The travails of Singapore's democratic youth

Home

Perspective

Vantage

Friday, 21 May 2010

Chee Soon Juan

I have had the pleasure - and heartache - of working with youths in Singapore who have, through the years, expressed to me their anguish and frustration with the system that dumbs them down and ignores what they have to say.

Pleasure because many of them demonstrate maturity in intellect well beyond their age.

Heartache because time and again, they have had to deal with parents who believe that the PAP can do no wrong and, worse, parents who go to great lengths to censor and censure them.

It is bad enough that one has to struggle with one's conscience in a political environment where conformity is prized, but when familial relations are brought into the equation, things can be too much to take.

I have had a couple of Young Democrats for whom the conflict with their parents became so intense that they had to leave home, temporarily at least. They ended up staying at my place until things calmed down.

One mother was so terrified that she threatened to report her son to the police when she found out that he was reading one of my books. She forbade him to get involved with "bad company".

Another parent called me up to plead with me not to let her daughter get involved in opposition politics because she wanted her child to be an "upright citizen" and "help Singapore succeed."

No one should have to go through such conflict just to speak up in one's own country. But such is the reality in Singapore. Many have honoured their filial obligations and stayed away from the SDP. Still, others have stood firm and become active members of the Young Democrats.

But whatever the outcome, I have always had the pleasure of sharing my thoughts with these young Singaporeans whose paths in life I have had the honour of crossing. Obviously the one question that we had to deal with is how to go about resolving the differences with their parents.

I tell them (and to the many who may yet be crossing this hurdle) not to aggravate the situation by going behind their parents' backs and secretly emgaging in political activity. Parents, like most everyone else in Singapore, need time to be persuaded that joining the opposition for democracy's sake is an honourable and desirable undertaking.

At the same time, however, we must remember that age does not have a monopoly on wisdom. Enlightened youths have the rare opportunity to educate their parents about the need for change in Singapore and that democracy is crucial to the future of our nation.

Advocating and working for change in an intimidated society is a lonely task. It is much more comfortable, both physically and psychologically, to be on the side of power. But for those whose conscience and awareness do not allow us to remain idle, we have the obligation to speak up.

In this regard, I am reminded of a critically acclaimed play that was turned into a movie in the 1950s. The classic 12 Angry Men, starring the late Henry Fonda, featured a jury, all white males, appointed to determine the fate of a young man who was accused of murdering his father. If found guilty, he faced the death penalty.

Eleven jurors were convinced of the man's guilt. Juror #8, played by Fonda, was the lone hold-out (the jurors knew each other only by number). A unanimous decision was needed for a guilty verdict. In the beginning of the movie everyone was furious at #8 because the evidence was overwhelming and all wanted to get it over with and go home.

But #8, who was initially hesitant and unsure of his own position, insisted on scrutinising the evidence. As he presented his views, his confidence grew and so did the uncertainty of the other jurors. With his persistence and insistence of getting at the evidence instead of pandering to the prejudices of his fellow jurors, #8 slowly managed to persuade the jury to come to the truth. In the end, a not-guilty verdict was passed.

There is a need for us to understand that majority opinion, especially one based on prejudice, misinformation and fear cannot go unquestioned. More important we have to speak up, softly if we must but insistently nonetheless.

This we must do to those who despise us as well as to those who, as parents, love us.

Read also: An Open letter to Shafi'ie's Mom

Share this article:

Comments (10)

Fri 21 May 2010 11:36 AM | maxchew - Cutting the head of the chicken to scare the monke

My late mother also tried to prevent me (I'm now 66) from joining the Opp back in the 90s.She told me a Japanese capt shot dead her younger brother (my uncle) just for talking back to him (in her presence) during the Japanese occupation. The trauma and subsequent nightmares she sufferred stayed in her psyche permanently. We therefore have to give some allowance/respect for the reason for our elders' morbid fear and unthinking deference to authority.

For the younger parents (like me) in their 50s/60s, the cruel persecution of JBJ, Francis Seow, Dr Chee and especially Tang Liang Hong who was literally chased out of S'pore must have scared the shit out of many of them. Hence their great fear of the PAP authority and esp Lee Kuan Yew. We can't really blame them. LKY has cut the chicken's head right in front of the monkeys to scare them for a long long time.Only time will heal this psychological fear.....

Sat 22 May 2010 9:44 AM | Tan Tai Wei

There was this well-meaning colleague who allerted me, in lowered tone, to her having heard my Dean saying he was aware that I had been writing in the SDP website.

Some years earlier, I happened to voice an opinion to my then Director which he interpreted to mean I was suggesting joining the opposition. He gesticulated facially and bodily how that would affect the interest of our institution (and, of course, his own) and mine!

I was once asked by another Direstor to write a paper to be submitted to a powerful Miniater. She objected only to one word I had used, and only because that Minister would not "like it". I then only substituted it by another which meant the same thing. (The word was "reason", and that Minister had been known to say that reasoning was confusing because there could be counter-reasoning. When I changed it to "rational", my paper went through!)

That same Minister, in a separate episode, wanted to sack seven of us for wanting to form a union, despite his "advice". Our Director, who procedurally was responsible to our governing Council, which legally could not discipline staff without due investigation and representations by all parties, etc., was prepared to set aside all, and allow that Minister to bypass all, and directly send us letters accusing us of "insubordination" and asking for our resignations". (To save ourselves, we had to not tell the staff members we represented the real reason for not proceeding with the union, and "if anything leaked to the press, all seven of us would be held accountable".) We were told that that Minister had obtained the then PM's (not Goh) approval of the action.

Such episodes explain the "fear" referred above.

Sat 22 May 2010 12:11 PM | Robox

Yep, when I wanted to join the SDP in 2005, my family was terrified. Not because they were anti-SDP or its message, but because they feared for their own safety.

Sat 22 May 2010 5:57 PM | Tan Tai Wei

I should add. to the last episode related above, an interesting following.

Devan Nair, as President, visited our institution soon after. He asked why everybody was so silent in response to his request to speak up our minds on issues. After some instigation, I raised with him the episode to explain why there had been so much fear to speak up in the nation. He replied at length, holding up his agenda the whole afternoon, during which he intimated his disagreement with LKY's policy of not allowing unions in our kind of institution: "if people want to discuss conditions of service, let them..."

That "powerful Minister" got wind of the encounter, and I was told by the new Director of our institution, who had replaced the one involved in the "union" episode, that he had to respond to the Minister's query as to what happened on the President's visit. He had to say that the President had himself pressed for my speaking up, etc.

More, the Director had to explain why the subject I was employed to teach was needed, for the Minister had also asked if it was really necessary!

Sun 23 May 2010 8:21 PM | Jufrie

To Tan Tai Wei

Many are curious to know who that powerful minister was. Do you mind Mr Tan?

Let us continue with the noble effort to erase this fear from the people's psyche.

Mon 24 May 2010 10:06 AM | Tan Tai Wei

Thank you, Jufrie and "many", for your interest in the story. But it isn't the name that matters, but the governance style we wish to change, or if changed somewhat already, to give the public more assurances to tale away the fear instilled. For surely, the PAP wants to care for the interest of our nation, and not just their shortsighted party interest of continuing to have the percentage of voters we all acknowledge who vote out of fear.

It's quite laughable the panic that Minister was able to grip our institution's "leadership" with on that occasion.

Out of the blue, I was called to the Head's office, and told of the dismissal letter to be sent all seven of us. To save myself, I was not even to tell the other six, but to quietly resign from the protem committee of the union, not giving the real reason but to concoct some excuse. To say that my baby son was sick, he suggested.

Each of the other six was treated the same way by their respective Heads. And, sure enough, there soon landed on my desk (I was secretary of the unnion protem committee) three unexplained resignations. Three of us had decided to save themselves without warning me and the rest!

I called the remaining three and we went up to see the Director, which was against her condition of our salvation.

She said to call a meeting of the staff body and for us not to tell the truth but to say we had decided, on our own initiative, not to proceed with the union.

I asked if she was asking us to call a meeting in order to lie. She replied, with goodwill for us, no doubt, that "our job was at stake, and we were talking honour and morality".

I said rather than lying, we would drop the union affair (even loosing our job would not give us the union) without meeting with staff to go through the procedure of passing a resolution to countermand the unionising decision.

It was all like a piece from James Bond!

Mon 24 May 2010 6:27 PM | Tan Tai Wei

Whilst in the mood to tell stories, I might as well tell this one also.

Our institution soon merged with a larger one. The overall CEO invited groups of us to lunch.

Over lunch, I raised my concern about his ruling that whenever the press approached us to for comments on issues, we were not to do so without seeking clearance through official channels of the institution. I said that as we were paid by public funds to "profess" our area of expertise, we were obligated, when solicited, to contribute our expert knowledge on public issues.

This CEO, instead of honourably explaining and defending his ruling, looked at me pleadingly (as though to say "for my sake, please, please, don't...") saying in lowered voice "You know, we don't really have freedom in Singapore".

Our then Director, also around the table, smiled sheepishly and sreetwisely.

Mon 24 May 2010 6:45 PM | Tan Tai Wei

Just yesterday, I spoke with a former CEO of a listed Singapore company, who said that he had had some issues he wanted to raise, but soon decided against speaking up because, although he had no fear for himself, "his sons might be victimised".

I thought he was afraid unnecessarily until I recalled Goh Chok Tong's saying that he had written letters for Jeyaretnam's sons to carry with them, telling their prospective employers not to discriminate against them on acount of their father.

Now, unless that had really been a problem, Goh wouldn't have found it necessary to do that!

Some years ago, Lee Hsien Loong said that the government had never victimised persons who spoke out against it. I wrote a letter to the Straits Times to say that even so, Lee should check to see if those appointed to positions below him, and such others similarly empowered, had so victimised their underlings on their own initiative, thinking to please the powers above.

Of course, the letter wasn't published. Seemed like ST too had "fear"!

Tue 25 May 2010 12:33 AM | Jufrie - The fear factor distorts

I cannot agree with you more, Mr Tan.

I, and I'm very sure, many Singaporeans are very much aware of this fear factor and how it has distorted the real picture.

Fear of losing their job, their hawker or taxi license, business opportunities, their childrens' places in schools or even the roof over their heads etc, etc have compelled Singaporeans to vote for the PAP time and time again in spite of their desire for checks and balances.

Take away the fear and the distortions, hidden facts, half truth and manipulation by the main stream media, the PAP would not have got 66 over percent of the votes in the last GE. The same can be said of the GEs before that.

It can therefore be safely concluded that the PAP may even have lost in many constituencies in 1984, Eunos GRC in 1987 and 1991, Cheng San in 1997 and perhaps Aljunied in 2006.

Let's hope with the new media things will change.

Wed 26 May 2010 3:48 AM | Robox

Re: "Let's hope with the new media things will change."

Actually, I think it has already started to even if realizing its full potential is still some way off.

There is one very concrete evidence of the new media's role in the development development of the opposition's racks and that's the phenomenon of the brigade political party members as well as other activists, all of whom may be described as internet-spawned.