Some points in response to Devadas Krishnadas piece: 1. Yes, it is in the middle of the city but that doesnt make Hong Lim Park highly visible or a high-impact zone. In fact, Hong Lim Park is possibly becoming more and more token, a place to shunt protests off to so that they become more cosmetic than impactful. I wrote about this here: https://sg.news.yahoo/blogs/singaporescene/singapore-s-curious-snow-globe-of-hong-lim-park-150130452.html 2. Krishnadas is right in questioning the truth of the statement that protests and Singapore are incompatible. However, he uses the existence of HLP as a site for free speech as an example to disprove this statement. But the existence of HLP doesnt mean that protests and Singapore are compatible; there are still many reasons why protests are judged and understood in certain ways in Singapore. I compared Hong Kong and Singapore protest culture here: thediplomat/2014/10/singapores-pallid-hong-kong-solidarity/ Perhaps Krishandas isnt responding to my article, or perhaps what I understood as I wrote it is different from what readers have understood, but my conclusion wasnt that there is conformity and apathy in Singapore. It was that civil society is still constrained in many ways in Singapore that it isnt in Hong Kong, and that this has an impact on social mindsets as well. 3. I dont agree with the statement that protests should only be used when all the other channels have been exhausted. To place that much emphasis on the available channels is to ignore the unequal power relations that are present in those channels. Also, sometimes the value of a public demonstration – such as visibility and awareness raising – cannot be met by the available channels. Sometimes public assemblies even take place concurrently with advocates going through those available channels; its just a matter of different strategies and methods being employed at different times. 4. The idea of whether what is at stake is worth disruption is problematic. Who decides whether whats at stake is important enough? A straight person with access to housing, healthcare, marriage, etc. might not think that LGBT issues are critical enough to be worth disruption, but an LGBT person who does not have the right to his/her own family life and home might think differently. 5. I dont think Singapore is so fragile that a few hot heads can bring the roof of this tent down on us. We dont need to clamp down on these hot heads; Singaporeans are intelligent enough to make their own analysis. With even more openness and civil liberties, we will mature as a society and be ever better positioned to come to informed conclusions. Its worth noting that a lot of the anger that can be seen among the people who go to #ReturnOurCPF protests comes from a fear and distrust over the lack of transparency. People are afraid for their pensions and their money, because this has a very immediate and direct impact on them and their families. And the opaqueness of many things in Singapore make them worried about what is being hidden from them. In the vacuum left by the lack of transparency wild ideas and conspiracies sprout. tl;dr There is no single step-by-step guide that advocates and activists should adhere to when pushing their cause. It is always a matter of evaluation and strategy and different people/groups can make different choices. We are free to disagree with those choices, but it doesnt always mean that they should not resort to them. Its always an ongoing process of negotiation, not just between the state and civil society, but within civil society itself as well.
Posted on: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 06:48:14 +0000