Ingenious
Public protests
.. that get the message across without
breaking the law. By Seah Chiang Nee
Sept 15, 2007
FACED
with prohibitive rules against protests, young Singaporeans
with grievances to air in public are adopting creative ways
to do so without getting into trouble.
It is
tricky business in a country where public gatherings of
more than four people require a police permit. It is almost
impossible for anyone to address an outdoor crowd unless
it is officially sanctioned.
Despite
some loosening up in recent years, the authorities still
crack down on any outdoor display of dissent.
Activists
last week organised a protest that wasn’t really a
protest against a new annuities policy.
It was
a rather ingenuous idea: Go shopping at a particular mall
at a certain hour – dressed in black. Since there
was no rally or speeches or banners, no laws were broken.
Predictably,
the turnout was poor with no more than 30 people responding,
outnumbered by plainclothes policemen and newsmen.
They
got away with it because it was not big enough to pose a
threat to the government. In fact the scale was almost laughable
to people abroad who are used to mass demonstrations.
Its
passive nature has, however, gained it a measure of public
acceptance that could serve as an example of non-violent
dissent a la Singapore in future.
It was
not confrontational or anti-government and had a limited
objective of opposing a single policy. Participants were
advised not to argue but disperse if ordered to do so by
the police.
A respected
blogger, redbean, said it could be a good way for people
to register their views without having to lay on them with
the full weight of the law.
“It
is a civilised way by a civilised people to make their point,
in a polite way, as the issues are not life threatening
or deserving of a violent protest,” he added.
Last
month another innovative protest happened, and it had nothing
to do with the government.
A handful
of Singaporeans assembled at a public park with Japanese
anime figurines such as the 5-inch tall Ultramen, robots
and monsters and some placards.
Real-life
police, who obviously did not find it amusing, met them,
but did not break them up.
The
‘anime’ fans – or rather, the armful of
toys - were protesting against a clampdown on Internet downloading
of anime material by Singapore animation distributor Odex.
Like
most other similar events, it was not reported in the local
press but posted with pictures in various websites.
The
police, who had four anti-riot vans at the scene, filmed
the event and took down the particulars of the fans. It
was a victory of sorts for youthful expression.
“The
police didn’t stop us from what we wanted to do. But
their being there was enough to intimidate,” the organiser
said.
Others
are using all the legal channels they can think of to voice
their public unhappiness.
Singapore
has progressed significantly in the area of higher education
during the past decade. Some 52% of Singaporeans have, or
are getting, a university degree, half of them in foreign
universities.
The
result is an increasingly well-informed people with high
technical skills but who are also more individualistic and
divided. Lee Kuan Yew’s national consensus, if at
all alive, is a lot thinner.
Leading
them is an authoritarian government that tolerates only
the scantiest of organised criticism. Critics who are too
outspoken are told to form a political party to take it
on.
A Speakers
Corner that was designed to allow dissenters to make public
speeches had understandably faded away.
It wasn’t
anything like London’s Hyde Park, from which it models
after, since speakers must register with the police and
loudhailers are not permitted.
With
the mainstream media strictly regulated, Singaporeans who
have alternative or critical views are using their wits
to get around the obstacles.
The
Internet is, of course, the most effective (two thirds of
homes are web connected) so the more creative of the lot
are saying their pieces in the forms of videos, filmlets,
organised statistics, poems and songs.
Others
put up online petitions.
Most
are aware of the legal boundaries and generally strive to
stay within them, although at times the less experienced
live close to breaching them.
Last
year demonstrators also used coloured clothes to show their
unhappiness.
They
were supporting a popular blogger, Mr. Brown, whose column
in a daily newspaper was terminated because an article had
apparently displeased the government. Some two-dozen supporters
rallied public wearing brown clothes.
“No
organised cycling”
The
opposition Workers Party which has benefited from an injection
of younger blood with fresher ideas attempted to hold a
cycling event at East Coast Park as part of its 50th anniversary
celebrations.
The
authorities disallowed it, saying it was potential for “public
disorder and unruly behaviour.”
It is
not certain if it was a victory for any one. The ruling
People’s Action Party was later forced to cancel its
own “night cycling’ event –purportedly
because of poor response.
It probably
didn’t want to be accused of double standards.
The
impact of all these actions on the government is little
more than a mosquito bite.
The
‘Wear Black” protest flopped because it was
aimed at the Internet-savvy, English-educated class, which
is, by and large, concerned only with studies and careers.
To succeed,
observers believe it has to take place in the housing board
heartland where the masses live – not at Orchard Road.
It needs
the broad participation of the Chinese- and Malay-speaking
“heartlanders”, a virtual impossibility since
most are non-surfers.
And
rallying them outside the Internet is impossible without
inviting a crackdown.
(Published
in The Star, Malaysia, on Sept 15, 2007)