How can I help?

‘Always be wary of any helpful item that weighs less than it’s operating manual.’ In some ways, the same goes for charity in countries like Cambodia. As one of the least developed countries - at some point completely left on their own devices by the rest of the world - Cambodia today is a place where all sorts of development aid are highly visible. But it’s complicated; you’d need a manual.

Some of the orphanages in Siem Reap (and other more touristy places) lead by dreadful example. Many are not even orphanages, but rather boarding schools for poor children or a safe place for children from troubled homes. But the worst ones - and this is said to be pretty common - rent or buy children from their often very poor parents. They only aim to bring in money through orphanage-tourism. For sure, these are not the orphanages where your money is going to be well spent. We saw signs on the streets advertising ‘shows’ by orphans: ‘performance, music & songs by the vulnerable children’. It’s one of those things that made me wonder if I even wanted to know. It does get very complicated. The operating manual for Cambodian orphanages is way too big for a quick read or a short stay.

Some say - and I believe this is true - charity is often damaging, unless it helps the recipients to become independent of it. We tried to find those places, and we believe to have found a few. ‘Where helping tastes good’ is the slogan of ‘Haven’, a restaurant that aims to integrate coming-of-age orphans back into society. Sara and Paul worked in an orphanage on their world trip in 2008. That’s when they started wondering about what happens to the orphans that grow too old to stay. It didn’t look too good, so they wanted to set up something that helps the children take care of them selves. Haven opened only three weeks before we arrived in Siem Reap; in a quiet little street just outside the hustle of downtown Pub Street. ‘We don’t want to expose the children - our family - to this kind of tourism’ Sara explains. ‘Our trainees need a safe, healthy and friendly environment to learn!’ Needless to say the food and the service were great. So after their training, the children can set a new standard in Siem Reap’s catering industry. We ended up eating out at Haven three times that same week. ‘Friends’ in Phnom Penh is a similar, already well-established initiative. Since 1994, Friends protects and reintegrates street children. They possibly run the most famous restaurant in Phnom Penh, besides the Foreign Correspondents Club I guess. I find their holistic program and international and local network very impressing. And luckily, most people want to help out. It’s a lot better to live by each other’s happiness and not misery, right? Although I must admit that if I can help out just by eating out, it has just become very easy.

By chance, we also spent two days teaching at a small English school run by Daro, a Buddhist monk. The school - outside Siem Reap - is not exposed to tourism and doesn’t have much sponsors or ongoing funding. The experience was very good. And although I’m sure the children and the two of us shared both fun and useful hours, we decided to change our approach next time. Especially with children, we feel time and commitment is important. Two days is way too short to make sure it’s all about the best interest of the children; not about us being all helpful and interesting for a few days.

The holistic ‘Haven and Friends approach’ reminded me of something else: niche-aid. In Africa, Western countries especially fund fighting big diseases, such as TBC, HIV and malaria. But we fail to fill up some important healthcare gaps. In Rwanda for example, the big diseases are said to account for only 10% of the problems, whereas more basic issues such as diarrhoea, pneumonia and malnutrition are the biggest killers. Many people still die because of a lack of healthcare, in spite of large amounts of health aid from humanitarian organizations. Some say because most aid is niche-aid. And although fighting big diseases remains important, it may well be more cost-effective to start with the basics; for example by improving health infrastructure, providing training and setting up local management.

I like to think that - and this is no manual - in the end helping all comes down to opening up to people and to just being there. Avoid single-solution-thinking - get to know people - and try to think of them as your family. As Sara and Paul show us. Stick around, but make sure you avoid long-term dependence. In my experience as a coach - which is similar in many ways - people always find admirable and surprising new ways them selves. It’s those pieces only you can put together yourself. Many parents are experts; knowing it’s not about taking over. Understanding that, helping out in other cultures is quite similar. Stick around and open up. In many occasions you’ll find it is not so much your help that makes the bigger difference; it’s the confidence raised by your being there.

Search for authenticity

As a coach, I tend to stumble upon the word authenticity everywhere. It is a popular word for speakers and authors on psychology, spirituality and human development. Plus, it’s part of todays’ vocab of most managers and consultants. It’s a funny word which - as it should - sounds interesting and important and all, but comes with a variety of interpretations. It means something like ‘not false or copied, genuine, real, free from pretense or hypocrisy, sincere’. Authenticity is regularly explained as being your real self, without concern for what others may think of you. Easy summary, tough challenge!

As we travel, we can’t get away from people using the A-word. Many travelers want to experience the real deal; get an honest idea and perspective on the countries they visit. But what does it mean for people to be ‘real’? And who decides if it’s real or not? And is it even achievable, as only us being there changes the whole dynamics of places?

Is it about people living their original lifestyle, living by traditional values, so that us travelers can get a sense of history? Most travelers seem to be looking for that nostalgia, wanting to experience the exotic, wanting to connect to something sacred from the past. Over here at Angkor Wat, that - and the grandeur of the amazing Temple complex - is one of the key reasons for people visiting. For some that includes touristy elephant rides. But - authentic or not - you can’t get away from the hundreds of little handcraft shops and the abundance of food stalls aiming at tourists. After all, you can’t blame people for trying to make a living of it all. I remember us visiting the floating villages at Lake Titicaca in Peru, only for a few hours. Their traditional way of living - or so it says in every guidebook - seemed only disturbed by them singing ‘Vamos a la playa’ for welcomes and goodbyes. To us, this type of A-word tourism felt quite perverse. These people were obviously far from authentic, living a museum-lifestyle to make a living with modern life only miles away.

So what is authentic in terms of travelling? I guess it’s all about being given the opportunity to look behind the scenes; which is s lot easier in places where you are welcomed in stead of entertained. We also find that it takes time to see through, if we even can. The more days we spent in little towns - meeting the same people over and over again - the more people start to behave in their natural ways around us. And if we stick around, we are often lucky meeting different people, somewhat further away of the business of dealing with tourists.

I guess authenticity is all about today and not about history. Yes, it’s amazing to meet with people and cultures that are still strongly connected to their roots and their past. But if the past is cultivated in a way that it withholds people from living their lives or from being teenagers today, it starts to feel twisted. So if we want authenticity, we have to go with the times and the flow, not leaning backwards but forwards. It’s the people themselves that - by working out their own lifestyle - decide if it’s authentic or not. So if you’re the kind of traveler that wants to avoid daily living conditions or political realities, you’re not going to meet much authenticity.

As said in the beginning, the search for authenticity is popular these days. Sales representatives have to be authentic, consultants have to be authentic and managers have to be authentic. If we feel people show us who they are, we tend to trust them. But there is a similar catch to it; who decides if people are being authentic? Is it the company? The client? The manager? For some it gets real confusing, especially within strong company cultures. Is it wise for companies to look for people that can - authentically - fit in their historically shaped company culture? Or would it be better to allow people to be different, so that a company culture stays open and can move forward. I guess I would always advice to gently lean forward, in a way that stimulates people to show themselves and work out their own work- and lifestyles. For one because many people have a fair tendency to adjust, or even to seriously overstretch themselves in order to fit in. Like Cambodians in Siem Reap adjust to tourism, which - to us - makes it harder to look behind the scenes. Nevertheless, allowing people to be authentic, also means allowing them to be different then before. 

Back to the A-word in traveling. We’ve slowed down now. Which - for now - feels awfully good. And although we’re never sure how much extra life behind the scenes we get to experience by slowing down, it sure is an interesting change of perspective. But maybe this is not just about trying to look behind other peoples’ scenes. I guess it’s just as much about me and my girlfriend letting go of our travel culture so far, giving in to our own real deal by gently leaning forward. People - travelers, managers, companies - are not likely to find authenticity if they don’t step out them selves. The search for authenticity has to cut both ways.

For the times they are-a-changing

Missing out on the sixties, I think I have never really been exposed to intense, political generation conflicts. Sure, back home we discuss X and Y versus Babyboom, which is fun but always somewhat academic. Walking the streets of Cambodia however, differences between generations are suddenly very obvious and very visible, if only because the overwhelming majority - over 70 percent - of the people is under the age of 30. Cambodia is home to ‘The Killing Fields’. Under a terrible regime by the Khmer Rouge and their leader Pol Pot, more than 2 million people were murdered or (intentionally) died from starvation. All these atrocities happened not so long ago - between 1975 and 1979 - during the cold war. But even now - 30 years later - the people responsible for this genocide have not been brought to justice. And although crime tribunals are now established and television and papers report about it as part of a national healing process, many people aren’t even aware of it. What remains for people who lived through the genocide, is trauma, suspicion and distrust. But as some say, youth already forgets.

Cambodia shows a painful generation gap between those who survived, and their children and grandchildren. Many young people actually know very little about the Khmer Rouge days. It makes sense though. The people traumatized by the regime are in many cases still unable or unwilling to talk or even emotionally detached. And, maybe even more so, they really don’t want to burden their children and grandchildren with so much brutality. And for the younger generation? They just can’t cope with this huge amount of painful history. They want to look ahead, see a brighter future. It is said that even teachers - who are willing and able to tell the stories of Khmer Rouge - feel left out by their students. I guess the horror is just too big. So there you have it: a scared and traumatized generation and a - working hard to be - happy-go-lucky generation.

From this blogs’ perspective, I see at least three interesting cultural differences between these generations. To begin with, the younger generation shows a lower context level. They are not afraid to make a statement and are more likely to tell you what they really think. The older generation for sure is much, much harder to reach. Secondly - with less of the weight and the scars of the past - Cambodian youth is much more future-oriented. Although still not very optimistic due to the system they live in, they sure look ahead. And third and last, I feel young Cambodians - through their will to be different - are seriously trying to take down power distance (not very common in Asia). The younger generation happily picks up different worldviews, if only because a larger portion of them got access to pretty good education. All together I wouldn’t be surprised if young Cambodians carry personal leadership to a whole new and - certainly for Cambodian standards - different level.

As I talked to Meang, some pieces fell together. Meang is not in his thirties yet and runs two guesthouses. He was able to go to University, studied to be a teacher, and worked for an American NGO for two years. But soon he decided to start his own business. Meang explains: ‘young Cambodians are very aggressive in starting their own business. People don’t trust the government, so everyone wants to be independent.’ At least younger people can. According to Meang, many older people not only lack education, but also willpower and self-trust to make the same effort. Sadly, this is because educated professionals were the primary target in the Khmer Rouge years. So more than anywhere else in the world, it is up young people to change and reshape Cambodia. In time this will hopefully help to create a safer and more stable environment for the post-traumatic generation. Without stability and new trust in good - different - leadership, the traumatized generation will remain suspicious, and keeps on passing on their distrust and self-distrust to their children.

So - as a post-sixties-kid - being in Cambodia educated me on the impact of generation gaps. Talking about generations X and Einstein suddenly feels somewhat shallow, right?! But think of what third generation Turkish and Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands experience today. They have to work out a painful generation gap as well, as they face the difficulty of both not really fitting in with their parents and their Dutch work-life environment. Their success is vital for upcoming generations. Cambodia to me is a reminder to always take more than one generation into account, when working with cultural differences. I'd say there’s no better way to understand the drive and frustrations of today!

Boom with Gloom

Australia seems to be one of those happy places in the world, where mateship is key, room to live is abundant, life expectancy and medical care are great and - believe it or not - the economy is actually booming. Although the people we meet quickly prove to have two faces: their happy and their gloomy face. Headlines underline it: ‘Gloom persists in Australia despite good growth and low unemployment’ (The Australian, 28/11/11) ‘Rate cuts fail to lift the gloom’ (SBS, 14/12/11). The economy is registering amazing growth, low inflation, low unemployment and massive investment, enjoyed for an unprecedented 20 years. But yet, the Australians are not happy. Both business and consumer confidence are weak.

As a crosscheck I flicked through some of the worlds happy indices, which provide some interesting statistics. And yes, in terms of numbers, Australia is doing great. The United Nations Human Development Index scores Australia the 2nd best country to live, just behind Norway. The survey is based on indicators such as income and life expectancy. But if you dig a little deeper - for example in world value surveys, where people are actually interviewed - Australia doesn’t even make it to the top-20. Many other countries overrun Australia, amongst which Mexico, El Salvador and USA. Somehow it didn’t surprise us.

To illustrate gloom, just two quick examples of people we ran into. I’ll leave out the backpack crowd this time, although it packs many shining examples of ‘no worries gloom’. Australian Mick - who I accidently met while snorkelling (goggles on) - seems a fun-living bloke, but has a very pessimistic worldview: ‘we’re doing way too good, we’re the enemy now!’ And Barry - our happy and friendly B&B host - is still very much ashamed of the way White Men took over Australia: ‘those so called orphans we used to go and play school-rugby with, they were actually stolen from their parents. They were the Stolen generation. We should repay them, do what we can, allow them their culture. But we’re not too good at those things.’

I will try to explain Australia’s ‘boom with gloom’ my way. On the surface all Australians seem to be mates (except for aboriginals unfortunately, which is a completely different topic!). Similar to New Zealand, mateship and group solidarity are obvious ideals. Although in New Zealand, mateship seems to run deeper and happiness actually feels less superficial. Australia seems different. Contrary to New-Zealanders, Australians are very direct and not the least afraid to criticize. USA-alike, the Australian education system promotes individualism and - as well as the present booming economy - encourages competition. Well yes, mateship, equality and tough individualism, they make an ambivalent and somewhat unfortunate - unhappy - mix.

Then there’s the Australian penal colony beginnings, which is only fairly modern history. Historicists feel this explains why Australians love to be the underdog. Many Australian people like rough edges, love anti-establishment and flirt with being harsh or even outcast. Or as we wrote in our travelblog, this huge continent has serious ‘island mentality’. But consider this: if you’ve always felt great about being the underdog, the perspective of becoming a top dog isn’t very appealing. I’d say it might even scare you.

And then - to top things off - there’s Hofstedes’ scale on uncertainty avoidance. Australians do not like uncertainty. They strive for stability and consensus. In times of change, people tend to feel far more stress and anxiety than average. No worries’ mate! Crisis in Europe, increasing foreign (Asian) investments, price levels on the rise, sustainability issues; although not all bad for Australia, these developments (sub)consciously make people worry. The Australian worry about an increasingly uncertain future, in which the role of their island might change.

As travellers we feel literature misses out on one aspect. In the blistering 40 degrees heat and wind ‘us Dutchies’ obviously feel very unadapted. But so do the former colonists. Their big cars and air-conditioned houses, their historic struggle to settle, it draws up a huge contrast with the land. Their forefathers worked hard to conquer this land, but to what extent did they really succeed? Australia’s nature is one tough nut to crack. You will always be a guest. Or as Barry’s 88 year old aunt explains: ‘we cannot even do without air-conditioning for one second, so how can this country be sustainable?’ Aboriginals - who have been connected to this land for over 6.000 years - can’t even begin to understand why the colonists should be happy: ‘White man him go nowhere. Him not connected. Him got road only to himself.’