Singapore, a “sunny island set in the sea,” is known for many things: economic prosperity, air-conditioning, malls and underground malls linking to more malls. What it is not known for, though, is a stellar human rights record or an active citizenry willing to take to the streets.
In October 2011, a Facebook page for Occupy Singapore sprung up, asking Singaporeans to gather at Raffles Place in the heart of Singapore’s Central Business District on October 15 as part of the Global Day of Action. The movement called for more accountability and transparency in the running of government-linked corporations, particularly the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation and Temasek Holdings. In recent years, these two corporations had made huge losses on bad investments made with public money.
It was a demand close to the hearts of many Singaporeans who have been frustrated by the lack of accountability and responsibility taken by the senior management of these corporations. It was also good timing, in a year of watershed elections — when trust and accountability were hot-button issues — which saw the ruling People’s Action Party get its lowest vote share in the nation’s history. People appeared to be more fired up than they had been in years.
But when October 15 rolled around, Raffles Place was left woefully unoccupied. The space thronged with journalists and photographers (and perhaps a number of plainclothes policemen), but no protesters. Although the organizers of Occupy Raffles Place later expressed bitterness and disappointment at the turnout (or lack thereof), it is hard to imagine what they had expected. Protests, public demonstrations and civil disobedience are just not in the average Singaporean’s blood.
‘If I say this, will I get in trouble?’
Thanks to the government and the mainstream media, protests, demonstrations and strikes are often linked in the minds of Singaporeans to violence and unrest. This perception is further supported by the fact that law enforcement authorities often turn down permit applications for events by citing “law and order” concerns that would affect the stability of the country.
Restrictions on freedom of speech and the government’s willingness to make use of defamation suits have also encouraged people to constantly watch what they say. The porous and vague definition of “OB markers” (or “out of bounds markers”) make people unwilling to speak out, just in case what they say gets them into trouble.
The government has also often used Singapore’s multi-racial and multi-religious society as a justification for the curbing of freedom of expression. Singaporeans are often reminded of the race riots of the 1960s, when violent conflict broke out between the different racial groups, and told that everything must be done to ensure that we never return to such violence. People who make comments of a racial or religious nature can be charged under the Sedition Act, if said comments are deemed to have the potential of creating ill will between different racial and religious groups.
In December 2011, Singaporeans for Democracy submitted an application for a permit to hold an anti-racism rally to address a recent spate of racist postings on Facebook. The application was rejected. When a formal appeal was made, the authorities again cited “law and order considerations.”
Add to all this the belief held by many Singaporeans that we have it good — we have roofs over our heads, food on the table, there aren’t any wars or natural disasters, we have our shopping and our streets are clean. What more do you want? For most people, life is too comfortable to risk the repercussions of speaking out.
Laws, laws, laws
In 2008, around 20 people — children included — gathered outside Parliament House to protest against the rising cost of living in Singapore. The protesters, mostly associated with the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), carried placards and wore T-shirts that read Tak Boleh Tahan, meaning “Cannot Take It” in Malay. (The phrase is also commonly used in Singlish, an English-based creole spoken by most Singaporeans.)
Eighteen protesters, including SDP’s Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan, were arrested and charged under the Public and Nuisance Act on two counts: for participating in an assembly, and for participating in a procession without a permit. Fines of up to S$2,000 (approx. US$1,588) or jail terms of up to two weeks were meted out.
In 2009 the new Public Order Act stated that “cause-related activities will be regulated by permit regardless of the number of persons involved or the format they are conducted in.”
This effectively means that even a single person could constitute an illegal assembly and be subject to intervention from law enforcement if they have not obtained a police permit for their activity. It is also up to the authorities to define the term “cause-related activity.”
The only areas in which police permits do not need to be obtained before an activity are in indoor venues, and at Speaker’s Corner in Hong Lim Park — a small green space not too far from Singapore’s Central Business District. However, organizers are required to register their names, identification card numbers and contact details with the National Parks prior to an event at Speaker’s Corner.
Non-Singaporeans are prohibited from participating in events and activities related to domestic affairs, even in indoor spaces and at Speaker’s Corner. At the annual Pink Dot (a day to celebrate acceptance of the LGBTQ community), Permanent Residents and non-citizens are not allowed to be part of the giant pink dot formed by all participants at the end of the day and are required to stand behind a cordon.
What do activists do, then?
Despite restrictions, activists often find other ways and means to carry out their activities and push their causes. As the sole outdoor space in Singapore where activities can be held without a permit, activists and campaigners often turn to Speaker’s Corner as an option for public events. Although the turnout will likely be limited to those who have actively made a point of showing up at Hong Lim Park, the benefit of having an event in the park is that there is a certain amount of visibility.
Another popular move is to hold private indoor events where attendance is “by invite only.” Although this greatly restricts the turnout to the number of invitations, and to some extent restricts the potential of new people attending, making an event private means that it will be easier for non-Singaporean citizens to participate.
That said, during investigations over a private forum organized by Singaporeans for Democracy, the police said that having a foreigner speak at a forum without clearance was tantamount to an offense. Otherwise, most activism and campaigning are done online, which makes sense in a country with about 72.4 percent internet penetration and a mainstream media that’s largely owned by the state.
Although anyone unafraid of arrest could still stage demonstrations and protests in Singapore, it’s not a move often contemplated, as civil disobedience is unlikely to gain a movement much sympathy in a society bred to consider law and order as sacred.
Many Singaporeans are quick to equate public demonstrations with violence, and are more likely to view an arrested activist as a troublemaker than as a victim of oppression. Stories of strikes in other countries are also often viewed with scorn: What a mess! We should be grateful that this would never happen in Singapore.
And that mindset is the first major hurdle for any activist in Singapore — to convince people committed to not rocking the boat that speaking out is not a form of violence but a right due to every citizen, every day of their lives.
A new book explores how Miss Major has persevered over six inspiring decades on the frontlines of the queer and trans liberation movement.
Humor in Native culture has never been simply about entertainment. Comedy is also used to fight cultural invisibility and structural oppression.
Waging Nonviolence is hiring a writer to interview leading movement figures and analysts and produce one Q&A-style article per week. The writer will work with our small editorial team to identify the interview subject each week. For the most part, we’ll be looking to hear from activists, organizers and scholars who can shed light on… More
Not being able to participate and advocate for change in my new (if temporary) home is one of my great frustrations about life in Singapore.
Mr Bostonian, just a matter of interest, what kind of ‘change’ do you intend to advocate for us?
Agree with Expat Bostonians. Particularly frustrating to expats in Singapore is the widespread assumption that any foreigner who “meddles” in local affairs is somehow anti-Singapore. The truth is that no-one meddles unless they care, feel some attachment to the place, and want to help make things better. That might occasionally make them anti-PAP, but it certainly doesn’t make them anti-Singapore!
What really gets to me about this whole “foreign interference” angle is that it is ultimately an illusion. The whole world is caught up in a mess of foreign interference: it happens every time a free-trade agreement is signed, in every UN General Assembly, in every IMF/World Bank decision, etc. etc. The world is made up of everyone trying to get into everyone’s business.
You can just see the double standards in the fact that non-Singaporeans can’t even be part of the Pink Dot formation every year, but our foreign minister freely says that we need a US navy presence in this region to “maintain stability”.
But this is such a useful tool for dismissing criticism: labelling it “foreign interference” and equating it all to “anti-Singapore”. Activists become accused of being Western imperialists (even if they ARE Singaporeans).
There’s about ten first-generation Asian migrants in Australian parliaments. One is the finance minister. Foreign interference?
Eddy, can we take it that those first gen Asians are now Aussy citizens?
Btw. For your info, so that you are not misled by those self-professed human-rights fighters like Kirsten or misled by your misunderstanding and laziness to look facts up,, we have quite a few parliamentarians who were not born in Sg, including one in the Opposition.
But frankly, I can’t see how foreign-born parliamentarians are relevant here.
Any regime that continues to stay in power for a long time as in Singapore perpetuates and justifies its rule by creating fear amongst its citizens. Kirsten’s article illustrates this well. The state fears and in doing so, it creates fear amongst the citizenry. So much so that Singaporeans constantly self-police. Can I say this? Will I be sued? Can I say this in class? Are there spies in the theatre? Will I get that dreaded call from the boss? More dangerously, will the police come knocking?
Singaporeans NEED to get rid of this mentality of fear if the society is to move forward.
“Although the organizers of Occupy Raffles Place later expressed bitterness and disappointment at the turnout (or lack thereof), it is hard to imagine what they had expected.”
The so-called organizers were themselves nowhere to be seen or heard!
Now that calls for greater disappointment, except for the fact that Kirsten now tries to make an absolutely hollow point about this, and others.
Ps.was Kirsten at Raffles Place on that fatefully peaceful day since her main area of interest is supposedly ‘human right’?
Yes, I was in Raffles Place that day actually. That’s how I knew that none of the many people who said they would be there showed, and that there were ultimately more journalists there than anyone else.
And your point is…?
Kirsten, then what a waste that you did not approach any of the journos, including non-MSM ones, to make some points about human rights or other relevant issues.
All the journos saw were some he famous Raffles Place pigeons, padding proudly as ever.
Perhaps you were hiding in the corner, sipping a latte somewhere, or did not even bother.
Btw, did you meet the protest organizers? Be honest, now (for once) 😉
Typo: delete ‘padding’ insert ‘parading’ 😉
Actually, I was there that day as a journalist, not a protester. I was standing with the photojournalists, speaking to them as we waited and waited, then realised no one was coming. We saw the pigeons together, so at least you’re right about that.
And no, I did not meet the protest organisers. They were nowhere to be seen. They later posted that they had been there, but boasted that “no one had any idea”, which seemed pretty self-defeating to me.
What actually is your point? Are you disagreeing with this article? Do you believe that Singaporeans are not protest shy?
If you are, then say so and make your argument. I don’t see the point in making baseless comments to speculate about my commitment to human rights.
Many of us know about you and your (cowardly) agenda, Kirsten. There is nothing baseless about it since we can see it in what you churn out hideously 😉
“Am I involved in #OccupyRafflesPlace? No, I’m not. Do I know who is involved in #OccupyRafflesPlace? No, I do not. Do I buy their message? I don’t know. Do I think this will be as big as Occupy Wall Street? To be honest, I seriously doubt it.
Like many people out there, I too have my reservations about #OccupyRafflesPlace. Although I see nothing wrong with getting inspired by or borrowing the idea of Occupy Wall Street (it is, after all, spreading out to becoming a global movement), I do agree with some people who say that the message from #OccupyRafflesPlace has not been as well thought out or put forth as other Occupy movements. It is also true that it is a great possibility that there won’t be that great of a turn-out, either because of Singapore attitudes or law enforcement. (The police have already issued a statement urging the public not to attend, a message that appears to be getting spammed all over the FB events page.)
But that doesn’t mean that I agree with the ridicule and negativity that #OccupyRafflesPlace is facing. I might not necessarily agree with their message (yet), but I stand by their right to try, to assemble, to make their voices heard. And knowing Singapore, I have to give my respect to the organisers for stepping forward to make this attempt.” ~ Kirsten Han
….in other words, Kristen, you possess a warped and mentality that people should protest for the sake of protesting, claiming a right just for the sake of doing so, even if they can’t even figure out what theie cause is.
And mind you, these are are bunch of cowards who did not even turn up themselves on site.
That’s why I think your personal principles, if there are any at all, are founded on hideousness. And if I may add, shallowness and immaturity, to copy and promulgate mindlessly what others fashionably are doing without giving an iota of thought ‘why so’.
If I were you, I’d use the word ‘journalist’ more sparingly. It gives the rest doing a more decent and honourable job a bad name. 😉
I think you have managed to completely misunderstand what I was trying to say about #OccupyRafflesPlace in that old blog post of mine you quoted, but thank you very much for taking such an interest in my work and being such an avid follower!
But BT, surely this is a ‘straw man’ fallacy: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
It’s rather a very useful item of facts. I am just contented you embraced this convenient facts here. You should stop us well informed like this. Many thanks giving.