A protest in sunny Singapore - Chee Siok Chin

last SG · 2005-08-15T11:43:23+00:00

Singaporeans never win. When it comes to these things

crazy monkey SG

A protest in sunny Singapore
Chee Siok Chin
12 Aug 05
It would have been an activity of little significance in most parts Asia, save for perhaps Burma. A group of four citizens had donned on similar T-shirts and created quite a stir in the Central Business District area yesterday by calling for transparency and accountability from the government. One of them was me.

We had come together to make a statement we want the PAP government to be accountable to the citizens. We want to know how our money is being invested or used by the GIC and CPF Board.

In our over-sized T-shirts that had messages asking for transparency and accountability, the four of us walked up to the entrance of the CPF Building at 12.30pm. We were greeted by a host of photographers and reporters. We took our positions and stood along the kerb. The cameras zeroed in on us and the messages we had on our Tees. The reporters also began to ask our spokesperson, Monica Kumar, a host of questions.

After answering all the questions, the four of us were left to our peaceful and quiet protest, with the reporters milling around. We were calm, unoffensive and relatively passive.

Suddenly a dozen or so riot policemen turned up in four riot vans (someone said that it was probably for one van for each of us). They were dressed in warrior garb, complete with darth-vader-looking helmets, truncheons and shields. Two more troops of regular uniformed male and female officers swarmed around us. All this on two female and two male activists who were were armed only with transparencies and silent? One reporter told us that this drama by the police was unnecessary. Thank you.

It was a ridiculous sight when one of the officers started shrieking: Those of you not involved, move away from here! It was as if 9/11 had happened in Singapore, except that the only terrorists were four of us armed with only two transparency signs. (I guess from the PAP's standpoint, signs calling for transparency in the GIC and CPF were potential explosives.)

A senior police officer by the name of Dominic Baptist told us to disperse or we would be arrested. But on what grounds? He said someone had called to say that we were a public nuisance. Public nuisance? You mean the police always send in the riot squad in response to public nuisance complaints? And besides, the four of us were standing still and keeping very quiet. Mr Baptist muttered something which we didn't quite understand and repeated that we were a nuisance and that our actions were an offence. Watch out, moms and dads! The next time your kids get a little too rowdy, you could be negotiating with the riot squad.

The group had agreed that we would do a 45-minute protest and it was about three minutes before we were going to disperse anyway. So one of us told the officer that we would go in three minutes, which we did when the three minutes were up.

We then walked to back of the building to wait for our transport. Perhaps feeling that they didnt win this battle, Officer Baptist, accompanied by some junior officers and plain-clothes policemen approached us. By this time we had taken off our Tees. Then, like an after-thought or having taken instructions from someone who felt that it was insufficient that we had dispersed, he asked for our Identity Cards. They took down our particulars and demanded that we handed them our signs and T-shirts for investigation. I wonder what they'll do with our sweaty Tees. CSI fans, whats your guess?

But jokes aside, we want our T-shirts back as they are priceless. Priceless because they will always remind us of the day the four of us found our courage and stood up to demand accountability and transparency from the Singapore government.

crazy monkey SG

Riot police break up demonstration of four people in Singapore
AFP
11 Aug 05

Riot police Thursday broke up a rare demonstration by four people demanding greater transparency and accountability in Singapore's state-managed pension fund and other government-linked agencies.

A dozen anti-riot police wearing helmets and knee-high protective gear and carrying shields and batons formed a phalanx outside the offices of the Central Provident Fund (CPF) as a commanding officer approached the demonstrators.

"You are committing an offence of public nuisance. If you don't disperse you will be arrested," the officer told the protesters as business people and employees watched in the central business district.

The four protesters, among them an office administrator and the sister of an opposition leader, Chee Soon Juan, voluntarily dispersed. They denied being part of any political group.

Police later asked them to hand over their protest materials -
T-shirts and placards - as part of an investigation to determine whether they had violated any laws.

The two men and two women assembled at lunchtime outside the CPF building in the business district. They said they did not need a permit and staged their protest for about an hour.

Under the law, any public protest of at least five people without a police permit is deemed illegal. The protest took place as Singapore was in the midst of official celebrations of its 40th anniversary of independence.

The protesters hoisted placards calling for greater openness in how the government handles public funds used for retirement pensions, overseas investments and the
building of subsidized high-rise apartments.

A police officer said they had received a telephone call from a "member of the public" about the protest, prompting them to send in the riot police.

Monica Kumar, 45, one of the protesters, said they had been inspired by public outrage that followed revelations last month that the chief executive of Singapore's biggest charity, the National Kidney Foundation (NKF), was being paid 350,000 US dollars annually.

The scandal sparked an online petition signed by more than 40,000 people and forced the NKF chief executive, T.T. Durai, and the entire board to resign.

"In reality, the NKF is reflective of the entire system in Singapore where public matters are run in a non-transparent and non-accountable manner," the protesters said in a statement.

The statement called on the Housing Development Board and the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) to open their books for public scrutiny.

sgboy2004 SG

so?? wat is the point? u want your t-shirt or you want transparencies

crazy monkey SG

why is there a need to conficate the T-shirts ?

was there any law tats broken ? Rolling Eyes

sgboy2004 SG

call 999 and ask them Very Happy

dragg SG

they are making a fool of themselves. riot police for a simple, harmless protest.

so much for speech freedom and democracy.

sbst275 SG

Chee again.. Never talk abt bread and butter issue unlike the other 2 opp MPs

ndsef SG

They confiscated the T-shirts to analyse the DNA combination of a opposition. So that they can understand them better. From there, they will change the system, alter it in such a way that such opposition will be gone.

Knowing Thyself, Knowing Thy Enemy and a Thousand Battles will be WON!

Laughing oh btw, this post is meant as a joke, take it lightly...

SingaporeMacross SG

This senior police officer sounds familiar…. I think he was an ADC to the President before…

vito_corleone SG

wow, a mini, not-so-violent tiananmen square repeat.

robertteh SG

I read somewhere MPs or parliamentary committee is in the process of revising the current Police Powers or Criminal Investigations Procedures Codes to determine what rights to be accorded to accused persons under investigations for crimes, access to counsels and what would constitute disorderly conduct, nuisance or illegal assembly.

May be the parliamentary committee can look into this case to see if there is an over-reaction or lack of accountability in exercise of police power in carrying out duties.

Is peaceful wearing of T-shirts with inscriptions of some kinds sufficient evidence of nuisance and what constitute nuisance? How would the police react to nuisance? Do they have the right to behave in an intimidating manner treating civil society with provocative high-handed attitude that might incite public disquiet or response ?

Atobe SG

Originally posted by sbst275:
Chee again.. Never talk abt bread and butter issue unlike the other 2 opp MPs

Did "the other 2 opp MPs" ever "talk abt bread and butter issue" ?

How effective were "the other 2 opp MPs" besides talking ?

Did they get any response from the Ruling Party ?

What else did they do to obtain the reaction from the Ruling Party ?

This is exactly what the Ruling Party want Singaporeans to be involved with - the small issues concerning the 'bread and butter' matters, and close our eyes to the bigger issues concerning OUR RESERVES.

The Ruling Party want Singaporeans to be involve in Singapore Politics, but only at the COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL - making decisions about upgrading of our neighborhood, transport, schools, environmental cleanliness BUT do not make waves on NATIONAL ISSUES, which belongs only to the brains of the Ruling Elite.

This is the Politics of EXCLUSION.

This is the Politics of the ELITE.

In the 40th Anniversary of Singapore, it is ironic that we must visit the early speeches of LKY who had expressed in such eloquent language :

But either we believe in democracy or we do not. If we do, then we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from any democratic process, other than by 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 naught. . .

Is this not the frequent attempts by SDP CSJ to emphasise the same that if he "believe in DEMOCRACY, you must believe in it UNCONDITIONALLY " ?

Is this not CSJ attempt to stretch the present intolerant limits imposed on the Singaporean's 'right of free association, of free speech, of free publication' ?

Why is the present Singapore Law now permitted to put those democratic processes to be set at naught ?

Let us get down to fundamentals. Is this an open or a closed society? Is it a society where men can preach ideasthe novel, unorthodox, heresies. . . where there is a constant contest for mens hearts and minds on the basis of what is right, of what is just, or what is in the national interest? Or is it a closed society where the mass mediathe newspapers, journals, publications, TV, radio. . . feed mens minds with a constant drone of sycophantic support for a particular orthodox philosophy?

Is SINGAPORE an OPEN or a CLOSED SOCIETY ?

What happen to the society that LKY wanted that "men can preach ideas - the novel, unorthodox, heresies ..... where there is constant contest for men's hearts and minds on the basis of what is right, of what is just, or what is in the NATIONAL INTERESTS " ?

Is the call for transparency - by CSJ and his sister, and the other three - not in the interest of Singaporeans and for Singapore ?

Gun SG

classic case of David vs Goliath.

what a courage ! what a stand for Singapore !

Makes an inspiration for me to wear my "Peanut No Enough" T-shirt and demo at NKF building with slogan banner saying "Gimme back my Kidneys!" for 5 mins.

At least Home Affair Ministry should thank me of keeping their well-trained, ill-mannered anti-riot units on their toe. Mr. Green

hmmm...seems Dr Chee's non-violent demo tactic was put to effective use.

LazerLordz SG

It is to remind the populace that you still have a voice out there.Before you pillorise him or his supporters..maybe you should go and read up on the precept of a democracy.

And transparency is always welcome in cases of leviathan-like bureaucracies.Oh by the way, if you do not think your CPF or our national reserves to be a bread and butter issue, can I have all your money instead? Twisted Evil Laughing

SMAPLionHeart SG

Mr Chee won this round.

oxford mushroom SG

If anyone plans to do copycat protests, make sure there are not more than 4 of you….

LazerLordz SG

Laughing

Atobe SG

Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:
Mr Chee won this round.

Do you think that Mr Chee won this round, or did he win it on behalf of ALL SINGAPOREANS ?

LazerLordz SG

This did ignite a lot of talk on the street.And SPF did themselves and Singapore no favours by reacting so heavyhandedly.

Atobe SG

Originally posted by LazerLordz:
This did ignite a lot of talk on the street.And SPF did themselves and Singapore no favours by reacting so heavyhandedly.

It is very unfortunate that the SPF personnels did not allow themselves the full understanding of the LAW, which has been made even more confusing by the many Amendments passed that distorted the original intention first enshrined in the Singapore Constitution.

The only safe way out for the Commanding Officer on the spot - in order to keep his high salaried job - is to 'do it safe' by eliminating the situation as quickly as is possible.

It will seem that either the SPF is no longer a law enforcement agency but is part of the "Political Machinery" to protect the interest of the Ruling Party,

or that the SPF allowed itself to be used and manipulated by the Ruling Party to perpetuate the position of the Ruling Party in continuing the hold to the powers and benefits of Government.

Can this situation be in the long term interest of Singapore ?

Will the SPF be 'politically blind' and be 'neutral' in the event of a change of Political Party that form the next Government ?

If the Ruling Party is voted out of office by Singaporeans, will the SPF enforce the 'Will of Singaporeans' in the election process ?

In this possible scenario, will the SPF allow itself to be continuously controlled by the Ruling Party that is voted out of office ?