Foreign Officials in Asian Governments: A Bygone Era

 

Foreign Officials in Asian Governments: A Bygone Era

During the 19th century, it was not uncommon for foreign individuals to hold high-ranking government positions in Asian nations. These officials were often recruited for their specialized knowledge and technical expertise in fields like military strategy, finance, and infrastructure, which many Asian countries sought to acquire in their quest to modernize and compete with Western powers. This practice highlights a unique period of global interconnectedness.

One notable example is Andreas du Plessis de Richelieu, a Danish man who became the commander-in-chief of the Royal Siamese Navy under King Chulalongkorn (Rama V). Arriving in Siam (now Thailand) in 1875, he earned the king's trust and was instrumental in modernizing the Siamese military. He designed key fortifications and introduced modern weaponry. Beyond his military contributions, Richelieu also played a crucial role in developing Bangkok's early infrastructure, including its electric grid, railways, and public transport systems.

Another prominent figure was Sir Robert Hart, a British man who served as the Inspector-General of China's Imperial Maritime Customs Service for over 50 years, from 1863 to 1908. He was responsible for collecting customs duties and managing China's trade. Hart's integrity and efficiency provided a crucial, reliable source of revenue for the Qing government. His administration was known for its modern and transparent practices, making it a model of bureaucratic excellence at the time.

---

A List of Foreign Officials and Their Roles

The employment of foreign experts was a widespread practice across Asia during this period. Here are a few more examples:

• Gustave-Émile Boissonade (Japan): A French legal scholar hired by the Meiji government to help draft Japan's modern civil code in the late 19th century. His work was essential for establishing a modern legal framework, helping Japan transition from a feudal society to a nation-state.

• George Washington Williams (Japan): An American military officer who served as a foreign advisor to the Japanese military during the early Meiji period. He was one of several foreign experts who helped train the Imperial Japanese Army to adopt modern military tactics and organization.

• Dr. Georg Böhmer (Korea): A German physician who became a medical advisor to the Korean government in the late 19th century. He was vital in establishing modern medical institutions and introducing Western medical practices to the country.

• Hermann von Keyserlingk (Persia/Iran): A German diplomat and military officer who became an advisor to the Persian government in the early 20th century. He contributed to the modernization and training of the Persian armed forces.

---

From Globalized Governance to National Sovereignty

These historical examples show a world where national borders were more permeable. Countries were willing to bring in foreign talent for key government roles, often to fill gaps in knowledge and technology. This was a direct result of the pressures of globalization and colonial expansion, as nations felt a need to rapidly modernize to compete or defend themselves.

Today, the idea of a foreigner holding a high-ranking government position—like a military commander or the head of a major government agency—is largely unthinkable in most modern nation-states. Countries have become far more protective of their sovereignty and government roles, seeing them as exclusive to their own citizens. This shift represents a paradox: while we are more globally connected through technology and trade, the trust placed in foreign individuals to hold positions of power within a country’s government has significantly diminished. The world has become less "globalized" in this specific sense than it was 200 years ago.

Dynasty and Empire: A Simple Explanation

 

Dynasty and Empire: A Simple Explanation

A dynasty is a sequence of rulers from the same family or bloodline.¹ The term often describes the specific time period when that family was in power. A dynasty can exist within any type of government, like a kingdom or an empire.² Its main characteristic is hereditary succession, meaning power is passed down from parent to child.³ For example, the Tudor dynasty ruled England from 1485 to 1603, with monarchs like Henry VIII and Elizabeth I from the same family.⁴ Another example is the Ming dynasty in China, which ruled from 1368 to 1644, with power remaining within the Zhu family.⁵

---

What Makes an Empire?

An empire is a large political state that rules over a vast territory, often made up of many different peoples, cultures, or nations.⁶ The key feature of an empire is its expansionist nature—it grows by conquering other territories and bringing them under a single, central authority.⁷ The ruler of an empire is often called an emperor or empress.⁸ The core difference is that an empire is defined by its scale and its control over diverse, often distant, regions, not necessarily by a specific ruling family.

A single empire can be ruled by several different dynasties over time. For example, the Roman Empire was governed by various dynasties, such as the Julio-Claudian dynasty and the Flavian dynasty, but the empire itself remained a continuous political entity.⁹ Likewise, the British Empire was ruled by the Stuart, Hanover, and Windsor dynasties, but the empire's identity was defined by its vast territorial reach across the globe.

---

The Key Difference

The most crucial distinction is that a dynasty is a family, while an empire is a state.¹⁰

• Dynasty: Focuses on the ruling family and their lineage.¹¹ Think of it as the "who" is in charge.

  • Example: The Qing dynasty was the Aisin-Gioro family's rule over China.

• Empire: Focuses on the size and scope of the state's territory and its control over different peoples.¹²Think of it as the "what" or "where."

  • Example: The Mongol Empire was the vast territory conquered by the Mongols, which was later ruled by various descendants of Genghis Khan.

In many cases, a dynasty rules an empire, but not always. Some dynasties, like the House of Windsor today, rule kingdoms, not empires. And some empires, like the Soviet Empire, were not ruled by a single family or dynasty.

---

A comment on the maid fine

 A comment on the maid fine

You know, you see all sorts of things in the paper these days. But every once in a while, something just hits you. Like this story about the maid in Singapore. Now, you hear about a lot of things. A guy steals a loaf of bread, he goes to jail. Someone robs a bank, he goes to jail. But this? This is something else entirely.

Here's a woman. A maid. She's 53 years old, been at it for decades. She's got her main job, she's working, she's doing what she's supposed to do. She's on her rest days, her days off, the days you're supposed to put your feet up and maybe watch a little television. But she doesn't. She goes and cleans a few houses for a few hours, just trying to make a little extra money. Coffee money, as the fellow who wrote this put it.

And for that, for trying to make a little extra money on her own time, they fine her $13,000. Thirteen thousand dollars. That's a lot of money. The person she worked for, the one who hired her illegally, they got a fine too. Seven thousand dollars. The person who paid her for her work, they got fined less than she did. It's like fining the person who took the job more than the person who offered it. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?

And the government says it's about "protecting workers." Protecting them from what? From working? From making a little extra cash on their day off? It's like they're saying, "Look, we've designed a system for you. A system where you work for one person, for a certain amount of money, and you don't even think about stepping outside that line. We'll decide how you spend your time, even your own time." It's a funny kind of protection, isn't it? 🤷‍♂️

---

They talk about how this woman didn't have a valid work pass for part-time work. And I suppose that's true. The law's the law. But sometimes, you have to look at the law and ask yourself, "Does this make any sense?" We bring in foreign workers because, as they say, "Singaporeans don't want these jobs." We pay them, and then we make it so they can't even try to earn a little more. You see all these commercials on television about the hardworking spirit, and the value of a good day's work. They praise it, they celebrate it. As long as it's the right kind of work, I guess. As long as it's within the system.

This woman worked for four years for this one person. Four years. Both of them were happy with the arrangement. There was no exploitation, no one was complaining. The only person complaining was the system itself. The prosecutor even called the fine "quite kind." Kind? Taking 35 months of a person's side income? Taking five to seven months of their full-time salary? It's not a lot of money for some people, but it's everything for others.

And what's the message here? The message seems to be, "Know your place. Don't try to get ahead. Don't even think about improving your situation." It's a rigged game, they say. And I suppose it is. But when you look at it, it makes you wonder what the point of the game is in the first place. You work hard, you follow the rules, and then you get punished for working too hard. It just doesn't add up. It really doesn't.

So, You Think the Government Knows Best, Eh?

So, You Think the Government Knows Best, Eh?

You ever just sit back and look at things? Really look at them? And then you scratch your head and think, "Now, how in the blazes did we get here?" I do it all the time. Especially when it comes to things run by the government. They mean well, bless their hearts, they really do. But sometimes, when the government gets its hands on something, it’s like watching a clown try to defuse a bomb with a rubber chicken. It’s supposed to be serious, but you can’t help but laugh, nervously, of course.

Take, for instance, this business with travel. I heard about some kid over in Britain – a smart one, too – who figured out it was cheaper to fly all the way to Berlin and back to Sheffield than to just hop on a train from Essex. Berlin! Think about that. He flew internationally and still paid less than a domestic train ticket. Now, if you asked any sensible person – and mind you, I’m talking about sensible people, not bureaucrats with their heads stuck in a spreadsheet – if that makes any sense, they’d tell you no. It’s like buying a whole cow when all you want is a glass of milk, but the milk costs more than the cow. It’s absurd!

And why is it absurd? Because someone, somewhere, decided that a particular train line, or perhaps the whole train system, needed to be a monopoly. "Oh, it's for the public good," they'll say, puffing out their chests. "Efficiency. Standardization. No messy competition." Hogwash! When you take away competition, you take away the incentive to be good. You take away the reason to care if your customers are happy. Because where else are they going to go? Nowhere, that’s where.

It’s like when the post office was the only game in town. You wanted to send a letter? You waited. And you paid what they asked. And if it got there eventually, well, that was a bonus. Now, we’ve got FedEx, UPS, drone deliveries on the horizon. Why? Because someone said, "Hey, maybe there's a better way to get this package from here to there." And suddenly, the mail service had to pull up its socks. Or at least, try to.

The government, bless its heart, it’s like a well-meaning relative who’s just not very good at business. They’re great at laws, at protecting us from… well, sometimes from ourselves. But running a business? Making sure things are efficient and cost-effective? That’s a whole different kettle of fish.

When you’ve got a monopoly, whether it’s trains, or utilities, or even certain government agencies, there’s no pressure to innovate. No pressure to cut costs. No pressure to be friendly. They just exist. And we, the public, pay for it. Through our taxes, through higher prices, and sometimes, through the sheer frustration of dealing with a system that seems designed to confound rather than serve.

You see it everywhere once you start looking. The slow lines, the convoluted forms, the endless waiting. Why? Because they don't have to be better. They don't have a competitor breathing down their neck, threatening to steal their business if they don't shape up.

So, the next time you hear someone say, "The government should run everything!" just remember that kid flying to Berlin to save money on a train ticket. And ask yourself, "Is that really the kind of 'efficiency' we want?" Because if it is, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you. And it’ll probably cost less than a bus ticket across town.