Government using hyperbole to justify public protests ban
-
Government using hyperbole to justify public protests ban
By Gerald Giam
The Singapore Government has once again employed the use of hyperbole to justify its near-total ban on public demonstrations, whether peaceful or not.
In his letter to the Straits Times and TODAY, the deputy director at the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) cautioned that “(t)he worst race riots in Singapore history began as peaceful processions”.
LetÂ’s examine that statement a little more closely by looking at the history of riots in Singapore.
Riot history
Since independence, there has been just one major riot, the 1969 Race Riots, in which four people were killed. These were a spill-over from the May 13 riots in Malaysia. The riots did not begin as a peaceful procession. No permit was applied for, and none was granted.
Chinese and Malay gangs, together with foreign infiltrators, simply attacked innocent civilians at random. Clearly this was a case of the police not being able to prevent the violent actions of a few lawless individuals. Had the present permit system for public demonstrations been in place then, the riots would have still taken place.
Prior to that, there were the 1964 Race Riots that occurred on Prophet MuhammadÂ’s birthday, in the backdrop of a very tense period of race relations. If one examines the events that led up to this riot, it is no wonder that it turned violent. On 21 July 1964, about 25,000 people had gathered in the Padang to celebrate the ProphetÂ’s birthday. After speeches (which probably included provocative calls to action), the crowd was allowed to go on a procession towards Geylang. Along the way, some violent groups within the crowd started attacking policemen and passers-by and this provoked violent counter-reactions.
The police should never have allowed that procession to proceed in the first place. Common sense would tell you that 25,000 people going on a racially-charged procession through ethnic neighbourhoods after listening to fiery speeches is a recipe for disaster.
Looking back 51 years to 1956, were the Chinese middle school riots. Again, these riots did not take place in isolation. This was the height of the governmentÂ’s battle with the communists who had infiltrated numerous organisations and schools.
The Hock Lee Bus Riots of 1955 were a result of a dangerous concoction of militant trade unions, communist instigation and anti-colonial sentiments. The riots broke out when police tried to disperse a demonstration of 2,000 students and strikers.
The National Service Riots of 1954 started as a demonstration with 500 Chinese students holding a demonstration against conscription and marching towards the Istana.
Finally, rounding off modern SingaporeÂ’s history of riots are the infamous Maria Hertogh Riots in 1950. Three thousand angry people had been allowed to gather outside the Supreme Court as a blatantly insensitive colonial judge made a ruling that Muslims saw as a slap in their face.
In all these instances, several key factors were at play:
1. Turbulent political times;
2. Widespread poverty and social neglect;
3. Very large crowds.
Singapore 21st Century
Contrast these with some of the demonstrations that the police have banned in recent years:
· Feb 2003: Police broke up a protest by six Singaporeans (mostly young girls) in front of the US embassy to protest the Iraq war;
· Sept 2003: The Think Centre’s application to display dolls in Raffles Place was refused on grounds of “law and order considerations”;
· Nov 2003: Maid welfare group TWC2’s application to hold a symbolic march to mark International Day Against Violence Against Women was rejected on “law and order considerations”;
· Sept 2005: Buangkok residents put up cardboard cut-outs of white elephants in front of the Buangkok MRT station to protest against its non-opening. A police investigation was launched and the “culprit” was given a stern warning;
· Jan 2006: Schoolgirls wore white elephant T-shirts at Buangkok MRT’s opening ceremony, and were warned by police that if they wore the T-shirts “en masse, it might be misconstrued by some as an offence”;
· Sept 2006: All outdoor protests at the IMF/World Bank meetings were banned;
· Aug 2007: Police rejected the Workers’ Party’s permit application for a cycling event;
· Aug 2007: Police filmed a demonstration by Odex anime fans and sent four riot police vehicles to intimidate protestors;
· Oct 2007: Police reject student Andrew Teo’s application for an outdoor protest against the Myanmar junta.
Unlike the riots of yesteryear, it is highly unlikely that any of these protests would have turned violent. There simply isnÂ’t enough political tension in the air among local residents for it to happen.
If the police are really concerned about law and order issues, they could simply grant permits for crowds of up to, say, 50 people. Beyond that they can step in and break it up. Surely a crowd of 50 is more than manageable by our able men in blue!
Unfortunately, two generations of Singaporeans — which include the policymakers and police officers themselves — have been brought up with ghost stories of our turbulent past and been told that any organised gathering that is not government endorsed is dangerous and could lead to riots.
I think a higher level of maturity in our developed society is needed.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/10/26/govt-using-hyperbole-to-justify-demo-ban/#more-561 -
a similar thing has been talked abt by mrbrown at here, click me
-
I hope that the PAP government can change their attitude towards this oppressive law banning public protests on the pretext of keeping public order.
Many people despise the PAP ruling clique and their policies and they want to protest to express their frustration and anger towards the PAP regime.
I think this is a right of citizens in a democratic country.
At the very least, end the "city of possibilities " slogan.
We know, the PAP knows, the dog under my flat knows, that this is poppyc*ck.
Even Indonesians have the right to stage protests against their government in a peaceful way.
Show some respect for Singapore citizens PAP. -
Why would dishonorable people change their minds when they get to fool the people AND get to take massive amounts of public money?
Cannot have dishonorable people have complete power one lah or everyone just suffer...
Support Dr Chee Soon Juan's cause and kick out a few ministers to wake up their ideas. -
Is this not an ironical development in Singapore History ?
THE WISDOM OF LEE KUAN YEW
"If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies - even those who do not subscribe to our views - as much(sic)constitutional rights as you concede yourself."
- Lee Kuan Yew Legislative Assembly Debates Sept 21, 1955
"But we either believe in democracy or we not. If we do, then, we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from the any democratic processes, other than by the ordinary law of the land, should be allowed...
If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally.
If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication.
Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought, and no excuse, whether of security, should allow a government to be deterred from doing what it knows to right, and what it must know to be right... "
- Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates April 27, 1955
"Let us get down to fundamentals. Is this an open, or is this a closed society?
Is it a society where men can preach ideas - novel, unorthodox, heresies, to established churches and established governments -
where there is a constant contest for men's hearts and minds on the basis of what is right, of what is just, of what is in the national interests,
or is it a closed society where the mass media - the newspapaers, the journals, publications, TV, radio - either bound by sound or by sight, or both sound and sight, men's minds are fed with a constant drone of sycophantic support for a particular orthodox political philosophy ?
That is the first question we asked ourselves.
I would like to see minds stimulated and debate provoked, and truth refined and crystallized out of the conflict of different evidence and views.
I, therefore, welcome every and any opportunity of a chance to agree, or to dissent, in order that out of thesis comes synthesis - thesis, anti-major premise, anti-premise, synthesis, so we progress...
I welcome every opportunity to meet members of the opposition, and so do members of my party, over the radio, over the television, university forums, public rallies.
We never run away from the open encounter.
If your ideas, your views cannot stand the challenge of criticism then they are too fragile and not sturdy enough to last.
I am talking of the principle of the open society, the open debate, ideas, not intimidation, persuasion not coercion...
Sir, the basic fundamentals we asked ourselves...is whether the duties of the Minister of Information and Broadcasting are to produce closed minds or open minds, because these instruments - the mass media, the TV, the radio - can produce either the open minds receptive to ideas and ideals, a democratic system of life, or closed and limited.
But I know that the open debate is a painful process for closed minds...
But let me make this point: that 5 million adult minds in Malaysia cannot be closed - definitely not in the lifetime of the people in authority.
It is not possible because whatever the faults of the colonial system, and there are many...they generated the open mind, the inquiring mind."
- Lee Kuan Yew Dec 18, 1964 Malaysian Parliamentary Debates
This Singapore Government evolved from the spirit of our forefathers supporting the political ideas espoused from a younger MM LKY in the 1950s and 1960s.
That was a tumultuous period when Singaporeans of that period supported a younger LKY in his battles with the Malay ULTRAS from UMNO that were taking away the political and civil space of other ethnic communities in Malaysia, and saw Singapore majority Chinese population as a threat in diluting their own numbers in a larger Malaysia set up.
According to research papers from declassifed documents at the Public Records Office in London, Dr Kua Kia Soong from Malaysia - wrote in his book : MAY 13[color=darkred], that the riots in 1963 was a result of the purposeful attempt by a clique of Malay politicians to create a crisis situation that will allow them to usurp power from Tunku Abdul Rahman.
It was a soft coup with Tunku's deputy - Tun Abdul Razak - being the secret hand that finally benefitted from the May 13 riot to take control away from Tunku, who was seen as ineffective and too accomodating to the other ethnic races at the expense of the Malays, who claimed the rights of being Bumiputra.
The irony in this matter is that Dr M. Mahathir published researches traced the Malay ethnic roots to actually originating from Yunan province in China; and the true sons of the soil as the Bumiputra should be those neglected hill tribes in Peninsula Malaya, the various long-house living head-hunting tribes in Sarawak, and the various ethnic tribal groups that is unique to Sabah.
The present Singapore Government fear of public display of grieviances has as much to do with their fear of losing control over public trust and confidence - as there are simply too many skeletons in their cabinet and under the carpet.
The fear of popular public opinion going against himself is simply too much a nightmare to allow LKY's democratic idealism to be implemented now that he is in political control.
It is fine for him to be a leading vocal rabble rouser, acting against the Colonial Government, and also acting against the larger interest of Singapore merged with Malaysia; but it is a totally different cup of tea for another rabble rouser to work against him.
Such is the malleable principled belief of a political leader who is respected to be a supposed father figure of Singapore.
Prior to the merger of Singapore as part of Malaysia, many experienced Singaporeans dealing with Malay Politicians - in which he was warned of the imbalance in the terms of merger that is disadvantageous to Singaporeans - had LKY heeded those calls perhaps the baggage of history as we know it today, could have been avoided.
Unfortunately, the outcome of a failed merger has resulted in an insecure and paranoid MIW Government led by MM LKY for the last 40 over years - with hard set negative reaction to any form of dissent.
Is this present state of intolerance to public dissent an outcome from a deep reflection by LKY after the eviction from Malaysia - that it was his perpetual very cutting and public dissent with the Federal Government that resulted in Singapore being evicted ?
In politics, one man's failure is everyone else's burden. -
or is it a closed society where the mass media - the newspapaers, the journals, publications, TV, radio - either bound by sound or by sight, or both sound and sight, men's minds are fed with a constant drone of sycophantic support for a particular orthodox political philosophy ?
Some of Lee Kuan Yew's statements made in the 1950s and 60s are indeed quite shocking to read when you compare to the current political climate in Singapore.
One is heaven, one is earth.
Is is hard to believe that these words come from the same man Lee Kuan Yew.
I would expect Chee Soon Juan to utter such statements.
So it seems that Lee Kuan Yew had similar ideas as Chee soon Juan when both were not in power. -
absolute power, when people get absolute power.... corrupts absolutely... it was all a scam to get power and once he had power, his dishonorable character surfaced....
-
but now that he is getting old and senile and people are openly cursing for him to die soon, I wonder if he still thinks it was all worth it... Why? Wasn't he aware of his own mortality?
He setup a system whereby people like Dr Chee ends up in jail again and again for standing around and giving speeches. -
Looks like they don't have faith in the ability of the Police to handle any protest that turns violent.
And come to think of it, if you need 30 men to surround one lone protestor, it really shows the "ability" without much debate. -
While I have absolutely no idea what goes on in his mind, the way he approaches this indicates that he is a very rigid person, to the extent that he will change anything to keep one thing.
My History teacher once said this: "We study History so as not to repeat the mistakes made previously."
He probably has the same idea as my History teacher did, which explains the law. -
Well written and well said, Poh Ah Pak.
Indeed, the PAP govt should stop using the ghosts of the past as bogeymen to scare us.
Time for both the govt and sgporean to wake up. -
If peaceful protest is not allowed in Singapre, go to another country where it is allowed.
Protest in front of the Singapore high commission of that country, like the Burmese did outside the Singapore high commission in Kuala Lumpur.
It gets the same international attention. -
Maybe he indeed come with a good clause for politics when he was young. Just as when he gets more power ,see more and grow older. His perception changes and become totally different from his version when he was young.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Some of Lee Kuan Yew's statements made in the 1950s and 60s are indeed quite shocking to read when you compare to the current political climate in Singapore.
One is heaven, one is earth.
Is is hard to believe that these words come from the same man Lee Kuan Yew.
I would expect Chee Soon Juan to utter such statements.
So it seems that Lee Kuan Yew had similar ideas as Chee soon Juan when both were not in power.
Just like those SAF young officers. When they are still a junior officer,they are humble and with a good intention for the organisation but as they gets higher rank,more power and become older. Suddenly they become more practical and ruthless and unapproachable.... Absolute power corrupts! -
I suspect your cry for change no use wan.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:I hope that the PAP government can change their attitude towards this oppressive law banning public protests on the pretext of keeping public order.
Many people despise the PAP ruling clique and their policies and they want to protest to express their frustration and anger towards the PAP regime.
I think this is a right of citizens in a democratic country.
At the very least, end the "city of possibilities " slogan.
We know, the PAP knows, the dog under my flat knows, that this is poppyc*ck.
Even Indonesians have the right to stage protests against their government in a peaceful way.
Show some respect for Singapore citizens PAP.
Why?
U see, the Mandate is given by the Majority. They have awarded the mandate for last 50 odd years or so. The People have spoken. -
Can there be a mandate when the outcome is 66.6% from ONLY the 30% of Singaporeans that could participate in the Election ?Originally posted by reddressman:I suspect your cry for change no use wan.
Why?
U see, the Mandate is given by the Majority. They have awarded the mandate for last 50 odd years or so. The People have spoken.
What happened to the other 70% of Singaporeans that could not participate in the electoral process ?
Even Thailand - who dare not call itself a First World - will call for another election when only 30% of their population voted in an Election called by Thaksin.
Can Singapore - a self-declared First World Country - have lower political standards than a Third World Thailand ? -
Yes, this man has changed. Previously he only wanted power but now he wants both power and money!Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Some of Lee Kuan Yew's statements made in the 1950s and 60s are indeed quite shocking to read when you compare to the current political climate in Singapore.
One is heaven, one is earth.
Is is hard to believe that these words come from the same man Lee Kuan Yew.
I would expect Chee Soon Juan to utter such statements.
So it seems that Lee Kuan Yew had similar ideas as Chee soon Juan when both were not in power. -
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
gerald is wrong. the policymakers and police officers were not brought up with ghost stories of our turbulent past, they make up those stories for him!
[b]Government using hyperbole to justify public protests ban
By Gerald Giam
Unfortunately, two generations of Singaporeans — which include the policymakers and police officers themselves — have been brought up with ghost stories of our turbulent past and been told that any organised gathering that is not government endorsed is dangerous and could lead to riots.
I think a higher level of maturity in our developed society is needed.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/10/26/govt-using-hyperbole-to-justify-demo-ban/#more-561[/b]
how could he hope for a higher level of maturity when he himself is stuck 2 generations behind! isn't he naive to expect the control-obsessed govt to loosen its gripe while he does nothing?
we have to let the govt know that we are not the timid and ignorant folks of yesteryear and are not prepared to submit to any lousy policies from it. -
Allow me to jump in here and drop my comments:
I think its not so much how gubberment is using what to justify what.
I think its the people who either accept it , thus supporting it, or they reject it or demand for adjustments.
As long as the people support , there is nothing else to do.
Iraq and NKorea are strange living environments.
their people are forced to conform. and we should understand why they conformed, even if reluctantly.
sg'reans allowed to vote.
never play the blame game.
1 finger pointing out means 3 or more fingers pointing back at yourself.
Each and every sg'rean must grow up and face the hard facts and swallow that bitter pill that they are responsible for the nation. No need to blame others.
Thus, I take it that sg'reans ask for it, so to speak, technically.
They asked for all the good things and the bad things that maybe, lets talk about se.x.
lets talk abt se.x baby , lets talk about all the good things and the bad things that may be... -
You see sir, with all due respect, what i have been trying to bring across is, sg'reans have the power to change IF they choose to do so. The fact that they choose them to continue for the last 50 years in a row, non-stop tells us that the Majority wants them to be in power and only 2 or 3 seats for opposition. This is decided by the people. Yes, a large portion of people never got the chance to vote the last round or 2 or 3 or 4 ago. But that is the name of the game. Democracy. Voting. Majority wins. As long as win by over a certain number of percentage points, no matter how large or small margin, that is called a mandate.Originally posted by Atobe:Can there be a mandate when the outcome is 66.6% from ONLY the 30% of Singaporeans that could participate in the Election ?
What happened to the other 70% of Singaporeans that could not participate in the electoral process ?
Even Thailand - who dare not call itself a First World - will call for another election when only 30% of their population voted in an Election called by Thaksin.
Can Singapore - a self-declared First World Country - have lower political standards than a Third World Thailand ?
You see, and I am fully confident that you too will agree with me, that no matter who is the leader in sg, the people can choose any other leader to lead. The fact is, your friends the Majority have continuosly nonstop for 50 years or so, took the effort to queue up and tick on the voting paper and cast that vote on that voting day, whether rain or shine, and voted them. They could jolly well voted any other party. They gave a hard thought each time and intentionally wants them to win.
So, the Majority have chosen the sg for you, in this respect. -
And if anyone don't like the GRC system, they could do something about it.
The fact that no one is doing anything speaks for itself.
By speaking or not speaking a word, the people have indeed spoken.
They got the power and they used it. nothing more to say. -
hmmmm.. makes one ponder. but i could rightly agree. The Lee family...Originally posted by pearlie27:Yes, this man has changed. Previously he only wanted power but now he wants both power and money!
-
PAP are extremely paranoid, tyrannical, self-centred and so on that is why they never stop their oppressive ways towards the nation.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:I hope that the PAP government can change their attitude towards this oppressive law banning public protests on the pretext of keeping public order.
Many people despise the PAP ruling clique and their policies and they want to protest to express their frustration and anger towards the PAP regime.
I think this is a right of citizens in a democratic country.
At the very least, end the "city of possibilities " slogan.
We know, the PAP knows, the dog under my flat knows, that this is poppyc*ck.
Even Indonesians have the right to stage protests against their government in a peaceful way.
Show some respect for Singapore citizens PAP. -
When a Political Party is in a commanding position to amend the original spirit expressed in the printed words in the most sacred national charter, is there anything stopping the Political Party from making further changes to entrench itself into the national psyche and ensure its own political perpetuity ?Originally posted by reddressman:
You see sir, with all due respect, what i have been trying to bring across is, sg'reans have the power to change IF they choose to do so. The fact that they choose them to continue for the last 50 years in a row, non-stop tells us that the Majority wants them to be in power and only 2 or 3 seats for opposition. This is decided by the people. Yes, a large portion of people never got the chance to vote the last round or 2 or 3 or 4 ago. But that is the name of the game. Democracy. Voting. Majority wins. As long as win by over a certain number of percentage points, no matter how large or small margin, that is called a mandate.
You see, and I am fully confident that you too will agree with me, that no matter who is the leader in sg, the people can choose any other leader to lead. The fact is, your friends the Majority have continuosly nonstop for 50 years or so, took the effort to queue up and tick on the voting paper and cast that vote on that voting day, whether rain or shine, and voted them. They could jolly well voted any other party. They gave a hard thought each time and intentionally wants them to win.
So, the Majority have chosen the sg for you, in this respect.
[/quote][quote]Originally posted by reddressman:And if anyone don't like the GRC system, they could do something about it.
The fact that no one is doing anything speaks for itself.
By speaking or not speaking a word, the people have indeed spoken.
They got the power and they used it. nothing more to say.
If we look back at history in which single political party cling on to power after a humble beginning and move on to be a national psyche, we can see quite a few clear past examples that led to drastic consequences.
The manner in which Nazism came into political power on the back of a democratic process in winning its own legitimacy through open elections has been clearly documented in history.
In the short span of ten years of its ascension into political power in the Germany of the 1940s, Nazism took a grip on the national psyche of the Germans, creating a nationalistic fervor that borders on national right wing fanaticism. A cult of personality and monopolistic power grabbing culture of the Elitist Nazi Group soon ensued, and the efforts to build a superior elite breed began - in the Aryan Race. {Shades of Singapore's genetic superiority theory espoused by LKY}
The few clearer minded Germans that abhorred Right Wing fanaticism and cultism had no power to change the course of history, and were trapped in the sweep of all encompassing propaganda that envelope ordinary and sensible conscience and consciousness.
Similarly, can the ordinary citizens of China change the political circumstance in China controlled by a monolithic political power house, seen in the Communist Party of China as the Supreme Political Party that claim for itself as the sole legitimate party representing the people ?
It has its own form of supposedly ''democratic'' process of elections of its own officials - although in a closed environment.
Singapore's system is a distortion of the familiar western form of democratic elections but modified under the guise of protecting the minorities by having GRC that will ensure the minority group will be fairly represented.
Unfortunately, the Ruling Political Party has capitalised on their monolithic dominance of Parliament to make multiple legislative changes to the Constitution to entrench its own political fortunes.
A mix and series of changes has caused the Alternative Parties to be hampered in their development as can be seen in the dubious schemes implemented by the Ruling Party.
As much as the GRC is a laudable idea of protecting minority representation in Parliament, its continuous enlargement and absorbing of single constituencies into ever larger GRC grouping PLUS the increased in electioning deposits PLUS the monitoring and restriction of political donations PLUS the real persecution of oppostion supporters by direct and indirect means - all put together will negate any efforts of any Alternative Political Parties to make a toe hold into Parliament.
There are numerous legitimate and grey, direct and indirect, official and unofficial policies that will be exercised by the Ruling Government and its agencies that it control, to hamper, delay, deny, and prevent the Alternative Political Parties from planting themselves into the Singapore National Psyche.
The fact that no one is prepared to stand up against the system head on is not due to general acceptance but due to resignation.
This deep set apathy in the general population - except for CSJ, JBJ and the late Lee Siew Choh and others in the 1960s - show that Singaporeans are more materialistically pragmatic in looking after their rice bowl then to pursue fulfillment for the political soul.
This pragmatism has arisen amongst many Singaporeans from their political spirit being intimidated by the specially harsh actions taken to treat those few anamolies in the Singapore National Psyche that dare to stand up publicly to confront the POWER OF ONE.
The same harsh treatment has been doled out by the Communist Party of China to its detractors, as much as the same has been handed out by Stalin, and by the Nazis, and the ancient Emperors across the globe.
Can the 66% of a quarter of the population be representative of the entire population ?
Can there be legitimacy in winning this 66% - when the entire process has been corrupted by the purposeful restructuring of the political process that allow for tight restrictions that will prevent the political parties from reaching out to the entire population, and to give the entire population a choice and a chance to participate in election process ?