Civil Disobedience in Singapore: Part III

Home

Perspective

Special Feature

Sunday, 17 January 2010

Chee Soon Juan

A protest along South Bridge Road in 1959

Discourse on civil disobedience (CD) in Singapore tends to centre around whether Singaporeans are receptive to the idea (as discussed in Part I) and, if they are, whether they see society as being ready, that is politically sophisticated enough, for such an undertaking (Part II).

There is yet another view: Singaporeans are economically comfortable even though they may not enjoy political freedoms, and because of this soft underbelly, they will not engage in risky political ventures like taking part in CD.

Put simply, Singaporeans are too rich and contented to risk their well-being by getting into trouble with the law, unjust as they are. On the face of it such an analysis makes complete sense. Who wants to leave the comfort zone into territory that is alien and dangerous? CD works best for those who are economically deprived and have little else to lose.

Too rich to protest?

Such a view is problematic for a couple of reasons.

One, if it is the possession of economic wealth that causes people to shun non-violent action, then Taiwan and South Korea would still be toiling under dictatorships. These two countries were experiencing heady economic growth in the 1970s and 80s as Asian Tigers when their citizens, many of them professionals, were pressing hard for political change.

The risks of getting involved were many as they were immediate and the rewards intangible and distant. And yet it was the middle-class that rebelled and brought about change.

Hong Kong people protest in the hundreds of thousands

Hong Kong people protest in the hundreds of thousands

What about Hong Kong? Its economy is as robust and bouyant as ever. But this didn't stop Hong Kongers, hundreds of thousands of them, to demonstrate for democracy and freedom.

Malaysia's economy may not be as advanced but it is nevertheless fast-growing by any standard. Malaysians enjoy a standard of living quite unsurpassed in their own history. Yet, in the past couple of years there has been an unprecedented push for democracy in the country despite the authoritarian Barisan Nasional regime.

Indeed, there is a theory that says that as a society becomes more affluent and as people don't always have to think about where the next meal is going to come from, citizens will naturally demand more liberty and rights.

Conversely peoples like the Burmese and North Koreans cannot make any headway in bringing about democratic change even though the masses are starving and living in abject poverty.

Two, if it is true that only the economically down-and-out engaged, or were willing to engage, in CD then I would find myself surrounded with people who are lower on the socioeconomic scale. But this is not the case. The individuals actively defying the PAP laws are not exactly those whom one would consider down-trodden.

Among those who took part in the Tak Boleh Tahan protest in 2008 was a graduate student, a businesswoman, an engineer, a property developer, a lawyer, a computer programmer, an artist, and a psychology lecturer. The one thing that they have in common is not the lack of wealth but a strong sense of justice. It is this conviction that moved them to action.

Kicking the can down the road

The truth is that it is dangerous to leave things until a time when the economy turns sour and wait for an angry and hungry mob to rise up. Such non-strategy runs the risk of having the situation end up in violence and strife.

Sometimes a dictator will go after much bloodshed and violence. That's what happened in Indonesia in the late 1990s when the economy unraveled and Suharto was toppled.

And sometimes not. Regimes may dig in and step up their brutality to quell the revolt. Zimbabwe is one example. The result? Countless lives are lost, the economy is an absolute shambles, and the dictator is still in power (and apparently still shopping).

Either way, leaving change to the boiling over of popular anger is riskier than a well-constructed program of CD and non-violent action.

The fact of the matter is that without initiating and educating people in the ways of CD, we are setting ourselves up for even more pain in the future. Opposition and civil society leaders trained in non-violent action are in a much better position to steer society away from the violent chaos that we all don't want to see, and achieve change through peaceful means.

Don't forget, without Independence fighters like Lim Chin Siong and company who strove valiantly and were jailed repeatedly fighting for our freedom, we would still be singing God Save the Queen instead of Majulah Singapura. If it was good and right for Singaporeans to use CD against the British then, why is it bad and wrong for us to use it against the much more authoritarian PAP now?

On this note, let me end this piece with a quote from The Economist:

It is clear that a successful popular change of regime—one, that is, that results in a reasonably democratic and enduringly free system—is much more likely to emerge if it has certain characteristics. What is needed, according to an analysis by Freedom House of 67 overthrown dictatorships, is “broad-based, non-violent civic resistance—which employs tactics such as boycotts, mass protests, blockades, strikes and civil disobedience to delegitimate authoritarian rulers and erode their sources of support, including the loyalty of armed defenders.” Such people power can be decisive. And if it is a significant feature of the change of regime, the emergence of a free society is much more likely than in a top-down change of power brought about by elites or others close to power. Moreover, the most important factor in contributing to the emergence of a freer society is the presence of strong and cohesive non-violent civic coalitions.

Read also Dr Chee's speech (2008): Civil disobedience works

Share this article:

Comments (10)

Mon 18 Jan 2010 7:50 PM | Newton Heath

“Democracy is an impossible thing until the power is shared by all, but let not democracy degenerate into mobocracy.” Mahatma Gandhi

Tue 19 Jan 2010 8:03 AM | Robox

I think that it is important to point out here what we have been referring to as "civil disobedience" in these discussions are actually very normal activities in the overwhelming majority of countries globally.

What is NOT normal in Singapore compared to the global norm is the pathological fascist mindset - deriving from just one person, the very pschologically-impaired Lee Kuan Yew - that prevents what is normal fromexisting assuch. This has of course been accomplished under the pretext that it is Singaporeans,and not Lee Kuan Yew, who in fact have some type ofyet-to-be defined impairment that necessitates such extremist measures.

Tue 19 Jan 2010 10:22 AM | BryanT - Let's do the mobo

Newton Heath, good one!

Frankly, we have NOT the idealistic power-shared-by-all democracy here. I wonder which country around the world have proclaimed that it does. To bring it a step to its logical conclusion : in which country do the people FEEL so?

Anyway, that is another story (which I hope some world-wise SDP adherents can enlighten us of).

What SDP is advocating here goes the other way round -- to create "mobocracy" so that it can transform into "democracy". The euphemism called CD-of-the-non-violent-variant is just a facade behind which SDP hides its vile body politics. If there are not sufficient disruptions to society, its objectives are not attained.

Mobocracy may be not what it overtly wants, but what it is willing to risk.

Wed 20 Jan 2010 3:50 AM | Robox

BryanT's venom-laced post, not out of character for a sewer rat as despicable as he, is a classic case of his vile opportunism.

First, he has completely lost the gist of the quote put up by Newton Health.

Then, he challenges 'some world-wise SDP adherents' to 'enlighten' him and those like himself. After he obtains exactly the enslavement that he craves from those same 'world-wise SDP adherents' by getting them to go to such lengths only to see all their efforts frustrated, he will be enjoying his private private moments, thrilled at yet another victory at this enslavement to him.

BTW, his enlightenment is not going to happen even if he were given a billion more lifetimes to live.

Then he has the gall to pose this challenge:

Re: "To bring it a step to its logical conclusion : in which country do the people FEEL so?"

If I fell for this cheap trick of his, I would first have to explain how he has has twisted Newton Health's quote because by looking at it through the fundamentally flawed philosophy that is Chinese Legalism that he espouses ("Racist Pig!").

But would that change the way he writes all future posts?

Don't hold your breath.

Then I would have had to ask him:

What if I named exactly those countries after having had the experience of living in them for substantial periods, and also participated fully in their political processes.

How would he react to it?

By becoming enlightened by the information?

Let's face it: BryanT is exactly the zombie that Lee Kuan Yew had always wanted every Singaporean to become. And zombies, being inanimate creatures, are incapable of something we humans are capable of; they are incapable of LEARNING.

Invest your time and efforts - like you would your money - only in wortwhile projects that also have a proportionate or more than proportionate return on your investment.

Dump all other worthless projects, but pray very hard that BryanT's other foot will very soon join the foot that is already in the grave.

ASAP!

Wed 20 Jan 2010 3:55 AM | Robox

Re: "There is yet another view: Singaporeans are economically comfortable even though they may not enjoy political freedoms, and because of this soft underbelly, they will not engage in risky political ventures like taking part in CD."

The former communist countries/republics of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, while not exactly affluent, did not have populations that could by any stretch of the imagination be described as 'starving' either.

But political repression, coupled with the worsening - and in some cases merely stagnant - economic conditions, resulted in the overthrow of the totalitarian regimes they were ruled by.

And they did it with what was considered "civil disobedience' in their countries.

Wed 20 Jan 2010 12:33 PM | Kai Xiong

We are treated to another verbal diarrhea from BryanT who once again equates the adoption of civil disobedience with mobocracy without providing serious evidence. Of course we should expect nothing else from PAP apologists except for their Hobbesian contempt for the people.

Even a fool can see the irony in BryanT's endorsement of Gandhi's words. Gandhi was a leading CD practitioner in a time where there was overwhelming Indian resentment against the British imperialists. Without Gandhi spearheading a national movement based on non-cooperation, India would not have achieved independence as peacefully, if at all.

Wed 20 Jan 2010 7:51 AM | Robox

Re: "We are treated to another verbal diarrhea from BryanT who once again equates the adoption of civil disobedience with mobocracy without providing serious evidence."

Kai Xiong, ultimately, what he is trying to do is a continuation of a process started by his Uncle Lee: criminalize legitimate political activity. That way he can declare the SDP to be a criminal outfit - the goal he is working at, if you read his posts - and frighten even more of the other opposition-voting monkeys away from the SDP.

Exactly like his Uncle Lee has done.

I doubt very much that the SDP is obsessed with protests at all, but is in fact frustrated that its all of its OTHER normal, proper, legal and legitimate functioning as a political party being thwarted at every turn by BryanT's satanic uncle; protests are just the easiest instrument available to test unreasonable limits imposed on opposition political parties by the PAP government.

The PAP has a very simple choice to make: either allow all the opposition parties to function like full poluitical parties OR risk more civil disobedience.

The choice lies squarely with the PAP, and not those it abuses.

Re: "Gandhi was a leading CD practitioner in a time where there was overwhelming Indian resentment against the British imperialists."

But the 'overwhelming Indian resentment' only materialized after more than two decades of persistence on Ganhi's part.

But here the sewer rat BryanT trying to measure success in in terms of having achieved the full goals after Year Two of the SDP's garden variety civil disobedience.

We need diferent measures of success at different stages of the campaign.

The final goal is democracy which we all know will take much longer.

Fri 22 Jan 2010 2:07 AM | Seelan Palay

Robox: "The PAP has a very simple choice to make: either allow all the opposition parties to function like full poluitical parties OR risk more civil disobedience."

Interesting point.

Sat 23 Jan 2010 10:04 PM | quantum

I can sense BryanT's deep unhappiness. Yet he brings it upon himself by reading SDP's articles. This is a classic case of mental masochism. He has the sympathy of all of us here.

Sun 24 Jan 2010 6:54 AM | g_e - Blind sight

Quantum,

I agree. It's like being a salesman compelled against his natural honesty to heavily promote a product which he KNOWS is deeply flawed and will endanger the unwitting buyer. Yet he stays awake at night to rack his brains for ways to con his prey and has to keep repeating to himself over and over again, "It's only a job, it's only a job".

What is worse is that he knows his poor victims can ill afford the price they will pay and his peers are aware of what he does for a living.

For anyone with a sense of right and wrong the mental conflict must be dreadful. I know I would refuse the job because I recognise procuring when I see it and I don't wanna be called a pimp.