del Monte (fruit), Heublein (alcohol), Sealand Services (shipping), Kentucky Fried Chicken (food retailing) and Aminoil (oil and petroleum) (see Giddens, 1994). Interestingly, the more globalised their activities the more the TNCs become less associated with any country. In fact the governments of the United States, Europe and Japan where the TNCs have their headquarters find it more difficult to rely on TNCs to act in their national interest (ibid). As the owners and controllers within the TNCs manage the transnational economic practices, the globalizing politicians, bureaucrats, merchants and media professionals will line themselves for the transnational practices of politics, culture and ideology (see Sklair, 2000).
Taking into consideration the impact of economic globalisation on the local economy of developing Southeast Asian nations like Malaysia, there have been ripples of doubt and question with regards to the feasibility and sustainability of neo-liberal globalisation. Mittleman (2000) suggests that resistance from developing nations affected by neo-liberal globalisation is not only a natural reaction but also a central component in the whole process. To Mahathir Mohamed, former Prime Minister of Malaysia and a foremost articulator of the Asian approach in the discourse on globalisation, the big powers of America and Europe interpret globalisation as their right of capital to enter the borders of nation-states at their own will. Hence, he characterises globalisation as a Western project in the service of a new empire (Mahathir, 2003). Nevertheless, despite his opposition towards neo-liberal
globalisation, Mahathir concurs with the viewpoints of most scholars who see the advantages brought about by globalisation towards the economy of developing countries. As such, he demands that globalisation be redefined from the perspective of the small nations for these nations to benefit in terms of technology, know-how, foreign direct investment and other related matters (ibid). In short, the Malaysian leader is actually in favour of the universal values of globalisation for as long as the Western nations do not meddle in the Malaysia’s politics which is generally perceived by the West as “autocratic”.
b. Cultural Impact
As discussed in the earlier section, although there are many critics of economic globalisation, most governments support the global flow of goods and capital markets because by and large they see the economic benefits for the country. In spite of this, one cannot doubt that economic globalisation would also eventually affect every other aspect of the social life of the citizens. Among the most controversial in the non-economic area of globalisation is the homogenisation of cultures which most governments oppose.
Tracing the history and development of the colonised nation-states, one is reminded of the work of a pre-eminent scholar in post-colonial studies, Edward Said who in 1978 released a controversial book, Orientalism. Said focuses his interest on the relationship between the “occident”, the Western nations of England, France and the United States of America and the “orient”, the naïve and often misinterpreted middle east and the far east. To Said (1979), the West has created a demarcation between the actual history and culture of the East and the romantic perception of the “orient”. He claims that since the West has a prejudiced opinion of the East as being backward and ignorant of their own history and culture, they take it upon themselves to create a new civilization, the past and future for these nations. In effect, this is seen as a clear form of cultural imperialism of which the West has treated the people in its colonised empires as soulless objects that can be manipulated. On the other hand, in consideration of the fact that there is no longer direct interference of the West on the politics, culture and economy of developing nations today, we may want to question on the relevance of Western cultural imperialism.
While we may see Said’s description of imperialism as slightly far-fetched, there is no denying that the existing cultures of the developing nation-states of Southeast Asia are going through the process of transformation into a global culture. Abdul Rahman (2004) notes that although the national cultures may still be practiced, there are clear signs showing that globalisation is threatening the national identities of these countries. This situation, Abdul Rahman (ibid) elaborates, would eventually lead to marginalisation and commodification resulting in the creation of an identity crisis.
But then again, we may want to ask, will not the energetic mix of the Eastern and Western cultures rationally lead to the widespread feeling that Asians are embracing a new middle class lifestyle of a universal global consumer culture?
At this juncture, we are reminded of Giddens’ (1996) claim that the nature of globalisation today involves a serious cultural dimension wherein one cannot avoid the inter-connectivity on the day-to-day activities and events that occur around the globe. Based on this contention, it is not surprising that the most revolutionary progress in the century has been the arrival of the internet technology. As an important and popular medium in the 21st century for the spread of information and cultural services throughout the world, the internet technology has proven itself to be a pervasive facilitator of globalisation. As Abdul Rahman (2004) notes, the internet was a major alternative medium in the late 1990s particularly among the young middle class group in the Southeast Asian cities of Bangkok, Manila, Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur who rose against their respective regimes demanding for justice. In fact, internet usage in these Asian countries has been experiencing a phenomenal rise since the past decade. To quote an example, the number of internet users in Malaysia increased by almost 90 percent within a span of just seven years. In 2004, there were 10,040,000 internet users (Internet World Statistics, 2005) compared to only 1, 374,000 in 1997 (Matrade, 2004).
As such, one cannot discount the fact that as images and ideas can be more easily and rapidly transmitted from one place to another with the internet technology, it profoundly impacts the way people experience their everyday lives (Steger, 2003: 70).
For instance, the dominant symbolic systems of meanings in this age – such as individualism, consumerism and various religious discourses that may originate from
one corner of the Western world are already circulating freely and widely among the developing Southeast Asian populace.
Another issue at hand in relation to internet technology is its apparent exploitation by the profit-motivated commercial corporations which are keen to utilise the internet space as an important source of reaping profits via the marketization of products and services to the global market. In effect Murdock and Golding (2001) are of the view that the confrontation between the motives of the commercial corporations and the culture of open access and public participation as espoused by many net enthusiasts will seriously affect the structure of modern-day universal culture. Although this phenomenon could cause confusion among the net users, the budding Southeast Asian users in particular, and could lead to an eventual weakening of their cultural coherence, it could also make them knowledgeable cosmopolitan citizens of the world.
A discussion of the cultural impact of globalisation will not be complete without referring to the widespread use of the English language among the Asian societies today. Indeed, as a very noticeable feature of cultural globalisation English is a popular language now. In his evaluation of the cultural changes brought about by globalisation in Southeast Asia, Yoshihara Kunio (2004) notes that English has widely been acknowledged as the most important language for knowledge acquisition and development.
Because of its wide acceptance as a primary global language particularly for global business expansion, Abdul Rahman (2004) reasons that English impacted into almost every Asian society including those considered to be highly nationalistic societies like Japan, China and South Korea. These societies, according to him (ibid) had to succumb to studying English to avoid being left behind in the global race. For the same reason, the use of English in vernacular schools in Malaysia has been reemphasised since the past few years. A more complete picture of this situation is presented in Chapter Three.
As it is, language and culture are two elements that are deep-rooted among the people and are hard to change. It is universally accepted that the Western culture of English
and American have extended far and wide due to the liberalisation of the free market economy and this has resulted in its strong influence among the people of the world.
Abdul Rahman (ibid: 337-351) theorises that during the colonial years in Southeast Asia, the use of English was promoted and encouraged among the colonised societies to get them to accept and be identified with their “new masters”. All at once, it is also equated with advancement, modernity and cosmopolitanism whilst the national languages were regarded as parochial or insular.
Although the influence of English as a global language may be seen as harmless by some, the fact remains that its spread has promoted an English-speaking mass media that are dominated by American companies and that transmit American culture.
Kunio (2004: 83-120) warns that because the American mass media are frequently more appealing than the national language mass media, readers are susceptible to believe that these media benefit them. On a more serious note, Kunio (ibid) adds that the depiction of cultural messages in the American mass media conflict with the norms and values of the developing Asian countries like Malaysia. When this kind of exposures continue unabated, the national cultures will eventually reduce in significance. To proponents of world cultural diversity, depending on their sentiments, this situation can either be damaging or harmless. It may be damaging because it could create divisions within the national culture. At the same time, it could be remarkable as there will be interconnections of varied cultures that will lead to a hibridized global culture.
Taken as a whole, the globalisation process which includes the spread of values, beliefs, lifestyles and popular culture from one country to another would consequently result in the extension of the cultural habits of the local population beyond their local customs and beliefs. On the other hand, in the economic arena, there are bound to be significant creation of economic opportunities for the citizens of the nation-state.