Right of assembly doesn't translate
into having power to produce an effect
I REFER to Mr David Lok Seow Kang's letter, 'Want to hear the
silent majority? Let them assemble' (ST, Sept 10), in which he
called for Singaporeans to be given the freedom to assemble and
protest.
I urge Singaporeans not to be seduced by the powerful images of
mass demonstrations in countries such as the United States, Russia
and Australia.
It is often very easy and convenient to overlook the smallness of
our nation and it is dangerous to chal-lenge the status quo
blindly. We should understand that unlike the many vast Western
democracies, a little instability could spell the end of our
country.
It is a fallacy to suggest that being able to assemble and protest
translates into greater political efficacy. Take the recent
demonstrations in Italy, where tens of thousands urged their
government to withdraw the 3,000 Italian troops in Iraq to save the
lives of two Italian women aid workers held hostage by Iraqi
militants. The result? The Italian government reaffirmed its
commitment to keep its troops in Iraq till the job is done.
We need to be clear whether demonstrations are the means to an end
or an end in themselves. Often, protesters demonstrate for the sake
of demonstrating. Take the anti-Bush demonstrations in New York
during the recent Republican convention.
What did they achieve? President George W. Bush pulled ahead of
Democrat John Kerry after the convention. Americans merely saw the
demonstrators who were trying to disrupt the convention as a
nuisance and security hazard.
Recently, 7,500 school cleaners in New South Wales (NSW) walked off
their jobs for one week, calling for better job security. They
descended upon the Town Hall in central Sydney to voice their
displeasure.
Many schools across NSW had to be closed because the principals did
not want their students to fall sick due to poor hygiene
conditions.
Instead of achieving their aim of getting greater concessions from
the NSW Premier, the protesters only incurred the wrath of many
parents whose children were affected by the protest, especially
those whose kids would be taking the Higher School Certificate (A
levels) in about a month's time.
These examples show that being able to assemble and protest does
not translate into having the power to produce an effect. There are
other more productive avenues for Singaporeans to provide
constructive feedback to our leaders.
Instead of blindly clamouring for change, I urge Singaporeans to
make an effort to comprehend the rationale behind policies and
laws, in the context of a small, multi-ethnic and multi-religious
society.
Anyone who has studied governance would know that it is the 'bread
and butter' issues that are of most concern to the people of a
country. In this regard, I cannot agree more with Minister Mentor
Lee Kuan Yew's remark at the Global Brand Forum that political
reform need not go hand in hand with economic liberalisation.
In my previous career, I had the opportunity to travel to many
less-developed countries, such as Kenya, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Through such travels, I came to realise the crucial role of law in
providing a framework for an orderly society. I saw how a country's
people could suffer when abuses of political power were not curbed
by the rule of law.
Singapore must never abandon its fundamentals - political
stability, meritocracy and an incorruptible administration - in
order to safeguard a strong economy and a secure environment.
I was heartened to read in a recent speech by Senior Minister Goh
Chok Tong that our Government 'will not change just to please some
Western-influenced liberals who apply their notion of democracy,
pluralistic politics and freedom of the press unthinkingly to
Singapore'.
Singapore is our home and, together, we must make the right choices
for the Republic.
SIOW JIA RUI
New South Wales, Australia
17 Sept 2004 ST Forum
