Opposition and civil society must come together for sake of democracy

Thursday, 14 May 2009

Chee Siok Chin

Civil society seems to be anxious to avoid sharing the same platform with opposition parties. The reason often cited is that they want to remain non-partisan, that is, not taking sides with any political party or support any political manifesto.

Polite and friendly greetings are exchanged but little substantive conversations transpire when the groups happen to meet.

Why are there such misgivings about politicians or members representing political parties? Could it be that the ruling party has done such an excellent job in their divide-and-conquer tactic? Could it be that many of the NGOs depend on state funds? Could it be that the state media has succeeded in demonising the opposition, especially the more vocal parties like the Singapore Democrats? Or could it be that civil society actors are afraid that their personal economic security would be jeopardised if they are seen working with the opposition?

The answer is probably most, if not all, of the above.

This is unfortunate. In mature democracies, the roles of civil society and political parties are separate and distinct. This is because they operate in open and free political environments. And yet NGOs engage political parties on a wide spectrum of issues, educating and raising awareness among legislators and politicians.

But in non-democratic states, the cooperation between civil society and pro-democracy opposition parties take on a different tone. This is because there is, first and foremost, the need to achieve democracy.

A good example are our cousins across the Causeway. They understand the need for civil society and political parties to come together and the power they synergise when they do.

The Malaysian Government recently announced that it would review the Internal Security Act. This is clearly a response to the Abolish ISA Movement which has the support of opposition parties in Malaysia.

Leading politicians such as Anwar Ibrahim, Lim Guan Eng, Tian Chua, Elizabeth Wong and scores of other political figures have called for and even lent their support in events that advocate the abolishment of the ISA in Malaysia.

Similarly in the Bersih and Hindraf movements, opposition party members, civil society actors and human rights activists supported one another to stand up to undemocratic practices of their government.

Can such cooperation and broad support materialise in Singapore? Only if there is a committed leadership with foresight.

Rights activists, social justice advocates, youth leaders, etc must not shy away from cooperating, even at the most fundamental level, with the opposition to work on basic issues such as increasing the level of democracy in Singapore.

The SDP has and will continue to reach out to civil society and individuals to engage them on broader issues of human rights and freedoms of speech and assembly.

If we stand segregated, it makes it much easier for the Government to make victims out of us. However if groups come together, even if loosely, the authorities will be forced to respond in more measured tones.

For cooperation to take place, we need to first build trust and confidence among the groups. But before this can even happen, we must take the first step of initiating dialogue.

Towards this end, the Singapore Democrats welcome conversation with any group. It is our hope that civil society at large will cast away their fear and engage in discussions with the SDP over matters of national interest.

Share this article:

Comments (11)

Fri 15 May 2009 8:55 AM | Sok Kiang - Long overdue

Indeed it is long overdue. Most relevant and timely discourse albeit somewhat naive. There's been official encouragement within close doors to make civil society more vibrant the Singapore way. And that means the better the "civic" society the less the role of opposition parties unless approved ones who in any case are in retreat voluntarily...which is "perfect" for the authorities.

Far better to call for greater co operation and complementary relationships between opposition parties. Far better to realise what stage of political development the Singaporean mindset is at, and tailor opposition strategies accordingly.This is not a call for a cop out but the need to face harsh reality. And is the SDP in touch with reality?

Fri 15 May 2009 3:21 PM | Robox

Ms Chee has raised an important question:

Re: [color=red]"Why are there such misgivings about politicians or members representing political parties?"[/color]

I'm assuming the "politicians" she refers to are specifically non-PAP ones. She then mulls:

1. Could it be that the ruling party has done such an excellent job in their divide-and-conquer tactic?

2. Could it be that many of the NGOs depend on state funds?

3. Could it be that the state media has succeeded in demonising the opposition, especially the more vocal parties like the Singapore Democrats?

4. Or could it be that civil society actors are afraid that their personal economic security would be jeopardised if they are seen working with the opposition?

I concur with Ms Chee's conclusion: it [i]is[/i] all of the above.

The PAP's massacre of the political scene, especially when employing tactics like that enumerated in poser #3 - demonization - has resulted in a [b]stigma[/b] being attached to [i]party politics[/i] in general and politicians outside the PAP in particular; I would not underestimate the grip that this stigma has on Singaporeans and our behaviour towards the parties and personnel currently in opposition.

If stigma is to be identified as the effect - or root cause of the distancing behaviour, depending on one's perspective - of the PAP's actions, then it is only logical that all of us who so desire embark on a personal mission to [b]destigmatize[/b] the relationship between ourselves and the parties currently in opposition; no one else can do it for us.

I have observed for instance, that cyberspace is full of netizens making the anxious disclaimer that they are "non-partisan", "neutral", or that they "are not affliated with any political party" (when it is clear that they are pro-opposition) etc. This, to me is also an indicator of that stigma.

All the above disclaimers say:

1. I am not slavish to PAP dictum; but,

2. I am too afraid that I will be personally alienated - among other repercussions - if I allign myself with one (or more) political parties.

I believe that civil society carries that same stigma towards the non-PAP political parties.

One of the things that I have done personally in this direction is to state openly in some online venues that I am a supporter of the SDP - I'm proud of the association.

If other readers have more suggestions to help with this destigmatization, I hope that they share them here.

Finally, when Ms Chee says, "[for] cooperation to take place, we need to first build trust and confidence among the groups. But before this can even happen, we must take the first step of initiating dialogue.", I do hope to see the SDP making that first step to outreach to as many segments of society as possible, beginning of course with those whose causes are likely to be more closely allied with the SDP's democratic cause.

I feel it is important that the party takes this initiative because, like it or not, Singaporeans continue to see political party members as leaders - it is expected of leaders to reach out to the population/s because the reverse is unlikely to happen.

Fri 15 May 2009 4:58 PM | maxchew - Be patient.....SIN will change once APL goes.

Don't worry.....be happy and be patient.

Wait for the OldFart to kick the bucket soon. He's already 85.So how long more can he last?
Once he's gone, many things will change and many good, decent freedom-fighters will emerge from everywhere to challenge his son and the PAP.

Why are people here so afraid of the Oldfart? Has he got supernatural powers? It's unbelievable that they show so much deference to him.
Lucklily we still have Dr CSJ and Gopalan Nair to show him their 3rd fingers.But only 2 brave hearts?

Fri 15 May 2009 5:27 PM | Subhas Bose - Misgivings? Stigma? What meaning?

[i]Chay,[/i] misgivings? Robox! Sure or not?
[i]Suka suka[/i] disrupt disrupt.[i]Kachow [/i][i]kachow, wat. [/i]Happy happy,don't allow anything to grow.Try kill seed.Opposition so small and weak still sabo one another.Come on man or woman, grow up first then can talk Pulitik.

Fri 15 May 2009 5:44 PM | simchye - NIpped in the Bud

What opposition doing about promoting talents? May I ask?

Siok Chin refer to "nip talents in the bud"...I guess. Old story I agree.

PAP nipped opposition talents in the bud from the start.No leaders no followers of course. So lots of bad image of opposition! People don't want to get near opposition.

Fri 15 May 2009 6:13 PM | jasuonemillion - Alamak, Sok Kiang

Alamak Sok Kiang

What you have said about Civil Society is the stand taken by Wong Kang Seng in this morning's mainstream media. Best coverage in Today.

SK, you work for WKS?

Sat 16 May 2009 12:53 AM | | Muhammad Shamin - Faith-based organisation

According to The Centre for Civil Society (CCS) London School of Economics:

Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated. Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power. Civil societies are often populated by organizations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organizations, community groups, women's organizations, [b]faith-based organizations[/b], professional associations, trade unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups.

May I just highlight here that Faith-based organisations too are part of civil society.

If you look at the Peoples' Power movement in the Philipines and the Reformasi Movement in Indonesia, the church and the Islamic movements were instrumental in bringing down the dictatorship.

Lets not have a selective understanding of the meaning of civil society and isolate a significant group if we are to move towards real domocracy.

Sat 16 May 2009 9:14 AM | Tan Chye Sim - Thanks Shamin

Good contribution.

Local initiatives much needed and also in Faith based organisations which suffer from staleness and lethargy when compared to those overseas.

I don't think NgEjay share this view that the passing of LKY is going to release all our Civil Society and Democratic juices.Many lay in wait overseas wanting to strike when the
dictator goes. Is it wise?

Meanwhile the dogs bark and even show their third legs but the LKY caravan moves on and on....Many younger people have lived in vain waiting, while the old fart outlives them. Something is not right!

Sat 16 May 2009 11:59 AM | Robox

Wong Kan Seng has now re-iterated that the government's stand on homosexuality hasn't changed. That doesn't matter, because decrimalization right now may have a tragic result: voter approval by liberal Singaporeans.

This foot dragging by the PAP will only give the liberal faction in Singapore more time to work the ground and swing public sentiment (deservedly) against the PAP.

LGBTs have allies, mostly with liberal leanings, who outnumber us many to one.

As a result of the AWARE saga, I've been able to identify several groups who could potentially vote against the PAP. These may well be the people that the opposition parties would want to outreach to:

1. LGBTs;

2. feminists, and other women who have concerns for women's issues;

3. secularists;

4. liberals;

5. others who have a beef with what they see as dispropottionate Christian privilege in Singapore - not wise for a political party to name this phenomenon though.

(Note: The delineations above are not necessarily mutually exclusive.)

Funnily, going by online comments, even many Christians are vowing to vote against the PAP.

And the SDP in particular seems to be able to attract more minority races.

The unimaginable could well happen in Singapore.

Sun 17 May 2009 8:02 PM | higginsdolittle - Gopalan is a downright coward

Hi Max
Agree with all that you have said except, Gopalan Nair a brave heart? Well documented in public and private, mainstream and online media Kenny Nair is a downright coward of the worse kind. He is the sort who comes on strong on ordinary folks(not only the PAP), but just wag a finger and he shrivels....well documented, black and white.

Mon 18 May 2009 3:32 AM | Peng Teck - Gopalan cannot

He cannot do want to do.So how? Always give bad name.Now he dangerous, election coming. PAP will dig all crazy things he make already. How can siow people join opposition.