How to save the Rohingya, AND OURSELVES
Play
There's something ironic about the current uproar over the Rohingya. The controversy seems to have all the ingredients of what made those people become refugees in the first place.
The similarities between “now” and “then” are stark: Blind passion, a superiority complex, and clashing political ideologies. Finally, there’s the attitude that “our god” (or “morality” or “goodness”) is better than the others’.
Biases are reigning supreme, even though the last thing we need is for the plight of refugees to be blurred by history, politics or simply the will to win an argument. Although the ongoing controversy won’t lead to a war anytime soon, it contains enough hatred, egotism and prejudice to tip the moral scale. Evil starts this way, after all: with people thinking they are 100 per cent morally right and the others are 100 per cent morally wrong.
The Rohingya have been through all this before. And make no mistake, their ancestors were themselves partly to blame.
The juxtaposition that led to the Rohingya becoming racial outcasts was marked by misguided patriotism, foreign interference and a false sense of pride. Whether or not the Rohingya of old really had any choice is debatable, but it’s a no-brainer when their children are concerned. The boat people, by-products of “moral” politics gone awry, don’t have another option.
People viewing the refugees’ ordeal have their choices, though. For one thing, they can choose to end the blame game, be open-minded and see moral conflict as capable of snowballing into something very immoral. Balanced perspectives have been lacking, however. The whole Rohingya episode has generated a black-and-white debate. One side seems to be directed by raw compassion. The other cites practicality. There is very little in between.
What’s worse is that the clash between raw compassion and practicality has been compounded by different political ideologies. Some people are arguing for or against the Rohingya simply because those whom they don’t like are on the other side. All these have led to an unrealistic, over-the-top and very emotional showdown. One side is calling the other “heartless”. Hitting back, the latter is asking the former if they would pick up every stray cat and pet it. And complicated international diplomacy doesn’t help at all.
The truth is that no one man, organisation or country is equipped the help the Rohingya alone, that condemnation and cynicism will only make helping them a lot harder, and that the country where they come from needs to be seriously engaged. Last but not least, assistance must come from the heart and not be politically motivated.
There is still time for everyone to step back and study the other side’s reasoning. Extreme opinions can only be good if they help forge a compromise. Exaggerated sentiment can be useful because, without people shedding tears for fellow human’s sufferings, we may not have been aware of the ordeals in the first place. On the other hand, without people asking those who are crying for the Rohingya whether they would also hire a refugee as a maid, the burden facing a potential host could easily be overlooked.
Everyone agrees that the Rohingya should be helped. But when it comes to “how?”, all hell breaks loose. Coming into play are history, the Thai political divide along with its international ramifications, individual governments’ policies, as well as problems related to the Rohingya themselves. The social media, meanwhile, are helping spread both sympathy and rigid prejudice. It’s hard to argue with either side of the debate because people tend to omit their side’s weak points when presenting their cases.
When it comes to hungry, homeless people needing shelters, water and food, we humans can’t be that different, can we? That is to say we first have to take away politics, religion and some self-interest out of the equation. Nothing blinds us like politics and so-called “ideology”. The Rohingya are waiting for pure compassion to materialise, and hatred, anger and false pride to go away. Their hardships are challenging us to find a genuine solution that won’t sow the seeds of similar hardships in the future, however distant.
The good news is that debate on issues like the Rohingya is no longer left to the policymakers and opinion leaders. For the first time, the world is searching its soul regarding the fate of a group of suffering humans.
That is a good start in itself, but we also need a clear goal. The ultimate objective is not just to save the Rohingya or prevent other people falling into the same predicament. The real aim should include ridding ourselves of all the traits that led to the Rohingya becoming homeless and hounded in the very beginning.
