Those who use Speakers' Corner should not decry CD

Home

Perspective

Vantage

Monday, 10 January 2011

Singapore Democrats

Five years ago, would anyone have envisioned being able to stage protests, have bands perform for human rights, and conduct pre-election rallies at the Speakers' Corner? Indeed, ten years ago, would anyone have thought that there would even be a Speakers' Corner?

And yet today, the Speakers' Corner has been used by a wide range of individuals and organisations in Singapore. But in case anyone forgets, the venue at Hong Lim Park was not always there.

It was launched on 1 September 2000. Back then, however, the rules governing the venue were quite inane. Even gesticulating with raised hands and chanting slogans were not allowed. They were relaxed in 2008 to allow demonstrations and protests.

To be very sure, this is an unsatisfactory arrangement. Public assembly cannot be restricted to one corner of the country. Such restriction mocks our political rights.

But just as Rome was not built in a day, our advancement towards a democratic society will be marked with stops and starts. What is important for now is that we have secured a venue for political activities.

What is even more significant to note is that the establishment of Speakers' Corner signals a concession on the part of the Government. We emphasize the word 'concession' because the venue was not a gift from the ruling party. It came about because some had challenged (and continue to challenge) the boundaries placed by the autocracy.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong did not wake up one morning and had an epiphany about Singaporeans' right to free expression whereupon he mooted the idea of Speakers' Corner. The establishment of the venue came about through persistent challenges to the unjust laws that prohibited even the tiniest expression of dissent.

These challenges came by way of SDP activists waging Nonviolent Action (NVA, or more popularly called civil disobedience) and defying the undemocratic laws put in place by the British colonial government and the PAP.

But this essay is not about triumphalism for nothing has been won yet. We have merely taken that first important step in the long journey towards establishing a free society.

Rather this article is to highlight a rather disturbing matter. From time to time, we read and hear some of our fellow opposition party leaders run us down because of our efforts to push the boundaries and expand political space for Singaporeans.

Some have, directly, tagged us with the label of extremists and promoted themselves as moderates.

Others have been more indirect, stating that even though they disagreed with the unjust laws in this country, they will work within the laws because they are law-abiding. The implication is that the Singapore Democrats are not.

We remind our friends that it was democratic leaders who defied autocratic regimes in apartheid South Africa, colonialist India, and communist Europe through NVA that led to the freeing of millions from oppression and suffering. Conversely, it was the Germans, Italians and Japanese who unquestioningly obeyed their governments during WWII that led to millions being killed.

No citizen is obliged to obey unjust laws, especially those put in place by despotic regimes aimed at prohibiting citizens from exercising their rights to free speech and peaceful assembly.

The Singapore Democrats are not advocating that all opposition parties practice NVA. What we are saying, however, is that when parties are unwilling to join in the effort, they should not disparage those who do.

Worse, even as they criticise the SDP for what we do, they have no qualms making use of the Speakers' Corner today to promote themselves and the organisations they represent. This smacks of hypocrisy.

We call on our fellow opposition parties and NGOS to come together to show solidarity in the fight for the political rights of Singaporeans, and acknowledge that NVA/CD is a strategy - an effective strategy - that can be used to open up political space in Singapore.

It was the strategic application of NVA that contributed to the creation of the Speakers' Corner.

So the next time you use the venue, please don't decry CD and those who employed it.

Share this article:

Comments (7)

Mon 10 Jan 2011 11:16 AM | quantum - King Leads the March on Washington (Video)

(King Leads the March on Washington, Video courtesy of History Channel)

http://www.history.com/topics/martin-luther-king-jr/videos?et_cid=19940901&et_rid=705867884&linkid=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.history.com%2Ftopics%2Fmartin-luther-king-jr%2Fvideos%23history-of-the-holidays-martin-luther-king-jr-day#martin-luther-king-jr-leads-the-march-on-washington

On August 28, 1963, a quarter million people gather to support civil rights, and share Dr. King's "dream" of equality.

Mon 10 Jan 2011 2:19 PM | Tan Tai Wei

While I do not disagree, indeed had pre-empted SDP's acknowledgement that our Speakers' Corner is a sort of concession which we should take advantage of, I should nonetheless say this.

The London's Speakers' Corner is symbolic of the freedom at large which Britons enjoy. Nobody takes what is said there seriously, but it reminds people and the powers-that-be there of people's moral right to adequate freedoms in the media, etc, at large.
Our Speakers' Corner, however, is infact more the CORNER go to, and "blow hot air" as psychiatric therapy, should you, "like Chee Soon Juan", need it.

The media would be silent as to what transpire there, just as it does not publish what is said daily in the Institute of Mental Health.

In short, if you think you have things to say, go to the CORNER!

So, ours isn't about freedom; rather it's meant to corner you!

Mon 10 Jan 2011 7:01 PM | BryanT - SDP better get its history right.

Just to correct SDP's erroneous understanding of history.

The "democratic leaders who defied autocratic regimes in apartheid South Africa" did NOT practice NVA.

In fact, Nelson Mandela was a founder of the ANC's armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (acronym: MK). This organisation conducted sabotage campaigns and planned to escalate this to a guerrilla war. Mandela travelled around Africa to raise fund sfor this organisation and requested other nations' assistance in its paramilitary training.

If SDP wants to quote from history, it better doing some reading and fact checking first.

Tue 11 Jan 2011 1:47 AM | Robox

After the SDP's first pre-election rally, there comments made by some netizens that this - the rally - was a far better thing for the SDP to be engaged in than protesting and demonstrating on the streets.

Yet, could these same netizens not see that the ONLY reason that the SDP was even able to hold this 'better' activity at the Speakers' corner was because of a concession that the PAP government had made by freeing up the how the space could be used?

The Reform Party will be holding a copycat rally at Hong Lim Park on January 15. Yet, I haver never heard one squeak from that party acknowledging that the only reason that they are able to do so is entirely due to the SDP's persistence in civil disobedience actions. Neither has the RP ever spoken up in support of civil disobedience in general, the SDP's civil disobedience in particular, nor has the RP ever issued any statement condemning the PAP government's law enforcement and judicial actions against the SDP.

I would really be interested in statements made by any one group - yes, the Pink Dotters included - regarding their sponging off from the SDP's efforts when they parasitically make use of the fruits of the SDP's labours without blinking an eye.

Then there is Goh Meng Seng's ever-anxious statements to the press about his party's supposed non-extremeism as if to distance himself and his party from an unschooled notion of extremism that he has about the SDP's civil disobedience. (I suppose he must think that the PAP is a party that practises only moderation in all things.)

Tue 11 Jan 2011 9:33 AM | quantum - Parasites

There are always parasites in society. They will always be followers, not leaders. Singapore is full of followers, that's why we have never gotten any Nobel Prize yet.

Tue 11 Jan 2011 11:13 AM | seebeng - Why protest in Hong Kong?

To Robox

To distance himself from "extremism and civil disobedience" in Singapore, Goh Meng Seng goes to Hong Kong to participate in protests and demonstrations! He has also said if he doesn't get elected to Singapore parliament in the coming election, he would emigrate to Hong Kong.

Thu 13 Jan 2011 1:17 AM | Saiber

Unfortunately BryanTi, i beg to differ.

You forgot to mention Steve Biko and Desmond Tutu. Instead you chose to focus on Nelson Mandela and the ANC and whatever wrongdoings they may have done.

If you want to criticize this party for coming up with that statement, you should do your own reading and fact checking first.