Democracy Epidemic, A Sour Sweet

In the last century, red terror swept across the globe as if a tsunami - appalling and damaging but fortunately short-lived. Thanks to Marshall plan which has proved effective in containing the spread of communism and consequently contributed to eventual collapse of the bloc.

While the world is assured with liberty and security, little do they realise that democracy can be an epidemic which has gained ground in Asia, undermining stability and wealth of the region. To make the matter worse, increasing number of "elites" are so fixated to the idea of democracy that it has become a fetish.

The epidemic first manifested itself in communist China on 4th of June, 1989. Peking university students, together with some workers, occupied the parliament square, (or Tiananmen Square) to demand democracy. Chinese government, which was yet ready to reform, finally decided to clear the place using military force, after few months of running protest that had ruined the country’s economy. Mind you, I am not justifying Chinese Government's resolution in the uprising; I believe that the government had no better choice in the wake of pressure from students and press not noted for the consequence of abrupt political reform.

Tiananmen incident has died down in China but similar uprising has come to wake in Southeast Asia especially after 1997 Asian Economic Crisis. First to feel the impact was Indonesian president, Suharto who was forced to step down in favour of democracy. The event was generally applauded by the world since Suharto administration was a totalitarian government. However, events that happened in Indonesia subsequently are devastating. Racial riot in Java and Aceh killed hundreds of Chinese and destroyed millions dollars of properties. More than 100 women were allegedly raped. Rich Chinese fled out of the country along with their wealth, further undermining Indonesian economic. In other islands of Indonesia, violence also occurred between transmigrants and indigenous groups. In years before Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono took the office, Indonesia was little different from being anarchic.

The enpidemic also took root in Thailand. Thaksin faced the steepest slope in his political life when multitudes went to street to demand Thaksin to step down as prime minister. Opportunistic opposition parties later organised the crowd systemetically and suceeded to force the premier to quit. Press dominated by liberals had also played a significant role in this event. However, political turmoil was not simply ended. Instead, it becomes even more complicated after the snap poll was annulled by High Court, which left the country in uncertainty. Critics say that humming Thailand economic remains intact despite anti-Thaksin protest which has adversely affected Bangkok, Thailand's capital, for more than 4 months. In fact... To be continued

Population - A Resource of A Burden?

Developed countries tend to have population decline. Certain countries are even experiencing zero, if not negative population growth. Japan, for example, is facing the problem of greying population with deaths exceeding births by 31,034. In the United States, declining and ageing population also spells trouble for the workforce.

Cost of raising children in developed countries is high, especially in Japan and the U.K. where living cost is much higher than any other country. This daunts many couples thinking of bearing a child. On the other hand, developing countries have the fastest population growth, particularly in the poorest regions. Poor agricultural-based economy requires labour work. Hence, families tend to have more children to rely on to do chores and for security when parents reach old age. They also lack access to family planning, tending to have many children as an insurance against high-mortality rates.

In contrast, economies in developed countries are driven by service industries, which demand skilled workers, rather than huge unskilled labour pool. Children are, thus, deemed as liabilities by many parents who are responsible for children's basic necessity, education, etc. Furthermore, as women are liberated and educated, their involvement in workforce also means a shift to later marriage. This is also a factor contributing to low fertility rate.

It has been said that taken as a whole, the problem with world population, usually manifested in the shortage of resources is not due to population growth as such but to the inequitable distribution of wealth and resources. Some economists have bought into the thesis, owning to the fact that developed nations consume 80% of the world natural resources annually. In addition to their poor resource management, the poorer nations are in the lower end when it comes to allocation of resources. This aggravates the problem that the Rich gets richer while the Poor gets poorer.

What did Zhao 11 say about voting?

Zhao 11 aka Shiu Hei recently gained the limelight on National Geographic magazine front-page, but that does not distract him from being "always neutral". In effect, one of his latest commentaries -"General Elections: Who to Vote For?"- has effectively demonstrated his "neutrality" in the sense that his stand remains inconspicuous in his essay.

However, individuals are not allowed to exercise neutrality when it comes to election. Every citizen has to make a decision by voting for one of the candidates, or giving up his ballot.

There is a breach of author's neutrality nevertheless. He says "Although they may not have results as glamorous as the PAP, they have put in effort to prove themselves nonetheless." This is rather a slanted account which is in favour of the opposition parties. Even though that is true, opposition parties are still far from being comparable with ruling PAP. This, apart from PAP's past achievements, as the author suggests, is partly because they are fettered by "opposition party" mentality, which means these opposition parties do not prove to be alternatives to PAP. Rather, the very basis of their existence is to oppose, or euphemistically, to check the government.

Furthermore, he poses a question to Singaporeans- "Will the PAP continue to do well even when they have introduced young and fresh faces as candidates?" The phase in the context, "Will [they] continue to do well" implies his doubt towards the ability of the young generation of PAP.

In short, the commentary is quite comprehensive and it has shown that the author is following the development of the events of General Election closely. This suffices to be impressive, especially when the author is a foreigner who is not obligated to vote.