Section B: Essays

2. ‘Democracy was doomed to fail from the start.’ Assess this view in relation to
the establishment and maintenance of political stability of independent Southeast
Asian governments from 1945-2000.

Approach
The question requires candidates to examine the validity of the assumption that democracy
was unsuitable/doomed to fail for Southeast Asian states. To determine the degree of
suitability, there is a need to highlight conditions/circumstances reflecting the unsuitability of
democracy or otherwise. There is a need to take a longitudinal view of political developments,
taking into account the prevalence of democracy/civilian governments in early years after
independence before transition to maximum governments. The return to democracy in some
countries from the 1980s onwards however does not negate a broader trend of authoritarian
resilience.

Sample Intro/Thesis
The establishment of plural political structures in many countries in the early years after
independence, set against colonial and historical legacies appear to suggest the suitability of
democracy for Southeast Asian states. However, when articulated in practice, democracy
increasingly found itself accentuating the divides inherent in Southeast Asian societies. The
propensity for Southeast Asian leaders to turn towards more authoritarian forms of
government was indicative of the rejection of democracy. Furthermore, even though there was
a return to democratic forms of government towards the 1990s, this was by no means pointing
to the renewed suitability of democracy, given the prevalence of authoritarian rule.

Argument
The colonial legacies in the Southeast Asian countries shaped its political culture into one
which was more predisposed to the emergence of authoritarian regimes, which made
democracy less suitable. Under colonial rule, there were few avenues for mass and
participatory politics as it remained the preserve of the Western-educated and landed elite.
The lack of mass education also worked against the entrenchment of pluralistic forms of
government. A tradition of autocratic government was not conducive for the growth of
democracy. In Indonesia, there were few foundations upon which representative democracy
could be built. The country inherited from the Dutch and Japanese the traditions, assumptions
and legal structure of a police state. The masses – mostly illiterate, poor and accustomed to
authoritarian and paternalistic rule, and spread over the archipelago - were hardly in a
position to force politicians in Java to account for their performance. The politically informed
were only a tiny layer of urban society and the Jakarta politicians, while proclaiming their
democratic ideals, were mostly elitists and self-conscious participants in a new urban
super-culture. They had little commitment to the grassroots structure of representative
democracy. In Cambodia and Laos, the political structure in these countries tended to be of an
authoritarian nature (absolute monarchies). French colonial rule also did not provide avenues
for native involvement or participation in representative politics. The family-based political
structure in Philippines was a legacy of Spanish colonial rule which was retained under
American rule. A Philippine oligarchy made up of the Western-educated intelligentsia and the
landed elite dominated the political life of the country even after independence.

Counter Argument
Although the presence of colonial legacies appeared to limit the prospects for democracy
taking root in Southeast Asian countries, it was evident that in the early phase after
independence, many countries adopted a democratic system of government. This was often
the result of negotiations between the colonial power and nationalist leadership, with the
former perceiving such a system of government as a viable basis upon which to
accommodate differences inherent in Southeast Asian societies. The Philippines inherited an
American system of government, with its Manila elite having worked with the colonial power
and bequeathed with opportunities for participation in the administration. In Burma and
Malaya, the nationalist leadership, namely the AFPFL and the Alliance adopted a Westminster
model of parliamentary democracy which endured up till the 1960s when it was replaced by a
military government and an increasingly dominant one-party state respectively. In Indonesia, a
multiparty system of government existed between 1950 and 1957 before it was replaced by
Sukarno’s Guided Democracy.

The trend of democratic governments giving way to authoritarian ones by the 1960s across
the region indicates the unsuitability of democracy. A growing perception of the inability of
such governments to tackle the challenges of independence, namely maintaining political
stability, fostering national unity and promoting economic development appeared to reinforce
the notion that democracy was hardly suited to the exigencies of post-colonial countries.
[While democracy ostensibly provided the basis for post-colonial governments to
accommodate and bridge a myriad of political groups with varying ideological affiliations and
concerns, the reality often produced factionalism within the political system. The principle of
plurality inherent in democracy proved unsuited to Southeast Asian polities with inchoate
political experiences in representative government and reinforced the fault-lines within the
political system. Such a situation was observed in Burma where the AFPFL found itself mired
in factional infighting and political rivalry amongst its different groups within the coalition. By
the 1950s, stability had been undermined to such a point that U Nu found it imperative to
request the military under Ne Win to step in to set up a caretaker government in 1958.

While a system of democracy set out to represent all the different interest groups, its actual
practice instead further highlighted the differences between factions or groups, creating
unstable governments. Many of the post-colonial governments faced growing political crises,
as coalition governments proved increasingly incapable of reconciling the political divides,
underscored by ethnic, ideological and religious lines. In Burma, the AFPFL was a coalition.
The communists were expelled from the coalition, followed by the Burma Workers’ and
Peasants’ Party in 1950. Further disagreements within the socialist core of AFPFL led to the
party splitting in 1958. Fragmentation of the government towards the end of the 1950s
compounded conditions of instability in the country. A similar pattern was observed in
Indonesia where 6 coalition governments emerged in 7 years, which undermined political
stability. Frequent shifts in the alliances among the Javanese based parties (PNI, PKI and NU)
and Masjumi, representing the interests of the Outer Islands, lent itself to a factionalised
political system.
Evaluative Argument
Even as maximum governments replaced democratic forms of government, they adopted
democratic practices into their system as a means to maintain political legitimacy. This was
instrumental for these governments to entrench their rule, and thereby promoting stability. The
Philippines under Marcos retained features of a democracy to legitimise his regime through
the practice of direct democracy through the setting up of People’s Assemblies and
constitutional amendments to consolidate his power. Under the New Order in Indonesia,
Golkar became the government vehicle to mobilise mass support during elections. The
visible politics of Indonesia, a complex multi-layered parliamentary system, with general
elections and special presidential elections, was for show and was used as means of
endorsing Suharto’s rule. Through the adoption of such practices, it conferred legitimacy on
the regime, enabling it to retain power for over three decades. In Singapore, successive
elections since independence has given the PAP the mandate to rule. The military and civil
service were also depoliticised, a common feature of democratic states. A similar trend was
seen in Malaysia where the Barisan Nasional has won successive elections since 1969 with
no less than a two-third majority. However, the adoption of such features in the Philippines
and Indonesia did not ensure regime survival. Growing popular opposition to the abuses of
power and pervasive corruption eroded confidence in the regimes and contributed to the
collapse in the wave of popular movements in 1986 and 1998 respectively.

It could also be pointed out that there was a revival of democracy in Southeast Asian
countries towards the end of the twentieth century. Popular movements culminated in the
collapse of authoritarianism and return to civilian rule. This was exemplified in the People
Power Revolution in 1986 that led to the collapse of the Marcos dictatorship and restored
democracy in the Philippines under Corazon Aquino. In Thailand, the popular opposition to
military dominance in politics which resulted in a civilian interlude between 1973 and 1976,
found expression in the upheavals in 1991/92 which led to a restoration of civilian rule. Even
in Indonesia, the New Order under Suharto unravelled in the aftermath of the Asian Financial
Crisis as mounting economic woes precipitated the collapse of social order and increased
popular opposition to the regime, culminating in his downfall in 1998. Nonetheless, the
prevalence of authoritarian governments across the region by 2000 suggests the lack of
suitability of democracy for Southeast Asian states.

Argument
While a return to democracy in Southeast Asian countries appeared to herald a break from
authoritarianism, such prospects did not result in political stability. The return to democracy
led to conflicts between those who still believed in the old regime and the struggling
propagators of democracy, undermining political instability. In the Philippines, Aquino
presidency faced military coups which destabilised society. Persistent issues with the Moro
insurgency in the south continued. In Indonesia, the transition to democracy was
characterised by economic upheaval and inter-ethnic, inter-religious, political, both
neighbourhood and military-organized vigilantism, with bizarre mob attacks in Kalimantan.
3. ‘Education systems have not been effective in forging national unity.’ Discuss
this in relation to the nation-building efforts of independent Southeast Asian
governments up to 1997.

Question focus → significance/impact of education systems*

Criteria:
● Education systems (curricula/subjects)
○ Linked to language/religion policies
○ Teaching/dissemination national ideologies
○ Use of history/historical narratives
● A more inclusive approach in multicultural countries vs. the more
exclusive/discriminatory policy of assimilation
● How do you know if various policies have been effective in forging a sense of national
unity?

There is a need to examine the different aspects related to education as a nation-building tool.
All countries, regardless of their approach, had education systems and used education to
promote national unity.

Suggested thesis:
After independence, Southeast Asia (SEA) with its distinct cultural, linguistic, ethnic and
religious fault-lines faced the arduous task of forging national unity. This entailed having
attained social cohesion and stability as well as a sense of national identity and belonging.
Central to their nation building efforts was the imposition of an education system. Countries
leaning more towards a policy of assimilation constructed education systems which tended to
promote cohesion amongst the majority but increasingly deepened minority fears of being
subordinated. In contrast, the more inclusive approach towards education in multicultural
countries, were more likely to produce success.

Sample topic sentences:

[Support TS] In countries which lean towards multiculturalism, the education systems are
closely aligned to its nation building objectives and have been effective in shaping an inclusive
sense of national identity through the teaching of national ideologies.
 1. In Vietnam, institutions of higher learning began incorporating Ho Chi Minh Thought as
part of the curricula to foster affiliation to a more ‘local’ communist ideology in the
wake of the disintegration of communism in the late 1980s.
2. Similarly for Singapore, the education system was the basis for the inculcation of the
Shared Values, which were formalised by the government in January 1991 to forge a
national identity in the face of a changing society with evolving values as well as to
seek common values shared by the diverse communities to help preserve their Asian
identities in a period of globalisation.

Student sample: “Education systems seemed to be effective in conveying the national

ideology and hence promoting a sense of national unity, but the reality was that such
approaches were ineffective and the sense of national identity was at best superficial.”
E.g. Singapore’s CCE and promotion of racial harmony & Indonesia’s Pancasila vs. more
tolerance rather than true harmony and cohesion in reality

[Support TS] Likewise, countries who adopted a more inclusive approach to nation building
experienced greater success in fostering national unity by adopting a standard/common
medium of instruction in the education system via a lingua franca. Provisions were also made
to promote the retention of minority tongues as part of the education system, thereby reducing
perceptions of majority domination.
1. Even before independence in 1965, Singapore was already committed to the policy of
equal status to the four official languages in the country, an approach institutionalised
later in the bilingual policy. By 1984, English was adopted as the sole medium of
instruction in the education system.
2. In Indonesia, under the Suharto regime, the benefits of public education in the
Indonesian language were seen not only in rising literacy figures, but also in the
growth of the proportion of the population able to use the national language. In 1971,
this was reported to be 40.8 per cent. The 1980 census gave it as 61.4 percent and in
1990, it was reported to have surpassed 80 per cent for Indonesians over the age of
five. The spread of Bahasa Indonesia continued to be a powerful tool for enhancing
the sense of national identity across Indonesia’s sprawling archipelago.
3. [Eva Example] In Malaysia which theoretically pursued a multicultural approach, the
medium of instruction is the Malay language, whose status as the official language
was affirmed in 1961 Education Act. Hence, even with the existence of vernacular
stream schools in the education system, the unevenness in education outcomes
reinforced some of the socio-economic divides in society, particularly amongst the
rural Malays and Indians.

Student sample: “In countries whereby the education system promoted linguistic policies that
were more inclusive in nature and allowed for the retainment of one’s ethnic identity,
education systems tended to be more effective in forging national unity.”

[Comparative/evaluative TS related to the previous point] However, countries who

adopted a policy of assimilation in their education did not experience as much success in
forging national unity. The adoption of the language of the dominant majority as the medium of
instruction in the education system often happened at the expense of minority languages.
This tended to disadvantage the minorities whose relative lack of proficiency impeded their
political prospects and socio-economic mobility.
 1. The Tagalog-based Filipino language was enshrined in the 1987 Constitution as the
country’s national language, taught in all schools and universities and used as the
medium of communication and instruction. This gave a sense of elevation of one
language among many, marginalising the various ethnolinguistic groups in the country.
2. In Burma, the imposition of Burman as the language of government and medium of
instruction in schools alienated minorities who perceived this as a sign of majority
domination. Minority languages were excluded from schools as Burman was the sole
language of instruction from Standard Three onwards. In addition, Burman was made
obligatory for all government businesses from 1952.
3. In Thailand, the promotion of Central Thai as the medium of instruction in secular
schools increasingly replaced the pondoks in Pattani, southern Thailand. Growing
interference in the promotion of the national language and displacement of the role
played by religious schools had the effect of deepening Malay suspicion of the
assimilative nature of Bangkok’s policies.

Student sample: “Though some education systems did try to forge national unity through
inclusive means, their inherent (implicit) bias towards the dominant majority group
undermined their effectiveness in forging a sense of unity.”
- E.g. Speak Mandarin Campaign, Special Assistance Programme

[Comparative TS with regard to a point] Within the education system, governments also
saw value in shaping historical narratives as part of their nation building endeavour. History as
a subject acquired growing significance as policy makers fashioned narratives to serve
political ends.
● However, such narratives, often politically motivated particularly in assimilative
countries, tended to exclude the minority communities and failed in fostering a sense
of national unity. In contrast, multicultural approaches tended to emphasise a more
inclusive narrative, and were more effective.

[Challenge TS] Furthermore, countries who adopted a more assimilationist approach to

incorporate a majority religion into the education system often had dire consequences for
religious minorities. These reinforced minority fears of cultural assimilation which in the worst
cases, manifested themselves as secessionist movements.

Student sample: “Additionally, education systems were not effective in forging national unity
as they were often used as assimilative tools that sidelined and disenfranchised minorities,
depriving them of a state in the country and hampering their socio-economic mobility.”

Other Comments/Observations:

1. Students have a habit of listing their points e.g. “Firstly, Secondly…. Lastly”
○ TS-es should focus on engaging with the Qn directly

2. Use of personal pronouns “I argue that… I believe…”

○ Please use a third person perspective

3. Students writing the essay paragraphs case study by case study

 ○ Infuse the case studies in the “body” of the paragraph after your TS

4. Essays that are evaluative only at the introduction & conclusions while paragraphs
have very implicit arguments