Man of Straw

Just yesterday one of my friends said that he felt "angsty" after reading about how some people felt that the debates in parliament were rather inconsequential since everything is fait accompli. This prompted another friend to respond that things arent that bad, and he used the USA as an example of how democracy is not that good, saying that the people there complain about everything and anything and so on so forth.

Now this brings us to the point, it seems that everytime someone brings out the point that Singapore should open up and all, there are those who will use examples like the USA to show that democracy doesnt work all the time and so on. Another commonly used example is Taiwan, where the antics of the politicians do make for entertaining reading.

However, using those examples are rather weak. Of course on first glance it seems that the case for Singapore democratisation is gone case; after all, is US not the foremost democracy in the world? Is Taiwan not much like Singapore? However it is not entirely correct to use the USA and Taiwan as a basis for comparison.

The USA's brand of democracy is different from the version Singapore has adopted. In Singapore the President is a ceremonial figure; in the USA our friend Bush does participate actively in the running( some might say screwing) of the country. Furthermore, the USA has a long tradition of democracy; in fact the American War for Independence began cause the English colonists felt that the British government's attempt to raise taxes on them was an attack on their rights of self government. These people actually wanted independance in the beginning, Singapore on the other hand wanted to be part of Malaysia and thus the Republic came into being cause we got booted out by the Malaysians. Furthermore, other, perhaps not so crucial differences; the size of America and the fact that they have more resources than us and the identity which allows them to weather crisis after crisis (the American Civil War, Pearl Harbour, 911 Attack).

But what of Taiwan then? Small country like Singapore, perhaps an even shorter tradition of Democracy (Democractic reforms were only insituted after Chiang Ching Kuo, son of Chiang Kai Shek took over)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Ching-kuo. Then if Singapore can be said to have a siege mentality, they too have even more reason, by virtue of the fact that they have a very HUGE neighbour in the North threatening to kick their butt. Does that not make Taiwan a basis for comparison?

Yet there are several differences. This has to do with the history of the Island as compared to Singapore. The different groups on Taiwan have totally different agendas with regards to their sovereignity; as a result things have become rather acrimonious between the groups. While in Singapore different people have different agendas, the differences do not arise with regards to Singapore's sovereignity.

The island of Taiwan was ceded by Qing China to Japan during the Treaty of Shimonoseki, after Qing China got her butt kicked by Japan during the First Sino Japanese War (1894-1895) When the Japanese took over Taiwan, there were insurrections naturally. However the Japanese, hoping to show the skeptical West that they could govern a colony, put in much effort to develop Taiwan. The relationship between the Japs and the taiwanese was relatively cordiale, as compared to how the Japs were feared in South East Asia. During World War II, Taiwanese did fight in the Imperial Army. These local Taiwanese, thus did not mind the JAps as much as the guys from China did.

Then came the Nationalists. Led by Chen Yi, the Nationalists plundered Taiwan during the Chinese Civil War, resulting in discontent against the KMT. Eventually we all know that KMT was kicked out of the Mainland and Chiang Kai Shek was forced to set up shop in Taiwan. These group of people who were forced out of the Mainland were people who had experienced the cruelty of the Japs during World War II, and also saw themselves as Chinese. In fact Chiang Kai Shek never intended to set shop permanently in Taiwan; he intended to use it as a base and stepping stone whereby he could retake the mainland.

Thus in Taiwan u have two groups of different people coming from different points in history. With this historical baggage it is no wonder that their democracy has often been heated and seen to be ineffectual as both sides do not want to come to a common consensus. The KMT group, seeing themselves as Chinaman, are inclined towards reunification; while on the other hand, the pro-independent group see themselves as Taiwanese and dun want anything to do with the Chinaman. In Singapore, despite all the gripes about the system and all, i do not think there is a group who are so into reunification with Malaysia. Even Chee Soon Juan would balk at that suggestion i think. So at the end of the day everyone works towards Singapore's interest, albeit in different ways.

Thus if one wants to make a comparison, the logical one would be of course, Switzerland, which is a small country surrounded by many others, with a multi ethnic make up. Or we could use Finland as another country to compare. In my opinion, the use of Taiwan and USA to prove that democracy is not viable is merely a "strawman" kind of argument. Not to mention that despite all the chaos Taiwan has a Lee Ang, but thats another issue entirely.