Is it wrong to do business with Myanmar?

Over the past few weeks, there has been a lot of soul-searching in Singapore. People have suddenly woken up to the fact that we have extensive dealings with the military junta and many of their cronies. We sell them weapons; we build hotels there; we provide telecommunication equipment. Generals get treated in Singapore and their families buy luxury goods here. Rich Burmese businessmen have companies in Singapore. Many suspect that Singapore is where a lot of ill-gotten money is washed: that we are to crooked South-east Asians what the Swiss once were to African despots.

Of course, Singapore isn't the only country in bed with the generals. So are the likes of China, Malaysia, Thailand, and even India--the largest democracy in the world. Shortly after the brutal crackdown, when asked about his country's dealings, a senior Indian diplomat shot back, "We are not the only democracy that works with generals." A nod towards the Americans and their cosy relationship with a certain Mr Musharraf. Or France and Saddam. Or America and Suharto. Or...?

And that's one of the problems with the Western pressure currently being put on Singapore. It smacks of hypocrisy. For a long time, America and most European countries have happily canoodled horrible dictators in order to, amongst other things, win business for their companies. Now, just because they don't have any economic interests in Myanmar, they have gotten back up on their moral high horse, and are barking insults. The cheek.

Of course, not many here believe that sanctions can ever choke the junta. And so, from Singapore's point of view, better to do business because if we don't, somebody else might. And, if we do, at some point, as the Burmese get richer, they will develop, their lives will get better, they will clamour for more openness. Or at least that's the hope.

Of course, there is the feeling that the generals are swindling all the money. But then again, in Singapore there is living proof that the lives of ordinary Burmese are getting better. Lots of Burmese work here--in the service industry, as domestic help, as construction workers. They send money back to their families. Remittances are a growing force in the economy.

The other interesting thing to think about is how a society's collective conscience evolves as it develops economically, politically and socially. So, for instance, 20 years ago, after the last crackdown, far fewer Singaporeans cared about our dealings with the junta than they do today. Of course, technology plays a role here--the shocking images from a few weeks ago were unavailable 20 years ago.

But a large part of it also has to do with Singaporeans getting richer and more socially aware and responsible. Our collective conscience is developing, evolving.

If we compare our collective conscience with that of, say, Europe, we are far less developed. The average Singaporean cares a lot less about the sweatshops behind the Nikes; or the slave labour behind the Mandalay hotels; or the dying Chinese coal-miner; than does the average European.

But the Europeans weren't always that concerned. Not too long ago, the Europeans didn't care too much about child labour, slave labour, and the environment. Not too long ago, a lot of Europe was still very racist (racism, of course, is making a frightening comeback in some parts of Europe...but that's a whole other story). I don't remember too many European complaints when Indonesia roared into East Timor in 1974.

As Europe has developed economically and politically, so has their social consciousness.

And so, in the same way that some argue that developing countries should be allowed to pollute more than developed countries--precisely because they are still developing--can we also make the argument that developing countries should be allowed to maintain lower standards of collective conscience?

i.e. Should a country like Malaysia be let off the hook when it comes to their dealings with the Burmese junta? Simply because they are less developed, and so may have more reason to choose economic necessity over moral niceties? As compared to the rich Americans, who can afford to ignore or piss off this or that 'horrid regime'?

Of course, this assumes that economic wealth goes hand-in-hand with social consciousness. Which is, of course, not always true. There are poor countries who try to be morally infallible. And there are rich countries where social consciousness has not evolved so quickly--Singapore is a fine example.

We have gotten rich well before we have developed politically and socially. But those changes are happening, albeit slowly.

And that's what Singapore thinks will happen in China. And Myanmar.

Half a year ago, a couple of our friends were contemplating working at a restaurant in Yangon. They have now banished the idea. Each of us has a limit to how much we can take. Collectively, Singapore has yet to cross that line.

Is it wrong to do business with Myanmar? At the moment, Singapore still says no.