Vivid Lessons in Democracy
A counter reply to TODAY – Mr Cheng Shoong Tat commentary
By Charles Tan
In Mr Cheng Shoong Tat’s article on the current state of affairs in Taiwan and Malaysian elections, he opined that Taiwan lacked the political maturity and will to proceed with a democratic election because of a lack of common consensual values; and that competing parties took advantage of political opportunism to hype up and exploit citizen’s raw emotions.
His argument tries to substantiate that in Taiwan’s case, their democracy is flawed and that the deadlock situation is more harmful than beneficial; something which is furtherest away from the truth.
In a truly democratic nation, the actions of the supporters of the Pro Blue alliance in Taiwan should be allowed to demonstrate their will for social justice. The supporters camp out for days and put enormous domestic and international pressure showing their commitment and demand for a fair and just election.
There is nothing wrong with their actions as they feel strongly about having a people elected president. It is encouraging that the demonstrations are conducted in a non-violent manner.
The politicians involved, aware of the seriousness of the situation; have since, tried to solve their differences through peaceful and conciliatory talks.
Even being declared as President by the Court, Chen has gallantly agreed to a skip on hearing and evidence which will make available an immediate recount passing over bureaucratic hurdles. He has also allowed an independent investigation of the shooting to quell the rumours of instigating a mysterious shooting that sways voters to his side. The crowds have since dispersed peacefully after a week long demonstration. During these large scale events, no large scale killings or police brutality were recorded.
On the contrary Malaysia’s elections are far from hopeful as Cheng claims. The elections are not perceived as fair by certain standards and groups as they were called at the eleventh hour with a blanketed biased pro government local media prejudicing the Opposition. A local monitoring organisation, Malaysians for Free and Fair Elections, has called for the resignation of the election commission chief and his entire team, saying the poll was the worst managed since independence.
Mr Cheng implied in his commentary that politicians in Taiwan, particularly, Chen Shui Bian, as the instigator of the nation’s unrest. Yet, despite the mud-slinging by the Chinese government, his opponent and mass media, Chen has never advocated or implied the use of violence, declaration of martial law or censoring the media; which Asian dictators have been known to do when protestors take to the street.
One can look at Taiwan’s commitment to democracy with that of Malaysia when the latter was undergoing “Reformasi”. The actions of the Malaysian government then, displayed its disdain and disrespect for human rights by breaking up demonstrations with police brutality; jailing dissidents without giving them a fair trial based on internal security act; and blatantly pressurising and censoring the local media.
Mr Cheng views large scale demonstrations as disruptive to society and unwanted. It is however these public group displays that are a good indicator of the state of democratisation in a country. Government reaction to these display shows its level of belief and commitment towards democracy.
As people of Asia, we should be glad that the government of Taiwan and its people have proved that they can contain and resolve issues peacefully within themselves through proper democratic process. China, which has been warning about taking military action will now be forced by international public pressure to concede that the Taiwanese desire for democracy is something they have to take into consideration in its future endeavours to discredit its status and leaders.
Now that the dust has been settled, authoritarian regimes in Asia will have lesser hold on claiming that there is such a thing as Asian democracy. Taiwan’s example during this election will contradict their convictions; and that if they claim otherwise, they will be merely shooting themselves on their foot. History will prove that the pursuit of political freedom and human rights is inalienable to all; whether Asian, Western, African or Middle Eastern countries.
Sure, both elections held so close, are vivid lessons in democracy. However, unlike Mr Cheng, I am of the opposite opinion.
That in the two new tests for democracy in Asia, one demonstrates its capability to handle crisis well because it fully respects human rights, while the other, has a longer way to go because it has yet proved itself in respecting the very basic fundamentals of democracy.
Vivid lessons in democracy
In the two new tests for democracy in Asia, opportunists rule one, while hope abounds in the other.
Monday • March 29, 2004
Cheng Shoong Tat
news@newstoday.com.sg
TWO consecutive, gruelling tests for democracy in Asia. Both were poised to be fought bitterly along divisive lines, with the outcome expected to have a major impact on the region.
Both could have gone very wrong.
In the end, one turned out to be better than good and the other, worse than bad.
The defeat of Malaysia's Parti Islam SeMalaysia and what it stands for brought joy to all rational Asians, as much as the divisive nature of Taiwan politics as a textbook example of how democracy should not be practised, saddened many.
Amid the celebrations and bitter protests, the vivid lessons these two elections provide for the practice of democracy in Asia should not be missed, especially for those clamouring to democratise Hong Kong, or for that matter, China.
The high ideals and intrinsic merits of theoretical democracy often mar a simple and undisputed fact: The democratic process in practice is inherently divisive.
For sure, it does not follow that demo-cracy is bad and dictatorship, benign or otherwise, is preferred. However, it does mean that the practice of democracy requires certain pre-conditions.
And a comparison of the two Asian elections last week, together with those held in mature democracies in Europe and America, provide illuminating illustrations.
The first pre-condition must be a certain level of education, maturity and decency in society. While the education level of a society is often a good indicator, it is not always sufficient.
For years before last week's polls, respected Taiwanese commentators have been lamenting regularly that while the Taiwanese people have the know-how to prosper the island's economy to what it is today, they have yet to muster the political decency and societal maturity needed for the proper practice of democracy.
Even before the elections, a dramatic illustration came in the form of the islanders' immature, irresponsible and near-hysterical response to Sars last year, shortly after its government congratulated itself for being Sars-free and ridiculed China for bringing Sars to the world.
Now the sorry and underhand manner in which the politicians conducted their election campaigns, no doubt based in part on their readings of what the voters wanted, serves only to confirm the lack of political dignity and societal maturity on the island.
In contrast, an economically less- advanced Malaysia, for all the bashing the West had hurled on it during the Mahathir era, had demonstrated a much higher level of decency, dignity and maturity during the hustings, not to mention the wisdom and courage to reject populist religious radicalism in favour of peaceful co-existence and progress with the modern world.
The second pre-condition is an even harder one: A set of broadly consensual core political values among the contenders, even as they attack and maim one another over possibly bitter policy differences.
Supporting this apparently paradoxical co-existence must be a core of majority electorates who may wear very different political colours but who remain mainstream and relatively moderate.
For all the bitterness with which the Republicans and the Democrats fight each other in and outside Capitol Hill, there is no mistaking that they have far more in common than at odds in the form of core American values.
Similarly the Conservative and the Labour parties in Britain. Indeed, the Labour Party would not have captured power from the Conservative Party in 1997, after years in the wilderness, had Mr Tony Blair not brought it back to the centre from which it had wandered away.
The plain fact is: A society that is, or has become, fundamentally divisive and irreconcilable cannot possibly practise democracy.
The romantic notion, many a time advocated by those in the West who ought to know better, that the ballot box is the prescription for resolving differences in a fractious and contentious society naively and wrongly puts the cart before the horse.
If politics is indeed the art of the possible, this is where it can be tested.
Where political opportunists look for and exploit cracks in society for personal political gains to the untold detriment of the people they are supposed to serve, true statesmen seek to reconcile differences, build, widen and carry the middle ground.
How has Taiwan measured up?
As one conscientious Taiwanese writer graphically put it just before the elections, what the politicians did during the hustings amounted to holding up the island, continuously whacking it against the wall and scrambling to pocket every fallen piece as partisan votes.
What would remain of a torn society thereafter did not bother them.
Provisional President-elect Chen Shui-bian, whose Democratic Progressive Party was the far more culpable party, has promised to "heal the wounds" now that the hustings are over.
It is easier said then done.
After whipping up base, raw and dangerous emotions and using them to break Humpty-Dumpty into bitterly opposing pieces, how do you put it all back?
There is one singular thought that should send chills down the spines of Asian nations that are more racially, linguistically and religiously diverse than Taiwan is.
For all the despicable efforts to exploit the slightest differences to divide and break up the Taiwanese society during the hustings, the island has been, by all international measures, a largely homogeneous society.
If irresponsible and self-serving political opportunists can take such a society to what it has become today, what does it say about Asian societies that are far less homogeneous?
It is in this context that the outcome of the Malaysian elections is so refreshing and reassuring and provides that much needed glimmer of hope that, with wisdom, sincerity and courage, a broadbased, moderate middle-ground can be built out of an Asian multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious society.
The writer runs a small business in Singapore
Parties and Politics
A Study of Opposition Parties and the PAP in Singapore
Hussin Mutalib
Review by Charles Tan
Mutalib, who is an associate professor for Department of Political Science in the National University of Singapore, has written a quintessential book about the history, current state and future prospects for Opposition Parties that are trying to be heard and taken seriously as they are constantly being challenged, intimidated and cajoled into submission by the one party state PAP government.
Parties and Politics is clear and concise; divided into easily read chapters for the amateur Singapore and foreign reader who are ignorant of our political history. Part 1 introduces the concept of Singapore’s political system and culture before delving into the historical context.
The bulk of his argument is hence in the middle, part 3; which he summarises the formative years, leadership and problems faced by 4 main Opposition parties he considers as more outstanding than the others.
Barisan Socialis, an offshoot of PAP, was a serious contender during the nation early years of independence as it is the only party in Singapore to have captured the most parliamentary seats. Its charismatic leaders had full support from Chinese students and activists who were accused to be communist sympathetic or pro communist. Because of the allegations, many in the party were arrested under the British imposed Public Security Ordinance, of whom they believed the Lee administration of colluding with. Now, it is commonly known as the Operation Cold Store.
Worker’s Party, which was formed and first lead by David Marshall, Singapore’s first Chief Minister during 1955-6, championed on worker’s right. Mutalib explains that the Party, under Marshall aims to be a “moderate” party between the then left-wing PAP and right-wing Labour Front government.
The party would be reinvigorated in 1971 under the leadership of lawyer J.B. Jeyaretnam. Its vigorous recruitment of professionals at that time, drew interest from the English educated. Worker’s Party also issued a 14 pt Manifesto which focused on a broad range of issues including introducing human rights and democracy to Singapore.
However, it is constantly attacked by the PAP during elections with regards to the choice of its electoral candidates, Francis Seow and Tang Liang Hong are respectively black marked by the government for tax evasion and promoting Chinese Chauvinism. JBJ was also sued by the party and forced to give up his NCMP seat because of bankruptcy over alimonies.
Singapore Democratic Party is a relatively new Party started by Mr Chiam See Tong, a teacher turned lawyer in 1980. SDP initially positioned itself as a party that does not oppose PAP for Opposition sake, but rather to promote democracy by introducing Opposition MPs into the parliament. Chiam would win his first election in Potong Pasir constituency in 1984.
Like other Opposition, SDP would face leadership problems. During the late 1990s, Dr Chee Soon Juan took over as Secretary General when an internal conflict arose between the members in the party.
As with other vocal critics, PAP tried to discredit Dr Chee by accusing him of misappropriating NUS funds; and claiming he is the kind of Opposition that Singapore cannot tolerate. The government would go on to sue the man for libel.
Singapore Malays National Organization (PKMS) is Singapore’s earliest political parties in Singapore; and most vocal in championing Malay rights. The formation of UMNO during colonial times led to a Singapore branch of Johor. After Singapore gained independence, the party had to change its name to PKMS under the directive of the government.
PKMS agrees with multiracialism but is inherently a Malay issues party as shown in its directives, statements and activities. The problems faced by PKMS includes gaining votes in a majority Chinese population and government tactics such as maintaining racial composition in HDB to prevent racial congregation; as such, preventing PKMS from hyping up Malay issues.
Mutalib explained the uphill task that Opposition faces against an incumbent PAP government; which has been in power since independence. As he explains, PAP wields enough enormous power for it constantly delivers economic results.
It is also guilty of changing the constitution at will, infiltrating its presence into grassroots, lording over the mass media, depowerising trade unions; among other factors.
He went on to predict the state of Opposition; which could be bleak because of PAP’s continued imposing power. The reverse could happen if Opposition gains more seats when the new DPM takes over Mr Goh; and internal conflicts arose.
It is applaudable that Muthalib has written a detailed book about Opposition, some of the problems that has plagued them; and highlighted the pitfalls of the system.
Yet, an indelible irony remains that there is an absolute refusal to scrutinise PAP; like many other academic publications, which adds to the myth of PAP as a all powerful administrative party.
Parties and Politics toes a very thin line between criticising the regime and trying to portray the Opposition as weak ineffectual organisations who are often limited and constrained by external factors.
The book does not paint PAP as a bureaucratic monstrous organization that is inscrutable in eliminating voices; but rather as one that tries to hold on to power and neutralize any challenging dissent.
It will most likely appeal to left of the centre readers but fall short of expectations for true Opposition.
Nevertheless, Muthalib has at least taken the effort and courage to map down the Sisyphean tasks for Opposition. What we lack now is an unbiased portrayal of the establishment.
