In case anyone else is still reading this, there's an important context here: the US dropped 2.7 million tons of explosives on Cambodia during the Vietnam War. This is more than the Allies dropped in all of WW2.
The bombing was a direct cause in the rise of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and an estimated 20-25% of the country's population (1.5-3 million people) died under the Khmer Rouge. People in rural areas still die every year in Cambodia due to unexploded ordnance.
American action against Cambodia was part of the First Indochina War, in which France was fighting to maintain a hold on its French Indochina colonial empire. In principle, the US got involved to stop the spread of communism but in reality, it was also doing France's bidding.
The result: millions of innocent people were killed by US military action. Cambodia and Vietnam were left destitute after the war, and the US, having lost, engaged in an economic war against Cambodia and Vietnam through the 1980s. In 1990, the nominal GDP per capita in Cambodia and Vietnam was under $200. People literally had nothing. Hunger and threat of famine was widespread.
So anytime you see a Westerner hinting that people in countries like Cambodia and Vietnam are more likely to "act in a corrupt way if presented with the opportunity", as if they are a less moral form of human being, you can read it for what it is: just a continuation of the racial, cultural and economic superiority complex of the West that has caused mass destruction all over the world and still somehow finds a way to blame its own victims for their misfortune.
No. A country is not a homogenous mass, and people hated Vietnam, and that was decades ago. Someone in the US mentioning Cambodia's abysmal position on the corruption perception index should understand the fucked up role their country had in that but that doesn't mean they're having a "superiority complex" or "blaming" the wrong people.
> ...the corruption there is very thorough and continues well on down to the lower strata of society.
This coming from a person who apparently never lived in Cambodia and might never have even visited, but who tried and failed to sell software to Cambodians.
This is a perfect example of the Western superiority complex. The average person in Cambodia is 27 years old. Well over half the population lives in rural areas, where median salaries are under $300/month and higher education enrollment is not even 25%.
The implied suggestion that Cambodians are a more corruptible form of human is as sad as it is ridiculous.
I was unsuccessful because I wouldn’t pay the bribes, I had a number of independent local advisors give pretty consistent accounts to how things work there.
I wouldn’t be so worried about the corruption of my society if I thought there was something implicit that meant we wouldn’t be corrupted in the same way that others are.
Nor do I blame the Cambodians for their predicament. You’re tilting at windmills.
> I was unsuccessful because I wouldn’t pay the bribes, I had a number of independent local advisors give pretty consistent accounts to how things work there.
You didn't need to pay any advisors. It's very well-known that selling into Cambodian companies, all of the successful of which are owned by people who are part of the patronage networks, is typically pay to play.
But I still fail to see how this gives you any insight into the lower stratas of Cambodian society. The people who are living and working in Phnom Penh making procurement/purchasing decisions are not even "average" Cambodians. They're among the more fortunate.
The average Cambodian is a "poor" person trying to get through the day with limited awareness of the power structures in Phnom Penh. Even the ones who have some awareness of the system they live in know they're powerless to change it.
