Comparing Countries after Disasters Revisited: the Filipino Flood and the Japanese Quake
An old Chinese saying to wish newlyweds longevity in their marriages is "同享共福，同甘共苦," roughly meaning "enjoying all the fortunes together, suffering all the bitterness together." Centuries of experiences show that while the first comes pretty for most, the latter almost inevitably lead to some sort to schism between the two halves of the couple, especially when the "bitterness" occurs after "fortunes." People are fundamentally selfish, too willing to put the interests of others and the collective on the line so that they themselves can enjoy just a bit more. The increases in divorces in recent years attest very much to this.
A community in trouble, in essence, is not particular different from a wedded couple in trouble, and the saying above very much applies. When a neighborhood receives social services, investments, or any other sort of corporate/government blessings, no resident will complain about the extra benefits the community will surely receive. After all, having something nice is always better than not having it. And if the benefit is public, plenty are willing to utilize it as much as they possibly can as freeloaders. When everybody is happy, there is no need for extra effort to bring a community together.
It is when "bitterness" befalls the community that the very sense of community really gets tested. In disasters, undoubtedly no two people in the community will suffer equally, some will get by without a scratch while others may lose everything they ever owned. Such split in fortunes among the members, and how the members come together to sort such disparities out together...that is when the sense of community, as a collective capable of internal compromise and decision-making, rather than just a bunch of individuals out for themselves, really shows its real face.
The author is not unfamiliar with the outpouring of communal transformation after a major disaster. In fact, as part of the victims in the 3/11 Quake in Japan, the author has came face to face with the exemplary efforts the Japanese public put up to rebuild the disaster zone, their confidence in existing institutions, and desire to go back to normal, peaceful lives. In the past few days, the Philippines faced an equally damaging and disastrous event in the form of non-stopping tropical rain that submerged entire neighborhoods. Being thrusted into another disaster, the author cannot help but make certain comparisons on these "bitterness."
One is the scale: Japan lies on fault lines, and Philippines in the path of summer typhoons, these need no denying or further explanation. While a magnitude 7.6 quake may be rarer than wait-deep water on all artery roads throughout the metropolis, the effects are similar. Shops, offices, and businesses are all shut, logistic networks grind to a halt, and people, in their anger of shuttered houses and damaged properties, are looking for targets to scapegoat as the chief culprit. Unfortunately, Mother Nature as the culprit is simply not good enough for the people anymore.
So step in the unprepared government (and the second point) into the picture. It seems that in every country, communities (and the government itself) task the government with sole responsibility for minimizing and mitigating any and all damages caused by natural disasters. In post-Quake Japan, a people proud of her bureaucratic efficiency shockingly called into question their collective belief in its administrative capabilities. While in flooded Philippines, years of empty promises on flood mitigation already reduce the populace's appetite for governmental rhetoric on disaster support to nought.
Without the government, the people only have themselves and their own sense of community and beliefs. Some Japanese's controversial statement on the Quake's "divineness" is also draw similarities with a Filipino population traditional attached to their community churches. If togetherness as divine punishment, for which puny humans cannot oppose, serve to unite communities and subsides anger, then the author has no objections. Anything that would keep law and order in an environment quickly grappling with lack of basic supplies like food and clean water, is worth a shot.
But simultaneously, people cannot let the divine punishment rhetoric and irresponsible government realities make them simply passive victims in these natural disasters. Even if they are unavoidable, certain damages can be prevented, and communities, while suffering together, need also to come up with creative solutions. After all, communities are not like married couples - they cannot just get a simple "divorce" and then never see each other if they cannot to solve their issues. For both the Japanese and the Filipino case, it remains to be seen whether communities can remain resilient and creative in problem-solving as more disasters occur.
A community in trouble, in essence, is not particular different from a wedded couple in trouble, and the saying above very much applies. When a neighborhood receives social services, investments, or any other sort of corporate/government blessings, no resident will complain about the extra benefits the community will surely receive. After all, having something nice is always better than not having it. And if the benefit is public, plenty are willing to utilize it as much as they possibly can as freeloaders. When everybody is happy, there is no need for extra effort to bring a community together.
It is when "bitterness" befalls the community that the very sense of community really gets tested. In disasters, undoubtedly no two people in the community will suffer equally, some will get by without a scratch while others may lose everything they ever owned. Such split in fortunes among the members, and how the members come together to sort such disparities out together...that is when the sense of community, as a collective capable of internal compromise and decision-making, rather than just a bunch of individuals out for themselves, really shows its real face.
The author is not unfamiliar with the outpouring of communal transformation after a major disaster. In fact, as part of the victims in the 3/11 Quake in Japan, the author has came face to face with the exemplary efforts the Japanese public put up to rebuild the disaster zone, their confidence in existing institutions, and desire to go back to normal, peaceful lives. In the past few days, the Philippines faced an equally damaging and disastrous event in the form of non-stopping tropical rain that submerged entire neighborhoods. Being thrusted into another disaster, the author cannot help but make certain comparisons on these "bitterness."
One is the scale: Japan lies on fault lines, and Philippines in the path of summer typhoons, these need no denying or further explanation. While a magnitude 7.6 quake may be rarer than wait-deep water on all artery roads throughout the metropolis, the effects are similar. Shops, offices, and businesses are all shut, logistic networks grind to a halt, and people, in their anger of shuttered houses and damaged properties, are looking for targets to scapegoat as the chief culprit. Unfortunately, Mother Nature as the culprit is simply not good enough for the people anymore.
So step in the unprepared government (and the second point) into the picture. It seems that in every country, communities (and the government itself) task the government with sole responsibility for minimizing and mitigating any and all damages caused by natural disasters. In post-Quake Japan, a people proud of her bureaucratic efficiency shockingly called into question their collective belief in its administrative capabilities. While in flooded Philippines, years of empty promises on flood mitigation already reduce the populace's appetite for governmental rhetoric on disaster support to nought.
Without the government, the people only have themselves and their own sense of community and beliefs. Some Japanese's controversial statement on the Quake's "divineness" is also draw similarities with a Filipino population traditional attached to their community churches. If togetherness as divine punishment, for which puny humans cannot oppose, serve to unite communities and subsides anger, then the author has no objections. Anything that would keep law and order in an environment quickly grappling with lack of basic supplies like food and clean water, is worth a shot.
But simultaneously, people cannot let the divine punishment rhetoric and irresponsible government realities make them simply passive victims in these natural disasters. Even if they are unavoidable, certain damages can be prevented, and communities, while suffering together, need also to come up with creative solutions. After all, communities are not like married couples - they cannot just get a simple "divorce" and then never see each other if they cannot to solve their issues. For both the Japanese and the Filipino case, it remains to be seen whether communities can remain resilient and creative in problem-solving as more disasters occur.
Comments
Post a Comment