In other words, the suspicion of outsiders that Asia the Old Asia suffers from an inability to sort out its present woes is anathema to the New Asia, and hurts cultural pride. On the other hand concerned 'others' argue that this inability is real enough, and is to be found within the structures of the traditional social fabric of Asia. They argue that traditional institutions in Asia have become too entrenched, and therefore will militate against the promotion of a more liberal, western-type social system, and that if 'corruption' is part of the Asian system it has to be done away with first before any change for the better is effected. As I see it, it is better for Asian cultures to follow 'a middle line', and to work out an integrative mix and proceed by stages possible for, and peculiar to, local situations. This is often not appreciated, or easily understood, from a western stance.
Contrasts can be very striking and interesting at other levels as well.
In the field of economics, as in medicine, modern Asian people have mostly preferred the integration of the traditional and the modern to improve their situations and cure their ailments. This does seem to make for a more complex modern whole a clear departure from the ways of the Old Asia, which were simpler to accept and apprehend. Similarly the elites of the New Asia, with their many new 'needs', have become a little unwieldy for established systems of social thought and classification. Thus the New Asia is not such an easy entity to deal with as the Old Asia, which was seen to be stable and wholesome. There is also an image of the New Asia as a suspicious category, not very different from a virulent and sometimes completely diseased entity an extreme view.