Musings at Death's Door: An Ancient Bicultural Asian-Australian Ponders About Australian Society

By Raja Arasa Ratnam

This book is a commentary about how Australia has changed since the author first moved there in 1948. This work stands on its own merit, however his previous nonfiction work, The Dance of Destiny, describes the prejudices he, as an Asian from British Malaya, experienced. Those experiences are discussed in this latest book, as they relate to his observations of how society has reacted to different races, nationalities, languages, and religions.

Ratnam witnessed a change from White Australia to a multi-cultural, multi-lingual nation. During his years of public service, he achieved several high-ranking positions in areas of refugee settlement and migration, education, and humanitarian work. He was also denied positions because of his ethnicity. Even though he was well-known in his field, including serving as an advisor at the diplomatic and government levels, he still faced racism from time to time. In the early 1970s, the country developed an official entry policy that was non-discriminating. Skin color was no longer an official issue. In fact, as more immigrants arrived from ethnically diverse backgrounds, more social workers were needed who could speak those languages and understand the cultures.

This well-written book flows easily from one point to another. It is excellent for anyone studying sociology, public service, immigration policies, and related categories. It is also a recommended read for those who are not necessarily students, but who are interested in how a nation went from being "very British" to one of diversity acceptance. To use the author's words, "Today's Australia is not the nation I entered in 1948."

Reviewed by Cynthia Collins US Review of Books

• Language: English
• Publisher: William R. Potter
• Release date: Sep 12, 2013
• ISBN: 9781301448364

Raja Arasa Ratnam

I am an octogenarian bicultural Asian-Australian, formed by the communalism and spirituality of Asia, but with my feet firmly grounded in the individualism of the West. I am a communitarian small-l liberal, and a freethinker in matters religious. I seek to contribute to building a bridge between these cultures (as suggested to me by the spirit world about 2 decades ago); and have thereby been writing about issues relating to migrant integration (but not assimilation).I claim to be widely read. A professor of history and politics (a published author of renown), who treats my books as representing a sliver of post-war Australia’s history, did describe me as an intellectual who cannot be categorised (but not slippery). Two of my books were recommended in 2013 by the US Review of Books. All of my six books were reviewed favourably by senior academics and other notable persons. I am not just a pretty face!My books are all experience-based, including the book of short, short stories of imagined people and situations. Usefully, I was Director of Policy on migrant settlement-related issues over nine years in the federal public service in Australia. My highly interactive and contributory life, reaching leadership positions in civil society, also contributed to my writing, as did a demeaning life under British colonialism, a half-starved existence under a Japanese military occupation, and exposure to the White Australia-era racism, sectarian religion-fuelled tribalism, and a denial of equal opportunity.

Book preview

MUSINGS AT DEATH’S DOOR

An ancient bi-cultural Asian-Australian ponders about Australian society

by

Raja Arasa Ratnam

Smashwords Edition

Copyright © 2013 by Raja Arasa Ratnam

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission.

eWorld Press

Dedicated

To my ancestors and successors

‘It is enough that there is a beyond’ G.B.Shaw

MUSINGS AT DEATH’S DOOR

PREFACE

Today’s Australia is not the nation I entered in 1848. Then, it was (ridiculously) officially racist; today, any intended racism is likely to be subterranean (the yobbo excepted). Then, it was mono-cultural, mono-lingual, and mono-coloured, and very British (the ‘wogs’ of white Europe had not arrived yet); today, it is multi-ethnic and thereby multicultural, multi-lingual, multi-coloured (although recent black humanitarian entrants are viewed askance by some, mainly because they may not be economically viable for a long time), and traditionally egalitarian.

That is, while the nation has evolved into a modern cosmopolitan, generally integrated people, the ‘fair-go’ ethos of the ‘old’ Anglo-Australian underpins both official policies and much of interpersonal relations. As a communitarian small-l liberal, metaphysical Hindu, and a card-carrying Christian, I applaud this I believe that Australia could become a beacon for our neighbouring nations were we to deal with them with our feet on this platform

Yet, because of the ‘Asian values’ which formed me in colonial British Malaya, I do not accept, as an all-embracing ethos, the individualism which underpins Western nations, especially those created by immigrants, viz. the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Their human rights record is deplorable.

These very nations seek to shove a ‘one-size-fits-all’ Western view of human rights onto those nations of interest to us. The intent of this approach is the destruction of tribalism and communitarian values.

In the meanwhile, exaggerated and often self-nominated individual rights have led to the breakdown of family, which has traditionally been the backbone of society everywhere. Excepting those few involved in civil society (I am one of them), there is a rising tide of ‘takers.’ These are found at all levels – from foreign investors, corporate leaders and politicians, down to the many professionally work-shy welfare recipients.

Pockets of well-meaning individuals, seemingly unable or unwilling to consider seriously relevant policy issues, form glee clubs supporting the takers or those who seek to take, eg. asylum seekers. Communal responsibility and personal respect are thinning out like an outgoing tide at the beach. Since our politicians are pre-occupied with short-term politics rather than long-term policies – the current batch presenting themselves as the worst I have experienced – the community, by and large, reminds me of the movement of an empty stoppered bottle floating on rough seas.

Where goes my adopted nation, to which I have made a substantial contribution, especially in civil society? With little time left, I ponder about those issues of interest to me. These, I believe, are relevant for all thinking fellow-Australians. My musings are naturally filtered through my bicultural values.

MUSINGS AT DEATH’S DOOR

An ancient bicultural Asian-Australian ponders about Australian society

by

Raja Arasa RATNAM

Chapter 1: ON BICULTURALISM

Being a bicultural Asian in a Western nation has given me a significant advantage. I can understand the divide between those acculturated (as I was) in what the former Prime Minister of Singapore (Mr. Lee Kuan Yew) popularised as ‘Asian values,’ and those who were conditioned by life in an immigrant-created nation which could not provide extended families and their near-universal role. Newly-inhabited countries such as Australia simply lacked the communal support that one is born into in Asia.

By necessity, I became acclimatised to living, initially alone, later within my own nuclear family, in a society which requires self-sufficiency. In some of us, this situation engenders a wish to contribute to the welfare of one’s community by volunteering time and effort. I have thus had my head in the clouds of Asian values (metaphorically speaking), with my feet firmly planted on the hard rock of individualism, which now respects not authority figures and even one’s elders.

For individual Asians in this bifurcated society, there is the solace of a spiritual life. This assists me in achieving a necessary balance between two cultures.

Now, who am I? What is my background? And how am I enabled to ponder at some depth about my adopted nation?

I am 83.years old. I am thereby well past my statistical use-by date. No member of my extended family has survived longer. Greater longevity may of course have applied to earlier generations living in our ancestral land in Jaffna in the north of Ceylon; we are known to be a hardy people.

As a tribe, we are also known to have earned an adequate living from a harsh land for more than two thousand years; to have competed more than successfully with the Singhalese majority of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) in academe and the civil and public services, while living under British suzerainty. Subsequently, we have adapted successfully to the diverse Western nations to which, as an on-going diaspora, we migrated. Initially, migration was for economic reasons; later, for political reasons.

In Australia, to which I was despatched by either my personal destiny or the spirit world, I have adapted successfully. Indeed, I have also integrated successfully, including holding leadership positions in civil society. My initial preference was naturally for living with my own people in the land of my birth. Why so? Because the land of my birth was, already in my time, multi-ethnic, multicultural, multi-religious; and with a mutual tolerance between the Asian communities there far in advance of that level of inter-cultural tolerance to be reached in Australia by the end of the twentieth century.

It is highly probable that I will be ejected from the departure lounge of life fairly soon. Because my observations of key aspects of Australia, from the vantage point of ‘Asian values,’ began more than six decades (or about two generations) ago, there should be some socio-cultural and historical value in the attached musings. I need to highlight, however, that my thoughts have been filtered through my anti-colonial, anti-racist, anti-communist (that is, freedom-loving) values.

Migration and initial settlement are obviously stressful. It affected my father, who had migrated in his youth to British Malaya. His knowledge of English (he had a pocketful of quotations from which he would select one that was apt) and an innate organisational ability led him to an administrative life in the newly-established public service. Migration also affected me in Australia with its racism and tribalism, but only through a denial of equal opportunity. Being treated as inferior by culture, by skin colour, by religion can be corrosive to one’s soul; but I did not allow that.

The Japanese military Occupation of 1942-1945 added further stress to my father, in spite of the prevailing mutual tolerance between the diverse immigrant communities, all seeking to survive, and the tolerance displayed by the Malay host peoples towards those entering their country in large numbers. Further stress was caused by the reign of terror imposed near the end of the Occupation by some anti-Japanese communist Chinese over the region in which the family resided.

He died at 47 through this stress. That triggered the destruction of my life-chances, as seemingly predicated by my personal destiny; this most improbable outcome was actually foreshadowed by a perambulating yogi!

My musings are drawn from my life in pre-independence Malaya and in post-war Australia. I arrived in Australia at age 19 during the White Australia policy era, long before its people joined the Family of Man. My exposure to a range of policies at work, my extensive involvement in civil society, and the racism and tribalism I experienced in my career provide depth to my conclusions.

From age 13, when my boyhood was truncated by the arrival of the Japanese, my life has been a series of inexplicable disasters. These were interspersed by periods of great joy and some peace. Then I would find myself falling into holes which clearly were not there! That is the only way I can describe what happened to me. Since I am certain that I did not initiate any of the major disasters, I have assumed that I was to learn something from such destabilising (but not debilitating) experiences. I like to believe that I have indeed learned; learned enough to understand some complex matters.

This understanding will be reflected in my musings below. Isn’t it a truism that the more one learns, the less one knows? Yet, can one not then begin to understand that which is normally only opaquely comprehensible and, occasionally, what had hitherto been incomprehensible?

All my life I have sought to know; later to understand. I analyse anything and everything. I then speculate, seeking possible patterns.

About to ‘collect my wings,’ I now offer to share my latest and well-considered thoughts with those who care. A prime objective is to cross the cultural boundaries between the individualism of the Western world and the communalism of Asian societies; as well as to highlight the egalitarianism of Australia to our near neighbours. It is this ethos which has led to the less viable of my fellow-Australians to be uniquely offered adequate succour. Am I not thereby a true bicultural Asian-Australian?

Chapter 2 ON SUBSERVIENCE

I am intrigued by the discrepancy between the independent stance of the Anglo-Australian worker (originally the bulk of the people) and the obsequiousness/arrogance of Australian governments. Having been a tram conductor, worked in factories and offices, and socialised with all levels of Australian society, I say categorically that this Aussie worker is someone I respect. He is the one who will stop to help you were your car to break down on the street. He stands tall at all times, and encourages immigrants to emulate him.

Contradictorily, Australian governments are subservient, but selectively; originally it was to Mother Britain, later to stepfather USA. Yet, they will throw their weight about in the Pacific (their US-allocated bailiwick), or look askance at the newly independent nations of Asia with foreign faiths. These nations will never bend their necks again, and will not pay the respect claimed by Australia.

What do I mean by subservience? How is it manifest? My musings follow.

Most of us are born into a collective. We are then shaped by that collective, the family. When released into society, we usually live within another collective or two. When we die, we join yet another collective, either below ground or probably in another dimension.

Collectives normally imply a hierarchy, a pecking order of sorts. But … … does that require subservience? In reality, a form of subservience, a degree of subservience, seems ordered; that is, necessitated by the way segments of society are structured or organised. A leaderless society would be an anachronism. Can adult individuals then ever be free of networks of subservience? Can we truthfully avoid the requirements of one or more official agencies, and our employers or customers; as well as the expectations of family and neighbours? I think not.

However, were this implied subservience to a collective to be no more than an expression of duty, or an acceptance of a specified responsibility, or evidence of good corporate behaviour? Indeed, are there many of us who do not want to be linked with others within each collective in the ways I have just set out? Further, are there many who are psychologically capable of standing alone, without any sense of duty, of responsibility or good collective behaviour? Perhaps only those who have fallen through the mesh of a non-coherent family.

When I consider how few of the people I have ever met or heard of seem willing to think for themselves; that is, to step out of the frames of reference to which they have been conditioned, I conclude that they feel safer within their cocoon of conformity. Allowing the mind to roam freely in all the universes available – the only true freedom from any collective accessible to a human being – does seem to scare most of us. Subservience in either form – duty/responsibility/good conduct or subjugation of some sort – seems preferred. Does that indicate a smidgen of fear?

When clever young people choose not to open their minds by reading anything that challenges their frames of reference, claiming that they are not intellectual? When a mature woman accepts a New Age belief in a spirit world but subsequently locks her bedroom door and window to keep out ‘evil spirits’?

Is it not fear that subjugates or makes subservient otherwise sensible, intelligent people to, say, freedom-denying religious dogma imposed by socially-divisive sects? Is there any way out? Clearly, tub-thumping fundamentalist atheists do not seem persuasive. Indeed, how could logic have a role in countering fear of any kind? But … … a full belly accompanied by economic security has certainly sidelined many a priesthood! Yet, here’s the rub. Does not a permanently full belly hamper independent thought, especially about being subservient to the collective which provides the sustenance?

This has implications for official policy at a national level. The nation I adopted more than five decades ago is a well-fed, but somewhat anxious, polity. It is effectively a satrapy of the USA. Why should that be so? Because of a fear which percolated the