To help, or not to help? An assessment on Rationality versus Emotional, and Short term versus Long term.
Zee Kin Tai
Many were perturbed by the sight and thoughts of Rohingyans drifting in international water. 400 males females children and elderly were all cramped in a boat, with limited access to food and other basic amenities.
It is only human that we felt so guilty and upset about this incident : that we abandoned them to suffer the most inhuman sufferings. This guilt later becomes a compelling force that would lead us to do two things : to help, or to get angry and yell at authorities who didn't.
The emotional appeal is very real and strong. We as human develop strong sense of empathy and sympathy as we become more civilized. We put ourselves in their shoes, and we can't imagine the kind of turmoil they are undergoing. Our inner conscience forbade us to ignore their plight for survival, the most basic instinct for mankind.
We then appeal to our authorities to do something that would soothe our discomfort and guilt. We want that immediate feeling of sad, grieve, and sympathy to simply go away. We demand that these people be given the right to land on our soil. We demand that our government provide them all the supplies they needed. Some went on to ask the government to house them in an island while working on placing them in countries that have quotas for refugees placement.
Little did we realize that all these knee jerk demands were the result and consequence our emotional short sightness. Emotional and short sightness are something that would haunt us in time of rationality and in long run.
Now, think rationally why despite their sufferings, countries like Bangladesh, Thailand, and Malaysia did not jump into the decision that many would think is "humane" to make : allow them to land.
In the past, Malaysia has been very accommodating to illegal trespassers from Myanmar. They come in small numbers : 30,40 people at a time. We secretly allow them in, some we deport, some we host them, work on getting them refugees status, so that they can proceed to another countries in the western world which have more resources to host them. This is done at the expenses of few things :-
1) floodgate
Once we decided to accommodate them, we are sending a message to other refugees across the world that as long as they come in big numbers and terrible conditions, we would inevitably host them. This does not just appeal to Rohingyans. We might be "inviting" refugees from countries suffering impoverishment like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Yemen, Cambodia, or war torn countries like Syria. They know very well that if they come in an "irresistible" condition like the Rohingyans, we have no choice but to host them. This happens to so many western countries including Australia, that they even considered a lopsided refugees "swap" deal with Malaysia just to tell them it's not OK for them to just turn up to their soil like that. Question is, are we readied to host and welcome the next batch? And the batch after, and the batch after? Or we are just going to be "kind" once?
2) from that point of view, put aside your humane emotion and think of this situation :
If we are to host this batch of Rohingyans, we are "inviting" more batches from all around the world. This is a news of international attention. When there are more coming, are we readied to welcome them in our country?
If we allow them to land, does that mean we have to semi-imprison them? If not, should we allow them to roam freely in our country? What would be the implication of that happening?
If we Do allow this batch to land, but then ban subsequent batches to land, aren't we more inhuman? (We subtly invite them to come, but then as they come we stop them from landing?)
If we don't allow this batch to land, even if it's cruel, but it's more humane to the potential future batches of thousands people, who know that they wouldn't be able to achieve what they want, and wouldn't put themselves in such dire situation. Shall we weight our humanity?
3) instead of demanding countries like our with way lesser resources to accommodate, why don't we point our fingers to resources free countries instead, ie Singapore, australia, Japan, Europe or USA? I know they have a quota already but our quota is also filled! If you don't already know that.
It is human for us to be upset by this but we must also think rationally for the long term effect on future potential refuge seekers and also our own country. We mustn't encourage more and more people to put their wives and children and siblings in these kind of situations just to gamble their luck and suffer otherwise.
Think.
Zee Kin Tai
Many were perturbed by the sight and thoughts of Rohingyans drifting in international water. 400 males females children and elderly were all cramped in a boat, with limited access to food and other basic amenities.
It is only human that we felt so guilty and upset about this incident : that we abandoned them to suffer the most inhuman sufferings. This guilt later becomes a compelling force that would lead us to do two things : to help, or to get angry and yell at authorities who didn't.
The emotional appeal is very real and strong. We as human develop strong sense of empathy and sympathy as we become more civilized. We put ourselves in their shoes, and we can't imagine the kind of turmoil they are undergoing. Our inner conscience forbade us to ignore their plight for survival, the most basic instinct for mankind.
We then appeal to our authorities to do something that would soothe our discomfort and guilt. We want that immediate feeling of sad, grieve, and sympathy to simply go away. We demand that these people be given the right to land on our soil. We demand that our government provide them all the supplies they needed. Some went on to ask the government to house them in an island while working on placing them in countries that have quotas for refugees placement.
Little did we realize that all these knee jerk demands were the result and consequence our emotional short sightness. Emotional and short sightness are something that would haunt us in time of rationality and in long run.
Now, think rationally why despite their sufferings, countries like Bangladesh, Thailand, and Malaysia did not jump into the decision that many would think is "humane" to make : allow them to land.
In the past, Malaysia has been very accommodating to illegal trespassers from Myanmar. They come in small numbers : 30,40 people at a time. We secretly allow them in, some we deport, some we host them, work on getting them refugees status, so that they can proceed to another countries in the western world which have more resources to host them. This is done at the expenses of few things :-
1) floodgate
Once we decided to accommodate them, we are sending a message to other refugees across the world that as long as they come in big numbers and terrible conditions, we would inevitably host them. This does not just appeal to Rohingyans. We might be "inviting" refugees from countries suffering impoverishment like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Yemen, Cambodia, or war torn countries like Syria. They know very well that if they come in an "irresistible" condition like the Rohingyans, we have no choice but to host them. This happens to so many western countries including Australia, that they even considered a lopsided refugees "swap" deal with Malaysia just to tell them it's not OK for them to just turn up to their soil like that. Question is, are we readied to host and welcome the next batch? And the batch after, and the batch after? Or we are just going to be "kind" once?
2) from that point of view, put aside your humane emotion and think of this situation :
If we are to host this batch of Rohingyans, we are "inviting" more batches from all around the world. This is a news of international attention. When there are more coming, are we readied to welcome them in our country?
If we allow them to land, does that mean we have to semi-imprison them? If not, should we allow them to roam freely in our country? What would be the implication of that happening?
If we Do allow this batch to land, but then ban subsequent batches to land, aren't we more inhuman? (We subtly invite them to come, but then as they come we stop them from landing?)
If we don't allow this batch to land, even if it's cruel, but it's more humane to the potential future batches of thousands people, who know that they wouldn't be able to achieve what they want, and wouldn't put themselves in such dire situation. Shall we weight our humanity?
3) instead of demanding countries like our with way lesser resources to accommodate, why don't we point our fingers to resources free countries instead, ie Singapore, australia, Japan, Europe or USA? I know they have a quota already but our quota is also filled! If you don't already know that.
It is human for us to be upset by this but we must also think rationally for the long term effect on future potential refuge seekers and also our own country. We mustn't encourage more and more people to put their wives and children and siblings in these kind of situations just to gamble their luck and suffer otherwise.
Think.
No comments:
Post a Comment