By Terry Xu
The protest that is currently taking place in Hong Kong has won the hearts of many onlookers around the world for how Hong Kongers have shown their unity as a community and their stance on civil disobedience to seeking universal suffrage from the Chinese government.  Their resolve to demand democracy through peaceful protest can clearly be shown by the protesters refraining from aggressive behaviour towards the police, despite having tear gas canisters and rubber bullets flying their way.
Their strong hold on moral ground has spurred populations around the world to feel for the cause that Hong Kongers are fighting for.
Chow Ting
(Chow Ting – Image credit – Lynn Lee)
17-year-old Hong Kong Student, Agnes Chow Ting is a core member of Scholarism, a students’ group that helped launch the Umbrella Revolution. Scholarism’s stance in the “Occupy Central” movement after the police used violence on protesters was:

“In the face of the loss of control over public authority, HKFS and Scholarism will continue to participate in and support the citizen-initiated occupy movement. We are in contact with citizens in the various occupy locations, and coordinating our needs. We believe that all occupiers hold similar beliefs about watching out for each other. All three occupy locations are self-initiated and maintaining order. There is misreporting on some on the ground developments. We urge everyone to maintain confidence and head to the ground to understand the situation for yourselves. This can avoid the spread of misunderstanding that may affect the unity and diversity of the movement.”

Scholarism might have drawn references from the Sunflower Student Movement in ROC Taiwan earlier this year, when students peacefully protested against the trade pact between China and the state.
Looking back at Singapore, we have individuals like Roy Ngerng and Han Hui Hui who are prominently known by the public due to the publicity gained from their blog posts and offline activities. Both of them enjoy the support of many, who commend their efforts in calling for the Singapore government to relook policies on the Central Provident Fund.
However, public opinion on the “dynamic duo” swayed to the negative over their actions when the event organised by Han at Hong Lim Park last Saturday conflicted with another event.
The protesters at the CPF protest event were accused of heckling special needs children at their performance. This charge was led mainly through a short 30-second video and write up of what they did.
[youtube id=”6HKpNvzt33c” align=”center” mode=”normal”] Although it was subsequently proven by TOC’s recording of the same episode that the protesters did not deliberately “heckle” the performing children, their decision to march through the YMCA event, which is a charity and non-political event (not just once but four times in total), was a very bad decision.
They might be passionate individuals who believe in certain causes for public interest, but they are definitely not activists whom people should regard as political leaders.
Why do I say that?
Below is a video taken in Hong Kong, where a business owner is complaining to the protesters about how his business is being affected by the protest.
[youtube id=”CsaDIr6JZH4″ align=”center” mode=”normal”] In the video, you can see individuals trying to push the other protesters back from the business owner, pleading for others to stand down and remain calm to avoid escalating the situation.
This was very important because there is a possibility that there are provocateurs sent in by police, businesses, or even triads to spur a confrontation that will give police a reason to intervene. This allegedly happened before in previous protests, where some provocateurs purposely instigated a clash with protesters, which prompted the police to move in. There were also instances where people suddenly identified themselves as plain-clothes police officers and started arresting people.
Going back to the incident on Saturday, if there is anything that can be learnt from the saga – apart from the fact that Ministers can blindly accuse individuals of deeds which they did not witness themselves or based solely on very dubious sources – it would be that Ngerng and Han can call themselves activists, protesters, voices of the people or any other number of titles, but not anything close to being leaders whom people should or could look up to.
As leaders, they should have tried to control the supporters instead of being part of the problem. If they believe that the authorities might be out to entrap them, as evident in the usual conspiracy theories, shouldn’t they be more careful in their actions? Instead, they are blaming the YMCA, a non-partisan charitable organisation, for political intent, when no such proof is available.
It is understandable why so many supporters still support the two despite the saga that unfolded on Saturday. There are very few political leaders who dare to voice out on the issues that Ng and Han regularly speak and write on. The two are the ONLY choice that people have, a “take it or leave it” situation.
But why is it that after 50 years of nation building, despite the growing resentment of government policies and mistakes made by the authorities, there are only that few who dare to stick their necks out?
The very same opinionated and disciplined political leaders we see in Hong Kong leading the current protests will be treated as domestic terrorists in Singapore, and they would likely be portrayed as people who want nothing else but to disrupt the stability of the country.
[youtube id=”UPF2yjBAr10″ align=”center” mode=”normal”] Just look at the cameras shoved into the face of activists by plain-clothes police officers who are likely to be from the Internal Security Department of the Singapore Police Force.
Activists like Vincent Wijeysingha and Rachel Zeng were openly followed by the authorities while in Little India. Is this not intimidation? Who in their right minds would want to put themselves in such circumstances for the sake of others?
Young students, like Ariffin Sha who has been vocal about government policies (not in the positive way) was barred from helping out his school due to his activities.
And who can forget how the “Marxist conspirators” in Operation Spectrum were all arrested in one fell swoop, some stolen from their families in the dead of night?
And what were they doing before their arrest? Volunteering to help low income families.
Till today, they have not been proven to be guilty of their “crimes” in court or have their detention justified with any evidence apart from confessions of individuals who were been detained without legal consultation.
Who can blame the average citizen from minding their own business and adopting the mindset of, “The more I do, the more I might get into trouble”? That is, unless you have the blessings of the government or ruling political party.
With the paranoia of the government still in place and the hard handed methods to keep its citizens in check , Singapore will find it hard to expect individuals to step up, not to mention having people who are sensible and tactful in their ways to take up the challenge.
And this is why pragmatic Singaporeans who are fed up with how things are in Singapore tend to place their hopes in the General Elections, in the hope that some inspiring politician may bring some change to Singapore.
They probably think that no one would take up a stance against the government without any promise of benefits.
But I must say, that is definitely not the way for change, especially with the naive perception that the next batch of politicians will help them realise their dreams for the country.
People change, and so do politicians. Therefore, people should understand that real change comes from people who take action based on their beliefs and goals, and not those who yearn from the other side of the wall.
It is most unfortunate for Hong Kong that Hong Kongers have to take drastic measures to fight for their rights and for greater levels of democracy promised in their Basic Law.
But what is happening in Hong Kong must surely have opened the eyes of Singaporeans, young and old, to the fact that civil disobedience isn’t about violence. It is not about ego. It is about standing up for what people feel is the right thing to do.
Let not the protest event at Hong Lim Park be a textbook example of how protests would be carried out in Singapore. Instead, let us use it as a reference for what should not be considered an acceptable form of civil disobedience in the country.
And perhaps one day, we can gather somewhere else other than Hong Lim Park, celebrating or supporting a cause we hold true to our hearts, singing songs together like the Hong Kongers, in a peaceful demonstration of national solidarity.
[youtube id=”EbuL84x_SZU” align=”center” mode=”normal”]

Subscribe
Notify of
3 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

读者批评宿舍经营者盈利颇丰 胜捷集团行政总裁强调重视客工福利

早前,《海峡时报》报导,近30万客工在疫情下,需遵守阻断措施待在宿舍,这也致使客工宿舍成本增加,政府将承担宿舍业者的额外成本。 对此,一名《海峡时报》读者唐立(译音),在本月21日发文,批评宿舍经营者理应自行承担额外开销。他认为,这些业者把宿舍空间能容纳的人数最大化,藉此获利颇丰。 新加坡巡回大使许通美教授也在4月初抨击,客工住在在过于拥挤的宿舍“如挤沙丁鱼”;媒体过去报导一些宿舍房间甚至容纳多达20人,这也不是新鲜事。 唐立提及,去年(截至2019年12月31日),胜捷集团取得1.33亿新元的营收,其中取得高达1亿0380万元的丰厚利润。对此他质问,如果我国的体制若允许业者透过上述方式盈利,那么是否也该由他们自行承担成本。 不过,胜捷集团行政总裁江志明随即在《海时》作出反驳,指业者仅仅靠把宿舍空间可容纳人数最大化,藉此获利的说法显得误导和偏驳。 他承认去年该集团确实取得1亿0380万元的利润,但这其中时包括第四季度一项高达6千630万元的一次性公允估值收益。 撇开上述一次性的收益,而该集团核心业务净利润达达3千820万元,这比较能体现该公司的业绩。其中42巴仙则包括新加坡以外的宿舍业务。 他也指出,在2019财年,客工宿舍的回报率为6.57巴仙。江志明也强调,该公司关注客工福利,包括确保客工宿舍宽敞、有设备齐全可自给自足的社区。 “每所宿舍都有健身房、室内和室外休闲设施、小型超市和食堂等。”他也表示,他们也准备一些正面的社区活动,如体育比赛、才艺表演、瑜伽、语言课等等。 他强调在疫情下业者仍继续协助客工住户、提供免费网络等,以满足他们心理和社交需求等。而疫情下也意味着该公司需作出调整,检讨宿舍的标准,但这都需要成本开销。 为此,他认为政府、雇主、宿舍经营者和广大社群对于成本的分摊应仔细考量。  …

Reflecting on “Reflections” – A review of Mah Bow Tan’s book (Part 1 of 9)

Leong Sze Hian/ This is a review from a statistical perspective, wherever…

Shameful and unsympathetic for Minister Chan to mock Hong Kong’s panicked behaviour, says political consultant

Minister Chan Chun Sing’s remarks about Hong Kong’s reaction to the Covid-19…

另一“女佣洗冤录”? 被指盗雇主存款菲佣成功脱罪

高庭对前女佣巴蒂案在今年9月的判决,无疑在本埠抛下震撼弹,巴蒂原本被判监禁26个月,但高庭推翻国家法院判决,法官陈成安也形容樟宜机场集团前主席廖文良一家可能存在“不当意图”,女佣巴蒂有充分理由投诉人力部,而廖家“先下手为强”将他开除。 不过,10月30日,高庭亦推翻另一和女佣有关的判决。一名菲律宾籍女佣,原本被指控盗取老顾祝银行存款8千元,被判坐牢一年。不过经上诉得直无罪释放。 名为波蒂拉(Portela Vilma Jimenez)的50岁菲佣,原本负责照顾89岁的老雇主夫妇,雇主妻子不良于行。 但是,老雇主指控波蒂拉在2017年1月和2月期间,八次盗提老雇主银行存款,面对多达10项偷窃控状。波蒂拉不认罪,也指责老雇主四度非礼她,还要和她发生性关系。 波蒂拉也指老雇主趁老妇熟睡时闯入她房间,老雇主提议500元任摸,前者为了钱而答应。国家法院法官早前下判时,认为老雇主非礼波蒂拉一两次,但没必要一再不偿,并指责女佣口供前后不一,判她坐牢一年。 不满刑罚的女佣则透过来自尤金(Eugene Thuraisingam)律师楼的两名大状黄舒旺和夏珊娜,再次上诉,并提出如下疑点: 老雇主声称2017年2月初发现有未经授权提款,但审讯时却揭露当时根本没人从他户口提款 老雇主发现后,却拖了三个星期才报案 老雇主声称钱包一直在身上,那么波蒂拉如何拿到提款卡?…