Caught between a rock and a hard place

In Yamaguchi's CNN International analysis of Japan's hostage crisis entanglement with ISIS, he points to the real source of Abe’s dilemma.  Whichever way the government reacts would bound to raise the ire of some key political entity.  Giving the $200 million ransom defuses the domestic political crisis and safeguards Abe’s political capital (which just won him a resounding election).

 Yet, doing so creates both immediate and long term damage to their political alliance with the US-led coalition of international parties.  However socially  homogeneous Japan wishes to be, she needs her friends for political and economic reasons more than ever.  For the first time in more than a decade, it has a real chance to end its deflationary nightmare and political weakness.  She can’t risk it.  But I don’t think Japan’s experience is peculiar.  As the world becomes increasingly polarized over international conflicts (whether the Middle-east, Eastern Europe or our good friend North Korea), no one can afford not to choose the wrong side. 

 It made me think about Singapore.  If the same were to have happened in Singapore, would our government face the same dilemma?  Politically speaking, the Singapore government’s stand has always been clear – it will stand with the winners.  The national narrative of obsession with its small geographical size (and political strength) has meant avoiding taking an assertive stance with respect to the international community.  Traditionally, the government has little problems doing so – it can do what is shrewd whether the citizens like it or not.  

  

But with the waning political strength of the ruling party, can it still do what it wants?  Will that provide more fodder for alternative political parties in Singapore to chip away the ruling party’s already diminishing vote share?  You decide.