Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) Secretary-General, Dr Chee Soon Juan, counters a recent Straits Times article that alleges that the SDP’s civil disobedience “did not work”.

In a blog post, Dr Chee explains the motivations behind his party’s multiple efforts of non-violent action which, as he expected, was met with “mandatory condemnations” and criticisms in the media. The political situation at the time, he says, was “a time when SPH was king and the opposition was at the mercy of the bureaucrats at Caldecott Hill.”

“…with the PAP employing tactics like suing the opposition, amending the constitution, and threatening voters, contesting for votes was a little like spitting in the wind, only more hazardous. We must have provided the ruling clique endless amusement once every four or five years”, he writes.

Indeed, in that era, civil society was small compared to present day, or even a decade before the late 1990s, for that matter, before the infamous Operation Spectrum in 1987, in which the government detained 22 church workers and activists without trial, alleging a “Marxist Conspiracy”.

Dr Chee recounts his first public demonstration – a speech at Raffles Place during lunch time, and a second speech the following week. “I talked about HDB prices, the cost of living, CPF savings, COEs – amazing how little things have changed.” For that, he was convicted and jailed.

Despite the criticisms, Chee says that he was more focused on the generating discussion on why Singapore could not allow for greater freedom of speech. A few weeks later, a New York Times article, “Essay; The Dictator Speaks”, written by William Safire, details the late Lee Kuan Yew bringing up the topic of Chee’s protest and how people were using that incident to label him a dictator, and he followed that example with a promise.

“Joseph Nye, head of Harvard’s Kennedy School, suggested that Singapore set aside a place like London’s old Hyde Park Corner, where people gathered to hear speakers sound off freely. Lee promises: ”We’ll probably do it.” That’ll be the day.”

Speakers’ Corner was established on 1 September 2000, a year later.

Still, the SDP continued their efforts on civil disobedience, Chee writes, “to force further concessions from the government regarding the right of Singaporeans to speak.” Only in 2008, when the government relaxed regulations even further, did Chee and the SDP decide that they “had achieved what (they) set to do.”

“It takes civil society, whose number then was beginning to grow, to continue the struggle for our fundamental freedoms.”

Factors like a relatively more relaxed government stance on Speakers’ Corner regulations that led to a reemergence of civil society, as well as social media becoming increasingly a place where the SDP could more freely reach their audience, led to the SDP reverting “to the more conventional role of Parliamentary elections.”

Chee concludes by urging his readers, as well as the press, not to continue disparaging non-violent action, which he argues is a legitimate way to bring about change, and very much related to bread-and-butter issues.

The SDP, while not presently engaging in protests, has recently come out in support of artist Seelan Palay, who was arrested for standing and holding a mirror in front of Parliament in a performance piece highlighting Singapore’s longest held political prisoner, Chia Thye Poh. SDP’s newly elected chairperson, Dr Paul Ananth Tambyah, has also recently said that “civil disobedience was a very important part of (SDP’s) past.”

We reproduce Dr Chee’s post in full:

I DID A double take when I read Mr Elgin Toh’s column The significance of SDP’s attempt at remaking its image in which he wrote that the SDP stopped its acts of civil disobedience, or more popularly and correctly called non-violent action or NVA, because the “approach simply did not work”.

I’d like to think that Mr Toh had not kept up with history rather than been frugal with the truth.

But before I explain why, let me run this preface. The NVA which we conducted occurred in the earlier half of the last decade, a time when civil society was almost non-existent and social media had not been born. (Heck, the fax machine was still in use.) It was a time when SPH was king and the opposition was at the mercy of the bureaucrats at Caldecott Hill.

In addition, with the PAP employing tactics like suing the opposition, amending the constitution, and threatening voters, contesting for votes was a little like spitting in the wind, only more hazardous. We must have provided the ruling clique endless amusement once every four or five years.

The unpalatable truth is that without freedom of speech and assembly, elections are hollow. Just ask Mr Kim Jong-un. The Supreme Leader held one in 2014 and romped home with all of the votes.

But desperate as the situation was back then, we were not helpless. We had a potent weapon – our spirit.

And so on 29 December 1998, I picked up a portable speaker and made my way to Raffles Place where I spoke to a lunchtime crowd. I talked about HDB prices, the cost of living, CPF savings, COEs – amazing how little things have changed.

Before I ended my speech, I made an appointment with the audience to do the same the following week. A couple of days later, I read on the teletext (millenials may want to Google what this is) that the police would take “firm action” if I reappeared at the square.

On 5 January 1999, I showed up again with a bigger speaker and spoke to an even bigger crowd. (Aside: I learnt later that before I arrived, someone was singing “All we saying, is give Chee a chance” to John Lennon’s All We Are Saying Is Give Peace A Chance. Also, a group of workers told me they had come all the way from Tampines to attend the speech.)

I was, of course, charged and convicted for speaking without a permit for both occasions.

This started a little flurry of discussion in the press; of course, with the mandatory condemnation of my act. But a couple of comments asked why, indeed, could Singapore not countenance greater freedom of speech.

A few weeks later, I read in the New York Times a piece written by Mr William Safire. Mr Safire had interviewed Mr Lee Kuan Yew when the two met in Davos, Switzerland during the World Economic Forum. The Times’ columnist wrote:

“[Lee Kuan Yew] brought up the example of Chee Soon Juan, 36, a neuropsychologist who dared to run for Parliament. After being fired from his job and losing his home, Dr. Chee was arrested for breaching the Public Entertainment Act by trying to make a speech.”

Mr Safire related in the piece how Mr Lee had, as the fallout from the police action continued, promised to set up a venue where Singaporeans could gather and speak:

“Joseph Nye, head of Harvard’s Kennedy School, suggested that Singapore set aside a place like London’s old Hyde Park Corner, where people gathered to hear speakers sound off freely. Lee promises: ‘We’ll probably do it.’ ”

A year later, the Speakers’ Corner was established at Hong Lim Park.

It’s hard to conclude from the above episode, as Mr Elgin Toh did, that the action that I undertook “did not work”.

Unlike Hyde Park, however, the Hong Lim version came with so many restrictions that rendered the free speech venue quite devoid of meaning or purpose.

When Mr J B Jeyaretnam and a handful of activists held a protest there calling for the abolition of the Internal Security Act, the police called the organisers up after the gathering and warned them for chanting slogans and raising their fists.

Not only were slogans and gesticulation banned, music and the use of voice-enhancement gadgets were also forbidden. In addition, speakers had to register themselves at the adjacent police post.

As far as we were concerned, the place was a human rights joke. Observers quipped that the venue would be more aptly called Speakers’ Cornered.

We determined that we would continue our protests to force further concessions from the government regarding the right of Singaporeans to speak. The NVA campaign, therefore, continued for several more years.

In 2008, the government surprised many, agreeably so, when it relaxed the rules to allow demonstrations at the park. Asked if it did this out of necessity, Mr Goh Chok Tong, then Senior Minister, conceded:

“Necessity, in a way. Because to be relevant as a government, you must know the aspirations of a people. We can control you, oppress you. But we’d lose you, you’ll move elsewhere. So we have to move with the times.”*

With the development, we re-assessed the situation and agreed that we had achieved what we set to do. To be sure, Singaporeans’ rights to peaceful assembly is still a long way off – our right to free speech should not, and may not, be restricted to a tiny patch of grass in the middle of the island. But like Rome, freedom of speech is not built in a day. It takes civil society, whose number then was beginning to grow, to continue the struggle for our fundamental freedoms.

Social media also started to come alive at around that time. This made communicating with our the electorate radically more effective. It is no coincidence that the rise in the SDP’s popularity took place alongside the explosion of Internet platforms like Facebook and Youtube.

We decided that it was time for the SDP to revert to the more conventional role of Parliamentary elections.

Again, back to Mr Toh’s conclusion. Given what happened, is it reasonable to say that our non-violent initiatives were futile? To paraphrase George Orwell, sometimes it is better to create history than learn from it.

I’ve provided this narrative repeatedly in my books as well as spoken about it in this interview (watch video at about the 31:00 mark) during the last general election. Yet, the establishment continues the zombie-esque rendition that nothing good ever came out of our action.

More unfortunately, but perhaps not surprisingly, is that the state media continue to disparage political activism and, more specifically, NVA. They refuse to educate Singaporeans of the progress humankind has made through the use of civil disobedience – most notably a la Mohandas Gandhi in India, Martin Luther King, Jr in the US, Nelson Mandela in South Africa, Kim Dae Jung in Korea and Pramoedya Ananta Toer in Indonesia.

It should be painfully clear by now that what is legal is not always right and what is illegal is not always wrong.

I have often made – and will continue to make – the link between our political rights and economic interests. Without the former, we cannot protect the latter. The dismal situation of the retention of our CPF savings, the high HDB prices, income inequality, the influx of foreigners, etc, are a direct result of our inability to check the PAP.

Political rights must never be traded for wealth. We sup with the devil when we do so, and we all know how that story ends.

*Good govt needn’t fear demos: SM, Straits Times, 28 August 2008.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

交通意外后失控 轿车撞向组屋柱子

一辆白色轿车在发生交通意外后,失控撞向肯特路(Kent Road)一座组屋的柱子,庆幸的是,事件只导致两人受到轻伤。 警方指出,他们于周四(10月24日)下午4时30分接获投报,在肯特路和麦桂路(Mergui Road)交界处发生了一起交通意外,一辆轿车和一辆货车发生碰撞。 民防部队指出,有两人在意外中受轻伤,且都拒绝送院就医。 目击者彼得(Peter Ng)向《亚洲新闻台》指出,他看到一辆白色轿车和一辆白色货车相撞,轿车随后失控冲向沟渠,再撞向组屋的柱子。 根据事故现场照片,可见该白色轿车的前端撞入柱子,而后排车轮则陷在小沟渠中。 案件目前尚在调查。

Media speculates former SAF Scholar cum flight commander to be new PAP candidate for GE

The Chinese media published an article today (11 Mar) “speculating” that former…

副总理王瑞杰 下月18日发表2020财政预算案

新加坡财政部在2020年首日(1月1日)发表文告,副总理兼财政部长王瑞杰,将在下月18日发表2020财政预算案。 该部也欢迎民众透过社交媒体、电邮或热线等管道,向当局提供针对预算案提供反馈和意见。 王瑞杰称提前预告调消费税避免被炒作 在去年11月10日的人民行动党65周年党大会,王瑞杰称政府将在明年财政预算案,公布消费税援助配套细节;也强调上述配套“不是大选红包”。 他表示尽管调高消费税不受欢迎,“但如果我不提,反对党会提,因此直接从我这边听到比较好”。 今年8月,他透露在筹备2020年财政预算案的工作上,积极接触商界、工会等各造,将拟定协助企业渡过转型期的经济援助配套。 新财案料透露消费税抵消计划详情 至于总理公署部长兼财政部及教育部第二部长英兰妮曾透露,消费税的抵消计划仍在编制中,详情将在2020年财政预算案公布。 她指出,为了确保财政的可续行,需要在2021年至2025年逐步提高消费税(GST),以此为年轻家庭与老年员工持续提供支援,应变放缓现象。 针对社会支出,政府也将负担高质量的住屋与看护服务,并完善学前教育。据悉,学前教育领域的拨款每年达8亿4000万元,而且可能还会逐年翻倍,提高消费税将能够消耗这些支出的增长。

MRT lines disrupted on Friday – but no updates from SMRT

https://twitter.com/Riodemaniaac/status/627064345227169792 An unknown fault between the Bugis and the Tanah Merah MRT…