Two Dirty Words
by singaporearmchaircritic
Right. Freedom.
In Singapore, you’d hardly hear a man-in-the-street utter these words. We shy away from proclaiming “this is my right” and “it is my freedom to do so” because what represent men’s fundamental entitlements in the liberal West are laden with negative connotations here. In the minds of many Singaporeans, rights and freedoms are associated with chaos, instability, individualism, decadence, immorality, lawlessness . . . and the list goes on.
This is the outcome of years of indoctrination through the mainstream media and the education we receive. And judging from the not insignificant proportion among us who still subscribe to this sort of warped thinking, the insidious brainwashing has been very successful indeed.
Don’t believe me? Just tell a fellow Singaporean that you believe in upholding human rights and you’ll see what I mean. You’ll be looked askance at, either as a trouble-maker, or someone trying to land himself in trouble.
Who’s Afraid of Freedom?
Some readers and I briefly exchanged ideas over last week’s post on what the rights and responsibilities of Singapore citizens should be. Without going into details yet, I list a few rights below, juxtaposed with the imagined knee-jerk response of the various camps defending the status quo: the pro-government, the conservative, and the unthinking.
1. Freedom to pursue happiness
“This will promote drug abuse, sexual promiscuity and lead to our society’s moral decline!”
2. Freedom from poverty
“What?! You want to bankrupt our country through welfarism?”
3. Freedom of speech
“Oh my. Now all that Internet hate speech and fabrications about our dearest greatest purest ruling party will permeate every aspect of our life and destroy the high journalistic standards set by our mainstream media…”
4. Freedom to participate in the democratic process
“Anarchy will set in and cripple our country!”
So I’ve said it first. Those culpable of propagating or parroting such thoughts don’t have to leave your comments on this post, thank you.
Jabs aside, I have serious points to make.
As you can see from the above, the predictable counter-response to demands for more freedoms and rights always assume that greater freedom for the individual comes at the expense of the community/society/nation; that asking for more freedom means carrying it to the extreme, resulting in a society that is TOO liberal. If you are one of those who genuinely believe in these specious arguments, read on and you’ll find that they’re not necessarily true. In fact, in Singapore the reverse is true: i.e. our rights are often inhibited in the name of the “greater good,” however defined by the government.
Where’s the Balance?
I have organized the rights and responsibilities of a few citizenships into a table so that it is easy to see the interconnections. Citizens are entitled to the freedom of speech, of religion, but at the same time they are obliged to respect the rights and beliefs of others; they have freedom to peaceful assembly but they have to obey the law.
Fair enough. But this system of balancing rights with responsibilities works only when citizens have a say over how to strike a balance between the two. Any talk about striking a balance between rights and responsibilities is meaningless when the citizen has no part to play in it.
Just look at Singapore. Although our fundamental liberties are written into the Constitution, the Parliament can impose new laws at its whim to confer restrictions on these liberties. And the ruling party’s dominance in the Parliament ensures that it can pass any law as it deems fit.
The Public Order Act (POA) implemented before the APEC meeting in 2009 is a good case in point. The Act further impedes our right to peaceful assembly as stated in Part IV of our Constitution: “all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.” While previously a gathering of five or more people was regulated, with the enactment of the POA any “cause-related” outdoor activities now requires a police permit, even if it involves only one person.
This is all in the name of “public order” during major events like the APEC meeting. But the POA conveniently applies to political activities that are not “major events” (read what the Ministry of Home Affairs said about the POA and a report here).
Participation Makes Citizenship Meaningful
Participation, specifically participation to influence government policy, is what makes citizenship meaningful. This requires a relaxation of controls on the various freedoms, especially the freedom of speech to facilitate dialogue and debate.
The government has repeatedly urged for open debate and balanced views in cyberspace but has failed to reflect on the state of our mainstream media, ranked a pathetic 135th in press freedom. While our leaders can continue to dismiss the dismal performance of our media, the reality is this: as long as our mainstream media remains a political tool of the ruling party, there will not be a common platform for citizen debate. Critics and dissenters including yours truly will continue to air our views in cyberspace and treat the mainstream media with disdain.
Even if the government insists on denying us of these freedoms, we have our voting rights. If our voice is not worthy of its attention, then we’ll have elected legislators of the opposition parties speak on our behalf.
Singapore Armchair Critic 
你让中国人情何以堪
中國人沒有人權不代表其他國家的人民或華人社會不能爭取或享有基本人權。今天中國很多維權人士不也正朝著這個目標奮鬥、邁進？
Reblogged this on Jentrified Citizen and commented:
Human rights? Many Simgaporeans have been so well conditioned and manipulated by the government that they think it is not a necessity. Many live like birds in a gilded cage thinking they are free because they have food to eat and a roof over their heads.
Ya, Singaporeans have traded-off rights for material goods, but I think this is slowly changing. First, because with the high housing prices, inflation and stagnant wages etc., the good life that the government promised (in exchange for a docile populace) isn’t so good anymore. Many might have cast protest votes against the PAP in the last GE because of this. Unfortunately without a good post-election survey, we cannot gauge how many of these people will vote for the PAP again if things get better.
Secondly, the influx of foreigners is also changing the way we locals look at human rights. We see Singaporeans speaking up for the rights of transient workers, domestic helpers etc. And the way foreign workers in Singapore fight for their rights (instances here and here) may teach us a thing or two too. In time to come, hopefully we’ll learn that there’s nothing wrong with being more vocal in upholding what should be our rights.
And thanks a lot for reblogging the post. Cheers!
yes, I do see more Singaporeans speaking up which is a good sign. But there are till many wearing rose tinted glasses in comfortable positions who don’t want to shake the boat nor change anything. One wealthy yuppie told me that straight to my face that is why he supports MIW.
The shift to a post-materialist society will take time…sigh
yes but we must stay positive for only then can true change come about. Onwards Simgaporeans! 🙂
Come to Europe and you too will be able, nay, forced, to trade your material goods for purely theoretical human rights. With such leading lights as Greece (23% unemployment) and Spain (24.8% unemployment), Europe stands ready to provide its economic ‘advice’ to the rest of the world, including stubborn dissenters like Singapore.
There are many points you have highlighted which I am tempted to refute, but I’ll just point out one glaringly mistaken assumption of yours that “as long as our mainstream media remains a political tool of the ruling party, there will not be a common platform for citizen debate”.
First, much as you may be tempted to accuse me of spouting propaganda, I wish to point out that the ruling party has not made the mainstream media its political tool; it is the mainstream media that has opted for cooperation with the ruling party. The state of Singapore’s self-policing media companies, which ministers have nevertheless complained about before, is a far cry from China’s, where they receive daily directives from the Communist Party’s aptly-named Propaganda Department.
Second, in which part of the world has the mainstream media genuinely served as a common platform for citizen debate? U.S. media companies – they who uphold the world’s beacon of freedom – are clearly sided with either Democratic or Republican politicians, ideologies and policies. British media companies – if unaligned with a political party – tend to report on sex, the roundness of the sun and that which hardly qualifies as news, let alone civic discourse. One must have been living in a hole for the past decade not to notice the social-media elephant in the political-debate room.
And let us not forget that the countries you raised as shining examples of human-rights excellence were once far more politically regressive than Singapore has ever been. Until decades ago, for African Americans in the Deep South, the penalty for exercising the right to vote was death – by former Confederate officers. Until a decade ago Taiwan was ruled by a military junta which had suspended Parliament for 50 years. And 60 years ago, in Canada it was a crime punishable by imprisonment or deportation to be Japanese.
Yes, you indeed can air what you consider to be views on the Internet, but in the words of Cherian George, the Singaporean cyberspace is mostly but noise.
1. How do you know Singapore media companies don’t receive ‘directives’ or ‘invitations to tea’ from the Govt? Notwithstanding this, the fact that a newspaper licence is renewable at the pleasure of the minister makes it a very powerful form of control, is it not? And further, that the govt holds majority stakes in all the mainstream media, plus it can disallow any party from owning 10% of a media company– even if that party is a Singapore company or Singapore citizen– gives it both additional direct and indirect control, is it not so?
So does it matter whether the Singapore govt has a Propaganda dept?
2. Media companies in other countries are not politically-neutral. Of course! That’s the essence of a free press. People have political convictions, and so do companies and newspapers. That doesn’t mean they can’t carry out a national debate. The difference is that, in Singapore, all mainstream media are aligned to the PAP. So any debate is more restricted compared to other countries, where papers of different affiliations can carry different contrasting points without fear of being invited to tea, losing their licence or having to toe their party line.
On the other hand, a free press also means media can choose not to align with any party. Indeed, some are disllusioned with all major parties and their writings reflect this.
Hence, please give up the idea that a free press means a neutral press. A free press means the press are free from govt threats, control and oversight. That’s all. Respected papers can align themselves with major parties and still be respectable and authoritative platforms for debate. But the difference in Singapore is that mainstream media aren’t free to align with anyone else other than PAP.
3. Others were more regressive. Ah, what’s your point? As they say, policemen no longer wear shorts. Don’t compare with what others were. Instead, look at where others are now, and compare accordingly.
More propaganda from 50 centers are always welcome. Your first poiunt is eaily buried in the US Embassy in Singapore report entitled “journalists frustrated by press controls”, and I quote:
¶4. (C) The government exerts significant pressure on ST
editors to ensure that published articles follow the
government’s line, Chua said. In the past, the editors had
to contend only with the opinions of former Prime Minister
Lee Kuan Yew (now Minister Mentor) and former Deputy Prime
Minister Goh Chok Tong (now Senior Minister). However, a
younger generation of government ministers is now vying for
future leadership positions and one way for them to burnish
their credentials with the old guard is to show they can be
tough with the media, Chua said. As a result, several
current ministers and second ministers (Chua did not say
which ones) routinely call ST editors to ensure that media
coverage of an issue comes out the way they want it. While
Chua admitted that he knew of no editors who had been fired
or otherwise punished for printing articles critical of the
government, he said that is because all of the them have been
Your second is your usual way of re-framing issues. The issue at hand is whether the government has acted in accordance with the Constitution to allow freedom of expression. The fact that US UK and indeed any western countries have newspapers that are either pro or against the ruling party shows that they truly have freedom of expression. Here, as the US Embassy article’s comments clearly showed, there is only Big Brothers’ Views. Stalin would have been proud of thlee…
If you dun already know, just google for SPH and Mediacorp’s board of directors. Like how SMRT’s CEO is appointed into the role, so too are the heads for SPH and Mediacorp.
To the author:
“Just look at Singapore.
[1] Although our fundamental liberties are written into the Constitution, the Parliament can impose new laws at its whim to confer restrictions on these liberties.
[2] And the ruling party’s dominance in the Parliament ensures that it can pass any law as it deems fit.”
My responses:
[1] The Parliament cannot impose laws which are unconstitutional. It’s just that no one has had the balls the challenge such laws in Court till recently. Hopefully, M Ravi’s efforts will bear fruit, create a new consciousness.
Of course, one must depend on the Judiciary to adjudicate such challenges in the interests of the people and with a proper and correct interpretation of the Constitution. But that is a second-order concern. If no one challenges in Court, people like you will continue to kpkb.
[2] By definition, a “ruling” party can do anything as long as it can get more than 2/3rd’s majority in Parliament. But it is the people who choose to return the PAP with a 2/3rds majority. So the people have to accept this state of affairs until more of them step forward for election with a view of kicking out the PAP.
“Even if the government insists on denying us of these freedoms, we have our voting rights. If our voice is not worthy of its attention, then we’ll have elected legislators of the opposition parties speak on our behalf.”
You fall into the trap that it’s either PAP or “opposition” and that the role of the “opposition” is only to speak up for the people.
That is a very dim view of what politics should be about.
We don’t elect “ruling” party or “opposition”. If you ask any British voter, their choice is Conservative, Liberal or Labour– not ruling party or opposition. Even if they voted for the Liberal Democrats, who were a small party that never had a chance to get into Govt till now, they would never say they are voting for “opposition”.
And the purpose of “opposition” is not to “speak up”. You can bet David Cameron didn’t celebrate 10 years of being the Leader of the Opposition prior to becoming PM. And you can bet neither the Conservative Party or even the Liberal Democrats referred to themselves as “opposition” parties even during the 10 years when Tony Blair was PM and Labour was in power.
As long as you confer the moniker of “ruling party” to PAP and “opposition” to everyone else, you will always be limited in your beliefs, that only PAP are capable of ruling this country and the only purpose of “opposition” is to speak up and try to influence the PAP.
Think bigger. We need a new govt, not from PAP. Stop calling them “ruling” party. Stop calling other political parties “opposition” parties. PAP does not have a birthright to rule Singapore. Other parties are not here to “oppose”.
I know you can think big, because you can understand human rights. So think big, and cast out the ideas of “ruling” party and “opposition”. Just like all men are equal under the Constitution and before the law, so all parties also have an equal right to become the next govt. Obviously some parties are richer and more powerful than others, but that does not diminish their rights, just like the poor and the destitute also have as much human rights as the rich and the powerful.
Hi
Thanks for leaving thoughtful comments. Some responses:
1) As a general statement, I agree with you that “The Parliament cannot impose laws which are unconstitutional.” And I admire M Ravi’s courage to challenge what he sees as “unconstitutional” laws. However, the Parliament’s power to impose new laws on existing rights is also written into our Constitution, and that gives it a broad leeway to pass new laws that confer restrictions on existing laws in the Constitution.
For example, although our right to freedom of peaceful assembly is written into our Constitution, it is subject to clauses that allow the Parliament to impose law on the right “as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order.” And that was precisely what the Parliament did when it passed the POA to further impede on this freedom.
2) I agree.
On the labeling of PAP as the “ruling party” and others as the “opposition,” I am just presenting the situation as it is now. Certainly things will change when we see one or more turnover of ruling parties and the labels will be dropped when we become a mature democracy.
I certainly do not think that “only PAP are capable of ruling this country and the only purpose of “opposition” is to speak up and try to influence the PAP.” Again, I am presenting the current situation – the ultimate aim of opposition parties and any political party for that matter is to take over the government, and not just to speak up for the people.
Thanks.
[1] I haven’t seen that provision of the Constitution but if that is so, then it is for the people to elect new lawmakers who can rewrite the Constitution.
Notwithstanding the above, when a party has more than 2/3rds majority in Parliament, it can do practically anything it likes, save the drastic actions like dissolve the SAF or give up statehood. So that provision, as it stands, is not the key problem.
[2] Motivational speakers say that you become what you think. If you think of yourself as stupid, you stay stupid. If you think of yourself poor, you stay poor. If you continually label your child as stupid and laxy, he will also prove you right.
So if you continue to call them “opposition” parties, they will never break out of that mode.
In psychology and organisational behaviour, we call that Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.
Hence to change one’s life, one starts by changing one’s thoughts, one’s habit and one’s speech.
By the way, there is no such thing as an “opposition” party, just like no one should be called a “second-class” citizen. We are all just citizens, regardless of race, language or religion.
Nobody registers a party as an “opposition” party. They are all registered as “political” parties. So stop using that wrong terminology.
Parties fight elections, those who win form the Govt, those who lose go into the Opposition. So the correct term is that WP is now in Opposition. Technically, apart from SPP (who has a single NCMP in Parliament), no other party can even say they are in Opposition. Because to be in Opposition means you can hold the Govt accountable, you can vote against Bills, you can even bring the Govt down through a no-confidence motion.
That’s why you never hear Labor referring to themselves as an “opposition” party in the UK, they are currently in Opposition, that’s all. In fact, you never even hear the Greens or the Liberal Democrats refer to themselves as “opposition” parties, even though they never had the numbers to form a Govt.
So try not to shorten “in Opposition” to “opposition party”. It betrays a lack of understanding of politics. More importantly, it limits what these parties can achieve.
Further, labelling them as “opposition” suggests that they just exist to oppose. PAP even drove this deep in by claiming they just want to oppose for the sake of opposing. So it creates a very negative mindset in the minds of (especially) conservative voters, who view them as troublemakers and empty talkers.
This is party due to the terminology of Proposition and Opposition, which is unfortunate. But a party in Opposition is not there to oppose per se. It’s just that it is not in Govt. When Labour questions the Govt, it is not because it is opposing the Govt per se, it is doing whatever it promised its voters during its election campaign. If Labour promised tax cuts, then it is supposed to fight for tax cuts, even if it is not in Govt.
Hence, again the term “opposition” has been twisted out of context by PAP and used to make people take a negative view of “opposition” parties.
Break this cycle. Start by not calling them “opposition” parties. They are all political parties, plain and simple.
i’m not interested in politics – I’m just interested in making a decent living. right now, i have no confidence in the alternative parties…. and am shifting my investments & interests out.
Good luck to the uncle and aunties who will be left behind, with nowhere to go….