A lesson for the opposition

Home

Perspective

Vantage

Wednesday, 14 July 2010

Singapore Democrats

The oft-quoted poem by Pastor Martin Niemoller "They came first..." (see below) has much to teach the opposition in Singapore. A variation of this truism is the adage: United we stand, divided we fall.

We are, of course, referring to the victimisation of the members of the opposition and civil society groups by the PAP, and the concomitant lack of solidarity among the actors in these sectors whenever the ruling party embarks on one of its crackdowns.

The latest, of course, is the issuing of a fine to a member of the National Solidarity Party (NSP) by the National Environment Agency for selling the party's newspaper.

Let it be clear that the Singapore Democrats find such action by the Government a travesty of democracy. It is shameful that even the simple act of selling a party newspaper is prohibited by the law. The NSP, or any other opposition party, must be allowed, in the interest of democracy, to sell its party publication unmolested.

But herein lies a deeper problem that the opposition and civil society must consider. Clearly, the law says that it is an offence to hawk goods in public without a permit. What do opposition parties do? If we continue to sell our party newspapers in such a manner, we are knowingly breaking the law.

So how do opposition parties go about the sales and still keep within the law? Obtain a hawking license? The Ministry of Environment has said that it does not issue such licenses. Sell them through news outlets and proprietors? It is an open secret that all the newsvendors are licensed to sell SPH newspapers and do not dare to sell newspapers published by the opposition (the SDP has tried repeatedly to ask newsvendors to sell our newspaper The New Democrat to no avail).

Selling our newspapers is just one aspect of the problem that the opposition faces. Everytime a party goes on a walkabout to meet the people or distribute flyers, it is either conducting an illegally assembly and/or procession. The fact that the SDP is the only party prosecuted for these offences does not mean that other parties have not broken, or are not breaking, the law.

For example, SDP's members and friends have been charged for assembly without a permit (trial to begin next month) for distributing flyers on National Day 2008. And yet, we have evidence that members of the Workers' Party (WP) and NSP also conducted similar activities that particular day but have not been prosecuted. Is the SDP the only party that has broken PAP's law?

Such a scenario presents the opposition with a dilemma. Do we comply with such laws? If we do, and we must if we are honest about strictly keeping within the bounds of the law, then we must cease most of our activities including walkabouts and newspaper selling.

The question that is screaming to be asked is: Are such laws, and/or their undemocratic application to stifle the activities and eventual electoral success of the opposition, just?

More important, what do other opposition parties or civil society organisations do when one party is victimised? The obvious answer is that everyone must speak out. This is where Martin Niemoller's poem rings so loud and ominous:

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

The Singapore Democrats have not restricted ourselves to exhortations. We spoke up when other parties or their members have been attacked by the PAP. We defended Dr James Gomez when the WP candidate found himself held for questioning after the 2006 elections. We upbraided the National Development Ministry for coming up with an absurd report on Town Councils that ranked the ones run by Hougang and Potong Pasir at the bottom of the pile. And now we speak up on the NSP fine.

Readers of this website must know by now that the Singapore Democrats have repeatedly called for greater cooperation and unity. We organised forums and meetings in 2008, 2009 and, most recently, in May 2010 encouraging opposition parties to come together.

In civil society, we stoutly defended Mr M Ravi when he was attacked ad hominem for his campaign against the mandatory death penalty. We decried the persecution of Falungong practitioners even though none of our members are followers of the faith. We spoke up for Mr Martyn See when he was interrogated by the police for his films.

Whenever and wherever democratic rights are trampled upon, the Singapore Democrats rally and speak up.

This we do in the knowledge that it is only through unity that the pro-democracy camp in Singapore can withstand the authoritarian onslaught of the PAP. While opposition parties may have their own approaches and platforms, the lack of democracy and freedom in Singapore must bind us all in unity of purpose.

The SDP has often cited our counterparts across the causeway. As disparate as the ideologies of Parti-se-Islam (PAS) and the Democratic Action Party (DAP) are, they are able to come together for the sake of entrenching democratic practices in Malaysia.

The opposition in Singapore must likewise demonstrate such political maturity. For a start, we must stand up and speak up whenever one party finds itself at the end of the PAP's oppressive whip. If we are unwilling to do this we should, at the minimum, not adopt a holier-than-thou attitude. For under the PAP's laws, we are all transgressors.

Perhaps it is worth remembering the wise words of Benjamin Franklin when the American independence fighters were battling their British colonialists: "Gentlemen, we must hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Share this article:

Comments (8)

Wed 14 Jul 2010 10:21 AM | Tan Tai Wei

Could it be that in this matter, some opposition parties have fallen into a PAP trap and "fixing"?

You divide them, making use of a couple of them by saying they only are "creditable".

So the "accredited" ones would henceforth not associate with the others for fear of losing their conferred status. (Don't blame them entirely, for the press ensures that the public also assumes the distinction.)

Wed 14 Jul 2010 1:35 PM | seebeng

When talking about opposition unity, one must give serious thought to the $14,000 monthly MP allowance and life-long pension. And with the promise of more NCMPs, "unity" talk takes a backseat.

Wed 14 Jul 2010 2:20 PM | Tan Tai Wei

Let's look at it objectively.

Now, Chiam had stamina. They came out with the "town council" scheme, thinking that it would show up him as an incompetent administrator. He proved otherwise and ran Potong Pasir arguably better than some PAP wards. Same with Low Thia Kiang.

Now, in terms of what they stood for, they were essentially the same as JB, and later Chee.

The only real difference between them has been that while JB was articulate and could be effective, and so was Chee, Chiam and Low would never pose a threat by open dialogue in parliament and elsewhere. Those days when they had parliament telecast life (aiming to show how silly elected opposition cadidates were), we were often feeling embarrassed for Chiam for his inability to say, even grammatically, what he meant. PAP ministers and MP laughed. And Low, however effective in teochew and mandarin, just stammered in english, also garnering our sympathy.

Indeed, Chee had been so articulate that even LKY, recently in court, and in the semi-senility, perhaps honesty, of old age, told him he could, if he paid his debt, win a seat in parliament, since he was clearly superior to Chiam. (He, of course couldn't have really meant it, for he was in the very process of making it even more impossible for Chee to repay!)

Indeed, have we read or heard anything from Chiam and Low close to the depth and length of some of Chee's books, for instance. Many had dismissed Chee as a stooge without reading him nor visiting this website, only having read ST!

So, how to resist the conclusion that it was precisely the opposition's possible effectiveness that made LKY and the PAP ostracise them as "stooges", and the one and two ineffective ones among them identified as "creditable"?

Wed 14 Jul 2010 5:16 PM | quantum - Liar, cheat, unscrupulous psychopath

MM Lee declared of Dr Chee: ‘He’s a liar, a cheat, and altogether an unscrupulous man. I could also add that I’ve had several of my own doctors who are familiar with such conduct… tell me that he is near-psychopath.’

"‘You may believe that being bankrupt does not mean anything, but then, you are a political juvenile"

Dr Chee’s conduct had destroyed the SDP, he said.

‘The SDP was doing very well under Mr Chiam See Tong, and at one time captured three seats (in Parliament), and it became the de facto leader.

‘They have won successive elections, but you have lost successively, because we have proved to the people that you are not to be believed,’ said Mr Lee.

Thu 15 Jul 2010 2:26 AM | Robox

Re: "More important, what do other opposition parties or civil society organisations do when one party is victimised? The obvious answer is that everyone must speak out."

If other political parties remain silent when any one opposition party experiences the weight of the PAP's irrational laws and actions, then we can be very sure that if they were elected to government one day, they will be just as blind to injustices of all manner as the PAP are.

We can similarly be sure that even as elected opposition MPs, or as NCMPs they will ensure that no pressing issues of injustice will be raised in Parliament.

It gives good justification for spoiling one's vote in the event of two parties - PAP and another blid-to-injustice opposition party - contesting in one's ward.

Or vote for the PAP if you have a masochistic streak in you and haven't had enough of being screwed by the PAP; they are the real thing, after all.

Sat 17 Jul 2010 9:52 AM | Robox

I recall now the term that I have been searching for that describes the PAP’s brand of politics to a tee, specifically the actions it takes against its adversaries: obstructionist politics. While I first encountered the use of the term to describe just one action by a foreign politician in his country, obstructionist politics describes the PAP in its entirety.

Whether it is:

1. the banning of Martyn See’s film on Lim Hock Siew to prevent widespread exposure of its contents;

2. the order to a bookstore to restrict the sales of the death penalty book to prevent the truth from surfacing;

3. the issuing of a fine against the NSP member who was merely doing what the ruling party as well as other opposition parties do by selling their party newspaper which is to disseminate their parties’ message and raise funds;

4. the bankrupting of politicians to prevent them from being able to contest for a seat in Parliament; or,

5. the long series of actions agaisnt the SDP, and JBJ specifically from the WP before that, from performing a multitude of legitimate activities. Oh, like speak to a constituent while selling his party newspaper and get slapped with a charge of ‘speaking in public without a permit’.

However, at this point, the truly most cruel play of obstructionist politics is in denying Yong Vui Kong’s Malaysian lawyer access to him so that she may advice him on his rights as a Malaysian; it’s made that much more poignant because it is a matter of life and death, apparently too frivolous a matter to the PAP that they have to politicize this as well.

It’s why they fully earned the dubious accolades as the lowest forms of life on earth.

Sat 17 Jul 2010 11:40 PM | quantum - Handcuffed

http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/07/17/lianhewanbao-photographer-handcuffed-for-taking-pictures-of-flood/

It seems that they have even detained a WanBao reporter for taking picture of the Great Singapore Flood on 17th July 2010.

Mon 19 Jul 2010 12:05 AM | quantum - Arrested

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_555057.html

They have arrested the author of the death penalty book.