Lessons from our cousins up north
12 Nov 07
The protest rally in Kuala Lumpur conducted by the pro-democracy
forces in Malaysia on Saturday was nothing short of historical. In
there are many lessons for us in Singapore.
The most glaring one is, of course, the fact that there were 39,996
people more than the limit for public gatherings (yes, the
five-or-more-people-constitutes-an-illegal-assembly law is also in
play up north).
All of them had broken the law which, by the way, was put in place
by the British colonial government to prevent the locals they
lorded over from coming together.
"Respectable" opposition must operate within the bounds of the
law
Among the tens of thousands of law-breakers were people like Mr
Anwar Ibrahim and Mr Lim Kit Siang.
Mr Anwar is the former deputy prime minister and finance minister
while Mr Lim Kit Siang is the chief of the biggest opposition party
in Malaysia, the Democratic Action Party (DAP).
Why are these factoids important? Singaporeans, it seems, like
their political leaders "respectable" and "credible". Apart from
being university graduates with a string of letters following their
names, politicians must not be seen to be on the street acting like
dissidents.
Messrs Anwar and Lim don't come any more "respectable" by Singapore
standards. In fact, Mr Anwar was recently invited to speak in
Singapore by the establishment and Mr Lim is not just an MP but the
official Leader of the Opposition in the Malaysian
parliament.
Yet these people were out on the street, encouraged by the Agung no
less (our equivalent of President Nathan), breaking an old and
repressive British law in order to reclaim the right of freedom of
assembly for their people.
This begs the huge question: Are we in Singapore somehow
intellectually and morally superior to our counterparts in
Malaysia, not to mention Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, etc?
Or has our notion of what constitutes "respectable" and "credible"
been crimped by our rulers and thereafter relentlessly pounded into
our psyche?
Disconcertingly, some of our fellow oppositionists insist that our
reform efforts must be conducted within the bounds of the law even
when the laws are unjust and even as the PAP continues to pass more
laws to proscribe the development of democracy.
Opposition must unite
One of the many criticisms Singaporeans have about the opposition
in this country is that its various players cannot come together to
present a united front against the PAP. The Singapore Democrats
concede that this is a drawback (read here also).
Contrast this with the Malaysians where the four main and very
disparate opposition parties came together under the umbrella of
BERSIH, a loosely organised group formed to push for political
reform.
In terms of ideology the difference between PAS (Parti Islam
SeMalaysia), an Islamist party, and DAP, a socialist party that
draws its main support from the Malaysian Chinese community, is
chalk and cheese.
Yet on Nov 10, they put aside these differences and accentuated
what they had in common which is that they are toiling under a
system that did not practice free and fair elections.
In Singapore, one would find it a lot harder to identify the
ideological differences between the WP, SDA, and SDP. And yet, it
seems that the chances of our parties coming together are even more
remote than our Minister Mentor becoming a democrat.
Clearly, the opposition camp needs to work on this and to this end
the Singapore Democrats accept our responsibility in this
endeavour.
Just like the DAP does not have to buy into PAS' party objects and
vice versa, opposition parties in Singapore need not embrace each
other's platforms before we come together to press for reform of
our election system.
The opposition must win more seats first
The conventional wisdom is that the opposition can only strengthen
its hand by winning more seats in parliament and eventually take
over as the ruling party. By its very definition, however,
conventional wisdom is not necessarily true.
In an autocratic state like Singapore, opposition parties will not
be allowed to win enough seats to threaten the power of the ruling
elite.
Our Malaysian counterparts understand this very well and have taken
action to press for change to their electoral system.
Why can't we do the same in Singapore? Is it because the Malaysians
have less to lose? Between DAP, PAS and KeAdilan, the Malaysian
opposition controls 9.2 percent of the seats in the house (compared
to Singapore's 2.4 percent). In addition, PAS governs the state of
Terengganu.
Clearly, the Malaysian opposition stands to lose much more if the
government goes on a witch-hunt following last Saturday's mass
rally. Yet they know that any punitive action the Malaysian
Government takes would anger the electorate even more and bring on
international censure.
But why can't they stick it out, hold more ceremahs, visit more
households, shake more hands, and win even more seats in parliament
at the upcoming elections? After all, they have already won 20
seats in the house. Why not just build on it? Why civil
disobedience?
The simple answer is they know that with the control of elections
in the hands of the ruling coalition, any gains they make could be
wiped out when rules are changed.
Conversely they know that with a genuinely free and fair election
system in place, they will win many more seats and position
themselves to take over as government. They know that only when the
foundation of a democratic system is in place will the opposition
thrive.
Without reform, they will be like us in Singapore forever consigned
to token roles.
Question: Why should the opposition in Singapore be any less
ambitious and forward looking?
Civil society must be non-partisan
Civil society in Singapore is deathly afraid to be associated with
the opposition lest it be seen as being partisan.
But the BERSIH protest was a collaboration of opposition parties
and NGOs. Is civil society in Malaysia any less protective of their
independence?
The reality is that NGOs in Malaysia are able to distinguish
between being non-partisan versus being non-political. Joining
forces with opposition groups to push for political reform is not
to indulge in partisanship.
NGOs know that they exist to champion the interests of the society,
whatever sectors they may belong to. When freedom and democracy are
suppressed, their work is hampered. When this happens they join
hands with the opposition to establish a free society.
Fighting for justice and human rights is a political act, not a
partisan one.
Civil society in Singapore must appreciate this distinction. Given
the political state that our society is in, the opposition and
civil society must work together to push for reform.
Again, we must breakout from the mind cage that the PAP has put us
in. A case in point is the NTUC. While NGOs are cautioned against
participating in politics, the NTUC is not only political (it
supported the late Ong Teng Cheong's candidacy for president) but
also partisan (it is run by PAP ministers and MPs).
Conclusion
Democracy in Singapore does not have a bright future because of two
factors. One of them is, of course, fear. The other is no less
potent. It is our mindset. As long as we are intellectually
crippled, we cannot hope to look beyond the mental wheelchair that
the PAP as put us in.
We, especially the opposition and civil society leaders,
desperately need to challenge the boundaries of debate and action
put in place by the ruling clique. The responsibility falls on us
to shift the political paradigm that has been in place for far too
long.
Ultimately it boils down to us controlling our own minds for if we
fail to do so, the PAP assuredly will.
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articlepoliticalreform.html