Democracy for Thee, But Not for Me

About forty to fifty years ago, if we were to take an average Singaporean and send him back to the Singapore of the 1960s, he would have witnessed a very different Singapore from the one he knows now. The obvious sights that would greet him will be the signs of poverty, old small shophouses, the deprivation from basic human welfare, and the dirty roads and rivers. But among all of these, he would also have realised something that has not been spoken about in the history books. For one, he would notice small and large scale protests and movements against the British colony. Perhaps, he might come across the ethnic riots that he has been constantly reminded about. That might trigger his rusty knowledge of Singapore history. But he would also witness, to his surprise, a different kind of protest and movement. He will not only be privy to the protest against the British colonists, but also the protest against local parties, such as the PAP. Perhaps, even to his shock, he would notice protests against the leader highly regarded to be responsible for Singapore's success, Lee Kuan Yew. In other words, there were protests of the kind he is familiar with, and there were also counter-protests of the kind he has no knowledge about.

Fast-forward to contemporary 21st century Singapore, our time-traveller, upon his return, will have to face a deeply problematic question: what has changed throughout these years of development that, by now, protests are not only extremely rare but also illegal? What or who has also been responsible for the drastic change of the socio-political system? And, if he has concern and interests for his peers and community, what has been the net effect on the general population?

These questions are fit for a few PhD theses, hence I won't cover the extensive history here. But, without ignoring these questions and putting them in context, let us review the current situation that exists today.

A shameful atrocity has recently been the catalyst for recent developments in Singapore, which illustrate a similarly shameful record of human rights and freedom here. The Burma crisis, of which is a poor label for what could be close to a massacre or mass killing, deserving of legal prosecution of a state, has sparked the sentiments of decent-minded and humane Singaporeans. Among the various events were a single-man protest by Dr Chee Soon Juan, a gathering of (seemingly dominant Western) expatriates, a protest leading to a petition by Burmese nationals residing in SIngapore and a multi-school campus coordinated protest. These efforts have been met with state police resistance, all of which have been documented parsimoniously by Alex of Yawning Bread.

Despite the improbable likelihood of having any effect on the plight in Burma, and even more unlikelihood of changing the Singapore's state generous treatment of Burmese officials, these efforts should be encouraged and applauded. Instead, the repressive measures taken against these groups have been justified with the excuse that it has a "higher potential to stir emotions and controversy" and "law and order concerns". One can contrast the irony between both countries with laughter if the Burmese government justified their brutal and ruthless crackdown on the Buddhist monks for reasons of "stirring emotions", "law and order concerns". Unfortunately, somehow in Singapore, that hypocritical line is taken seriously.

The hypocrisy becomes more unbearable when we then examine intra-state policies towards dissent. As documented by Martyn See, history has been strangely fortunate to provide contrasting examples. A protest for consumer rights has been approved and allowed to proceed without any hiccups. Apparently, the government or police has not been reading the outpour of "stirring emotions" from the newspapers or forum newsletters about unethical consumer practices or rising transport and basic utilities costs. And in its bid to woo over foreigner talent, expatriates have been given the liberty, a priceless freedom that can't even be afforded by its own locals, to hold their own entirely legal gathering while locals have to bitterly suffer the repressive state measures against them.

Returning back to our time-traveler, were he to be so enlightened and interested to review the history of repression against local movements (whether for poverty, gay rights and women rights), he would only come to the conclusion that the entire democratic system in Singapore has been reversed on its head. Whereas years ago, contesting political parties, ordinary citizens, and members of the community from all sectors would have the liberty to hold gatherings and protests, by now, everything has been subverted for the contemporary interests of the day. Namely, the duties of citizens are to consume, perhaps fighting for their rights to consume more! In terms of their social status, they don't even hold the same amount of rights and privilege as someone from a different country, as long as they don't serve the over-riding burden placed on them: make more money than everyone else in the world. Everything else is secondary, especially people who suffer from severe crackdown by gun-wielding soldiers. One almost wonders if these kind of ruthless and atrocious actions are tacitly endorsed from a state leader who gave his thumbs up to the Tienanmen Square massacre and also ruled in favor of Burma's leading democratic activist to stay in house arrest.

Among academic circles, a popular topic has been the prospects of democratic change among Southeast Asian countries. In reference to Singapore, it was hoped that the middle-class (given their overwhelmingly majority) would rise up to the cause and champion for their rights. A prominent political expert on Singapore was, however, dismayed and found that they were only willingly to fight for their consumer rights, instead of the fundamental rights that have been the foundation of citizenship under the nation-state system. Though Alex's article ends on a more optimistic note that these prospects still exist, and they certainly do, it is still open to speculation if most other Singaporeans will be offended by the hypocrisy that lies in front of them. And if they will be offended enough to campaign for democratic change.