|
|
|
November 10, 2005
Young Activism
What has persistently surprised me in my research is just how lively and virbrant Singapore's civil society was in the period between World War II and self-government. It's portrayed today as a time of riots and uncertainty- but as Machiavelli noted, riots are a sign that civil society is strong and active. What I find terribly exciting is just how there is a palpable sense of purpose in this period- how many people felt like they actually had a stake in the country, and how their actions would help determine the future direction of the country. Many of thse people were dock workers, bus drivers, taxi drivers, clerical staff- in other words, the labouring classes- and many were students as well. The roots of working class discontent in this period is often portrayed as economic. Dissatisfaction with economic conditions in this period fed the trades union movement. However, it looks to me that major agitation was over by 1948, because strikes in the post-war period were so effective in addressing worker concerns that labour support for continued trades union activism ebbed. It's possible that this potential loss of support was a major contributing factor to the Emergency. Students, on the other hand, are often seen as being victims of communist propaganda and agitation, with communist agents from China infiltrating the Chinese-education schools. Yet there is also a tradition of the educated Chinese-speaking elite accepting the responsibility of leadership for their community. It stands to reason that people who were smart enough to get into Chinese High and Nanuang University felt the same way. The point is, the excitement, vibrancy and mission of that era has been lost since the achievement of self-government, because the PAP recognised that in order for it to cling to power it had to cut away at civil society, since it formed the basis of support for the Barisan Sosialis. Fair play to the PAP- it wanted to stay in power and it did what it had to do- but the repression of the multitude of voices is what has resulted in our political environment in Singapore today. I attended a book reading today. A friend has just released a new book, filled with letters writted by young activists from America. He's one of the editors and contributed to the book himself. Despite there being some frustration at the current state of events in his country, I found myself listening intently and envying him slightly for just being able to be in a position where he can freely articulate his concerns openly and attempt to effect change through extra-governmental channels and associational action. I started wondering what one needed to do to effect change in Singapore. With civil society systematically channelled into approved fora, controlled and watched over, what do I, as a young Singaporean need to do in order to effectively promote change and to articulate my vision of a future Singapore? I would suggest that a young activist in Singapore has to necessarily work within the system for change to occur. Living in a more conservative society, any young activist today has to burnish their credentials with the badges of accepted authority and achievement to reassure those in control of the system that your motives are pure. At least, that's from a purely pragmatic standpoint. Anyway, I highly recommend the book. The poor chap is going out of pocket to promote his book, so I would suggest picking up a copy. At the very least, the thoughtfulness and the energy are inspiring. Posted by pj at 07:57 PM
|
|
|
| o |
I guess it's the same dilemma over in M'sia. Joining the opposition is a "go nowhere" proposition, if you are looking to make a meaningful change to your society. But joining the party of government to "change from within" has also been heavily criticised. The idea is that when you join up, you will be compromised, or "seduced" by the dark side.
For instance, here in M'sia we have these endless debates over whether Anwar Ibrahim was really trying to be an agent provocateur from within the ruling party, or had he already turned his back on the lofty ideals of his youth, only to return to the streets after his fall from grace. The jury is really still out, and quite possibly we may never know the real answer to that question.
The way I see it, an activist mindset has already taken root in S'pore, as evidenced in the blog scribblings of so many people over there. The only problem is that neither they, nor the PAP, have worked out how to give that activism real traction on the ground. For the PAP, I think there is a recognition that this move towards active involvement by a well-educated populace is an irresistible trend.
Nevertheless, at the same time the force of the ancien regime's approach - top-down, is still very strong and changing course is not proving to be easy. The PAP may well actually want to move towards more openness - despite all impressions, but appear to be groping for a way to do it gracefully, without compromising its basic hold on power.
wei yi spoke on November 11, 2005 10:07 AMWhy should you have to "reassure those in control of the system that your motives are pure"? This suggests that the country - or its future - somehow "belongs" to those in power, and it is theirs to decide what path to the future is legitimate. A "pure" motive suggests the existence of its opposite - an "impure" motive. These really are very value-laden terms, and one must then ask, "who decides?", and "why do they get to decide?".
I don't agree that one has to "work within the system" to change things in Singapore - i.e., work with the PAP, join the men in white shirts, et cetera. This only entrenches one of the aspects of Singapore politics I find distateful - the idea that only political action within the PAP is "trustworthy", "acceptable", "most sensible". If opposition parties are so weak in Singapore, it's not just becaue they're dodgy, it's also because they aren't given a level playing field upon which to play. Breaking the monopoly that the PAP has on power cannot be done by joining them and/or playing along in the same system they've set up.
I would argue that you have to "reassure those in control of the system that your motives are pure" because otherwise they will throw you in jail or sue you. One of the most revealing character portraits I've ever read of LKY is by Devan Nair, who relates how he went absolutely ape-shit mad after Jeyaratnam was elected for the first time. He was totally determined to crush him, despite the fact that JB has never been an effective leader or politician. Is this something we necessarily have to go through? I think not.
Meanwhile, I agree that the idea that the idea that only political action within the PAP is "trustworthy", "acceptable", "most sensible" is entirely distasteful. However, it is undeniably effective- maybe even the sole effective method. Thus, breaking the monopoly that the PAP has on power can ONLY be done by joining them and/or playing along in the same system they've set up. What is the alternative? Armed revolution? Not possible. The ballot box? Extremely unlikely.
Think of Gorbachev. How did he effect change in a state where one party held absolute power? Think of Deng Xiaoping. Despite his immense personal popularity and prestige, he didn't start an alternative party. He waited till he could take over the system. I think Singapore will change with the next generation of PAP leadership. It's our job to help shape that leadership to be pluralist, democratic, and open.
PJ spoke on November 21, 2005 01:04 AMThe problem with creating change within the PAP, is that it will allow them to say, "Look - we were right. We needed to manage things, we needed to direct change. Look at how well things are running now. Therefore, we have nothing to apologise for, and our model works".
In the meantime, you will be part of the party, and will have to acquiesce in going "absolutely ape-shit mad" at other people - bankrupting them, chasing them out of the country, ruining their public reputation. Could you live with yourself?
I used to be quite enthusiastic about getting involved in feedback sessions and what-not, until I realised that such activities only held up the very edifice I was increasingly detesting.
A friend once posed to me a very good question: on whose behalf are you getting involved? Most Singaporeans, apparently, think it perfectly fine to execute people, limit speech, utter homophobic sentiments in public, and tolerate abusive measures towards political opposition.
Changing Singapore can't just take place via the Party leadership. It involves a much more comprehensive change in the world views of the average Joe and Jane.
When you argue that political change can "ONLY be done by joining / playing along in the same system", then you've already bought into that "we decide what's right" mentality. It's an elitist "lead people from above" view of Singaporean political behaviour.
Holly Q spoke on November 27, 2005 03:50 AMI see your points, Vernie, but I suggest that it's better to effect the change imperfectly than to hold out for an ideal change which may never come. How far one is willing to compromise one's values depends on the person- but we agree on our goals, and we can work towards them.
I have no problem with the PAP saying, "Look, we were right," because it will become irrelevant. The Communist Party of Russia has the same argument. I don't see them being in power. Every party is going to always try to justify why they should be elected.
I'm ashamed with what Singapore does now, and I'm not even part of the system. I've stated on this blog before that I'm against capital punishment, for the legalisation of marijuana, for gay marriage and happy to let people choose their own poison, whether it be gambling, prostitution, pornography, drink, or chewing gum.
I just don't see how one can effect change effectively from the outside. I've never ever been enthusiastic about getting involved in feedback because I know they're not listening. Which is why I resolved that I would become one of the people who decide what happens. Then I would take the system apart and make myself irrelevant.
The thing is, though: never mind what I think. Never mind what I want to do. It's very clear that you have your beliefs and a deep passion. You shouldn't be swayed by my own arguments. Follow your beliefs. Pursue them to your utmost. Do everything you can to make the changes you believe in. Let's not worry about the right way or the wrong way; let's just worry about making it happen, sooner rather than later.
If you've got time, though, I'd be really happy to hear your ideas about how you plan to effect change from the outside. I'd rather do things your way; but I just don't see how it could work as well as being on the inside.
PJ spoke on November 27, 2005 09:43 AMSorry for taking so long to reply, PJ.
My scepticism about the efficacy of change coming from the inside stems from the fact that despite all this welcoming of new talent into the government, we're still stuck with some ridiculously retrograde policies. Either the new people they finally do take into government are drowned out, or people who a) don't support the death penalty, b) believe that gay people should be treated like human beings, c) don't think people should be locked up for 23 years without trial, are not going to be included anyway.
I think we can't start from the top - and that's where change from the outside begins. We need to convince ordinary Singaporeans, through the media, through civil society, via the arts, and any way else we can. It's public discussion we need to create.
I think the Nguyen Tuong Van case shows clearly what we can do from the outside. If it wasn't for the international media, Nguyen would have gotten no sympathy whatsoever. The humanising element provided in the international media has led Singaporeans to begin to question the mandatory death penalty, and the humanity of the government's policy to prisoners on death row.
It's the best compromise I can think of - active engagement in Singaporean society, without selling your soul out to a government whose policies have been so unjust.
Lastly, I think it does matter if the PAP thinks to itself "well, we were right to imprison people without trial". We can't have Singaporeans thinking, "it's okay to kill people now for a better future", or "it's okay to take away two decades of a person's life, for a better future". It's not, and that's not the lesson we want future generations of Singaporeans to learn.
Holly Q spoke on December 7, 2005 04:01 AM